Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 259 posts

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#201

Post by scarface74 »

nemothekid wrote: post #188
mrep wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference between a warehouse worker and an NFL player warming the bench is that one has a union, with teeth, that has fought for his fair share. No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. If warehouses paid NFL wages, nobody would spend like…

> No, the difference is that NFL makes a ton of money per player and they only want the best so the supply is extremely limited whereas basically anyone can work in a warehouse so there supply is basically infinite. No, it's not. The NFL athlete market is even more ripe for collusion than other markets because there are only a handful of owners who can (and did) easily collude to keep salaries low. It took several pl…

It’s not illegal collusion. To make any of the sports leagues have teams that are even remotely competitive require policies that are not allowed by most other industries. They all have legal exemptions from anti-trust

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#202

Post by scarface74 »

avalys wrote: post #125
bluetidepro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 21 million per year, which wouldn't even make him a top 10 paid NFL quarterback and people are complaining about his pay for running one of the biggest companies in the world. If anything he is underpaid compared to other large tech company CEOs. People really just want to be outraged. Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! How out of touch with reality are you, if you think th…

How many people can you feed with one share of Amazon stock? Is it even edible?

At $2200/share? You would have to work 7.5 weeks at minimum wage to make enough to buy one share.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#203

Post by over_bridge »

gtvwill wrote: post #190
egberts1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a penny an hour by a CEO who performs 400x that of an average Amazon employee, that’s a bargain.

Your dreaming or delusional if you think a CEOs output is 400x someone else's. Dangerously delusional.

CEOs simply control more powerful tools so their output is multiplied. Someone driving a tractor might produce 400x the output of someone with hand tools, but its not because of the person, its the tool. Swap the two people and there will still be a 400x difference in output. It doesn't mean the tractor driver, or business leader is some sort of outlier genius.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#204

Post by scarface74 »

mike00632 wrote: post #164
cato_the_elder wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> undocumented immigrants "Undocumented" is mostly just a euphemism for illegal. Amazon does a significant amount of shady things, selling servers to ICE isn't one of them. Open borders are neither feasible nor popular.

It's the other way around. "Illegal" is the inaccurate slur to refer to an undocumented person. Nobody can be illegal.

If someone breaks the law, aren’t they doing something illegal?

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#205

Post by scarface74 »

anonporridge wrote: post #124
ciabattabread wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What aspect of “private company” do you not understand? No shit they have the power to censor on the platforms they control.

It's perfectly understandable that a private company has the right under the current laws to do that. But that doesn't mean we can't have the social conversation over whether that's a reality we want to perpetuate. A tiny number of private companies have de facto control over what information the masses get exposed to, and to a lot of people, myself included, that just seems like an incredibly unhealthy state of affa…

So should all platforms be forced to allow any content on their platform?

There is an entire internet where you can get any type of information that suits your world view.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#206

Post by scarface74 »

evandale wrote: post #180
ciabattabread wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So… you want the government to interfere with the operation of private companies so they are forced to give a platform to people they don’t want to do business with… Last I checked, political beliefs are not a protected class.

I want the government to interfere with the operation of _specific_ private companies so they're forced to give a platform to everyone because of the sheer amount of traffic and eyeballs they get every single second of every single day. Facebook, Google, and Twitter come to mind first. IMO they can't be trusted with having more power than the government. They have way too much control over what people consume on the…

Yes because the government would never do something like pass laws to punish a corporation because they spoke out against a policy - see Florida vs Disney.

The last thing I want is to give the government more power.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#207

Post by over_bridge »

falcolas wrote: post #24
GreenPlastic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a company isn't to employ people. It's to take raw inputs, including employee labor, and turn that into outputs that people want. Employee relief comes in the form of voting with their feet or if they're critical inputs into what the black box produces

Amusing. The purpose of a company was originally exactly that: to employ people and provide services and value to the community they existed in. I mean, this is still the exact reason politicians cite when providing incentives to companies - bringing jobs to their cities/states. I'm pretty sure I don't like this new definition; it feels like it's based on greed, not value.

Hence why every business owner boasts about being a job creator. This despite these jobs being an unwanted side effect of the actual goals of the business. Cost centres.

'Look at all these employees I resent having to spend money on and actively try to make redundant and underpay. Aren't I just great?'

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#208

Post by yowlingcat »

falcolas wrote: post #140
yowlingcat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not historically accurate. Historically, the purpose of a company was to be a vehicle that a passive partner could invest capital into an enterprise providing a return on investment, such that an active partner (who did not) could manage it [1]. I do not see historical support for your claim that the purpose of a company was "to employ people and provide services and value to the community they existed in" eve…

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/27/on-the-purpose-of... The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to create value over the long-term, which requires consideration of the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and communities) ... https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/business-and…

It's not clear how those 4 quotes are supposed to relate to each other without added interpretation. Is there something more you'd like say?

For what it's worth, I don't know if any of those sources cover broad economic trends across history. I do find them in pursuit of noble goals for the early 2020s.

But in this case, my opinion is that there's a bit of a gulf there in between "this is how I would like things to work" and "this is how things have worked today/in the past/for a long time".

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#209

Post by reasonabl_human »

over_bridge wrote: post #203
gtvwill wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your dreaming or delusional if you think a CEOs output is 400x someone else's. Dangerously delusional.

CEOs simply control more powerful tools so their output is multiplied. Someone driving a tractor might produce 400x the output of someone with hand tools, but its not because of the person, its the tool. Swap the two people and there will still be a 400x difference in output. It doesn't mean the tractor driver, or business leader is some sort of outlier genius.

Finally someone sane. It’s not about stacking 400x boxes- it’s about force multiplication and impact

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#210

Post by reasonabl_human »

redisman wrote: post #148
ctvo wrote: post #4

> Jassy's executive compensation package, which is tied to Amazon stock price and mostly delivered as stock awards over a multi-year period, was $212 million in 2021. They used "multi-year" here over the actual timeline: 10 years. It sounds a lot less outrageous that his pay is heavily based on the stock price and comes out to be ~21 million a year as the head of one of the largest tech companies in the world. Here a…

Hah sounds like a lot of HNers have Andy Jassy beat on base salary

I’ve always wondered how this works- sure these folks are already personally wealthy, and they have large stock portfolios, but the mechanics of tapping into that for liquidity is interesting to me..

Say an exec makes Jassy’s base and has a large equity packages. Do banks feel comfortable writing loans against to-be-vested RSUs? I’d imagine they count RSU vesting as heavily discounted future cash flow.. but not sure.

Plus there is significant volatility in the actual value they bank at the end of the day- sure, speaking on normal terms having an equity package fluctuate at this scale isn’t significant to an individual’s finances, but might be to a bank underwriting, say, a recent Snap exec’s loans…

Post reply on HN