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

Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 327 posts

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#291

Post by PeterisP »

GJR wrote: post #29

What is the actual point of giving anyone $226m in pay? How would that motivate them to deliver any more..? Ratio of CEO:staff pay at 1000:1!

It's not to motivate a particular person to deliver more, it's to ensure that you're able to hire that person - if they would pay, for example, $2million, then no one with experience at managing decent size tech companies would apply as they can get a much better offer elsewhere.

Also, CEO compensation is effectively between the shareholders and the CEO - if the CEO is making the shareholders happy and they want to gift him $200m for no good reason, well, it's their right to do so, it's their money to spend or waste as they wish, not the employee's.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#292

Post by PeterisP »

ta1243 wrote: post #75
easytiger wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Buffett get up and go to work in the morning?

Why would someone work for $250m but not work for $150m? Or at that level of wealth work for free. Surely it's just for keeping score

The question isn't whether someone would work for $250m but would not work for $150m; the question is whether someone would or wouldn't work for you for that amount. If someone else offers $200m to the same person, they would work for you for $250m and wouldn't work for you for $150m.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#293

Post by PeterisP »

not2b wrote: post #28
jimsimmons wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is allegedly paying 5-20M for researchers. Shouldn’t CEO deserve 20x more? What motivation will Sundar have if you pay him 200K?

There's a lot of room between 200k and 200M, and given that the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice.

Layoffs aren't a sacrifice, it's the CEO acting against the interests of the ex-employees but in the interests of shareholders (which is his job) and for that they get amply compensated by the shareholders.

Imposing a policy that if "the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice" is literally insane because it's counterproductive - it would explicitly motivate the CEO to avoid cutting costs and avoid laying people off (since that would cut their personal income), while shareholders want the exactly opposite thing, to motivate the CEO to be aggressive in cutting costs (including layoffs) whenever it allows to increase long-term profits, so any CEO compensation policy (which is set by the shareholders) should reflect that.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#294

Post by PeterisP »

cced wrote: post #250
renewiltord wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You measure it as beta against something broad like the total market or the S&P500.

If the currency gets debased and money flows into the market wouldn’t it also just debase the S&P500 equally?

It would debase the S&P500 equally, so any difference between Google's performance and S&P500 performance is clearly caused by something else then inflation/debasement/etc.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#295

Post by PeterisP »

lancesells wrote: post #43

I said this in another thread complaining about Pichai: Google 2019 Net Income - $36B 2022 Net Income - $60B If 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.

You don't lay off people (or avoid doing so) because you have large or small profits, quite the opposite, you have the profits you do because you do (or don't do) lay off people when it makes economic sense to do so.

The decision whether laying off those 12000 people improves or hurts the company is the same no matter if you have $60B net income or $6B net loss. Being hugely profitable doesn't make it worth keeping more people than you need, just as having losses doesn't make it worth firing people you do need.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#296

Post by PeterisP »

sbierwagen wrote: post #83
pdntspa wrote: post #38

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…

>we should be getting a slice of total business unit revenue Start a company then. Pay is not determined by value, it's determined by leverage. The CEO pays himself the most money because he controls the company, he's not going to pay anyone lower than him more than he makes.

CEO doesn't "pay himself the most money"; CEO pay is not decided by the company executives but directly by the shareholders/board.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#297

Post by PeterisP »

ceejayoz wrote: post #60
segasaturn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, Sundar's pay is completely justified, as well as the pay cuts for Software Engineers, as more and more people become software engineers every day and available pool of workers continues to increase.

You don’t think they could find a competent CEO for, say, $100M?

They probably could find "a competent CEO", but that's not the bar, and it doesn't make sense to do so, because of the oversized impact and risks. If you're 99% certain that a person is as competent as the current CEO and 1% they're a dud like Carly Fiorina, then saving a measly $100m is not worth the enormous risk. And if you've got a candidate that makes you certain that they would be even slightly more competent than Pichai, then it would be worth paying an extra $100m to get them; if CEO A can get e.g. 1% more efficiency than CEO B (for example, by being more aggressive at laying off people) then that's easily worth that money.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#298

Post by easytiger »

staticman2 wrote: post #104
easytiger wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr Buffett is 92 years old and works every day and is worth approx $120 billion. In the past 70 years hes had more money than needed for him to decide to give it all up. Why hasn't he?

Why are you asking this question? Is it rhetorical, and if so, what point do you feel you are making?

Why are you asking that question? The post to which i replied was asking why someone who has made that much money would continue working.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#299

Post by mrpopo »

jjeaff wrote: post #270
kcplate wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?

For some people, enough money is enough money and you start to think about your legacy. Or maybe your coworkers that toil for so much less. Will another $200m make any difference at all for someone with that kind of money?

Those people don't end up at the top mostly. You need a unending thirst of money and power to make it as CEO of Google and stay there. The same happens in politics actually.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#300

Post by GJR »

PeterisP wrote: post #291
GJR wrote: post #29

What is the actual point of giving anyone $226m in pay? How would that motivate them to deliver any more..? Ratio of CEO:staff pay at 1000:1!

It's not to motivate a particular person to deliver more, it's to ensure that you're able to hire that person - if they would pay, for example, $2million, then no one with experience at managing decent size tech companies would apply as they can get a much better offer elsewhere. Also, CEO compensation is effectively between the shareholders and the CEO - if the CEO is making the shareholders happy and they want to g…

By doing so, don't you restrict the pool of talent that you can hire from?
Post reply on HN