231–240 of 327 posts
Got to give it to Larry Page and Sergey Brin for having their cake and also eating it. They control ~51% of voting power with shares thanks to owning ~85% of class B shares. They have had the benefit of someone else running the company for 8 years - and increasing the value of it - and now, when things are not looking great, it’s Sundar Pichai who gets the blame, and the focus on his compensation: and not those who s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you truly think there is no one on earth who could do a better job than Pinchai for, let's say, $80M a year? $40M a year? $30M a year? $10M a year? Why is there downward pressure on wages for everyone except for this particular position?
If that person who can do a better job exists and can be identified, we should hire them and not waste time worrying about how much they are paid. It’s more important somebody else doesn’t hire them first. Btw if you have some repeatable mechanism for proving the suitability of CEO candidates, maybe you should be doing executive recruiting for a liking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show me another profession that can have such a dramatic impact on the bottom line where your work makes the company 100x-1000x your salary. If anything SWE are underpaid, we should be getting a slice of total business unit revenue. With my last job doing SWE for a bank, I know for a fact that my code saved the company hundreds of thousands dollars just from one project, and I know for a fact that some of my other co…
You're discounting the people that identified the opportunity, scoped out and defined the project, and then briefed you about what was needed. Sales, Marketing, and GTM are absolutely generating 100x - 1000x their salary if they take sole ownership of a project like you are doing. SWEs are good are solving problems, but other people determine which problems to pay attention to, and how much investment to make in them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reasonable amount by which he could cut his compensation that wouldn't result in whiners complaining that "well, that wasn't enough of a cut!” If he's going to catch heat for it anyway, he might as well take what he's being offered.
They could set it to zero, which would be in-line with severity of laying off of 10+ year high performers or those who are pregnant or on medical leave. I'd like to see an automatic condition where layoffs trigger a requirement that the directors and officers compensation will be set to zero for the next three years. You're basically severely fucking with people's lives and this has very real consequences for those p…
CEO pay is a market rate. This is not much different than complaining about the price point of gas, or milk, or eggs. You can describe it as being too high in your opinion, or not worth it in your opinion, but that's completely different than pretending that its not being set by the market (and approved by the board) weighing myriad inputs. And btw, one of those inputs is...the ability to successfully tighten the bel…
He is paid significantly more than better-performing CEOs like Cook and Nadella.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that person who can do a better job exists and can be identified, we should hire them and not waste time worrying about how much they are paid. It’s more important somebody else doesn’t hire them first. Btw if you have some repeatable mechanism for proving the suitability of CEO candidates, maybe you should be doing executive recruiting for a liking.
On what basis are people saying that he's responsible for the company's increase in valuation over the past 8 years? For all we know he's just sitting in his office twiddling his thumbs.
In reality, there are few people who have had to opportunity to show their ability to run Google. You have the small set of people who ran tech companies as big as Google, or who ran big parts of Google. Those people are in high demand, which is why 9 figures is the market rate for the most appealing of the bunch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably don’t know or don’t care, but most of Apple’s current logistic/infrastructure was built under Steve. Steve’s connections in China played a big role in accomplishing that.
You realize that Tim Cook and not Steve Jobs was responsible for thar right as the COO? SJ had nothing to do with that.
Interesting. Do you know that for fact? Were you at Apple and involved in the process?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was part of the workforce I would be even more pissed just at the company itself. Laying off 12k and cuts in perks after $60B in net income. This cuts both ways. How many of those laid off had any connection to that profit?
I don't think this is a good argument. Just because you are at a cost center/not at a profit center doesn't mean you don't have any connection to the profit. Take HR. Total cost center. By this logic they shouldn't get any piece of the pie. But in reality, without *good* HR, a company can be a shitty place to work. HR is just one example. Many others out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could set it to zero, which would be in-line with severity of laying off of 10+ year high performers or those who are pregnant or on medical leave. I'd like to see an automatic condition where layoffs trigger a requirement that the directors and officers compensation will be set to zero for the next three years. You're basically severely fucking with people's lives and this has very real consequences for those p…
They can definitely survive for a few years without salary too. 200M is be enough to last most people decades and more yet they get that much every year
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that Tim Cook and not Steve Jobs was responsible for thar right as the COO? SJ had nothing to do with that.
Really? Steve Jobs had NOTHING to do with iPhone logistics. Interesting. Do you know that for fact? Were you at Apple and involved in the process?