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

311–320 of 327 posts

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

#311

Post by runarberg »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #273
ikiris wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those wages are what middle class is due to inflation. Stop wanting everyone to be as poor as you god damn. I want employees to make as much as they can, not all the wealth concentrate in a capital class. WTF is wrong with people?

If an employee makes enough money they aren't middle class. And if a CEO is getting paid normally then they're an employee too. Also I was thinking in terms of math applied to percentiles and other statistics, which don't change with inflation. Are you really going to say it's crab bucket if I say a number like "a million dollars" and say it should apply to both income and capital gains? Maybe even a lower number for…

I actually like to use worker class and owning class. Bosses (including CEOs) are apart of the owning class. CEOs being employers is just semantics, they are still bosses, and is the reason I use the word workers to make it clear.

Well paid google workers are still workers and deserve our solidarity. Making a distinction among workers between lower classes, and middle and upper class only serves to divide us, destroy our solidarity, and for our bosses to keep exploiting us.

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

#312

Post by lancesells »

PeterisP wrote: post #295
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 m…

> 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.

I understand this is the thinking that runs the economy, and it's very much a shame. With 12k unneeded people you think the work they were doing disappears? No, the people still there (that brought in records profits) now get to shoulder that work.

Do you think all 12k of those people were the worst or maybe some were older and more experiences, being paid better than a recent college grad? It's just pure greed and the people there should be pissed off at the CEO and the board.

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

#313

Post by ta1243 »

PeterisP wrote: post #292
ta1243 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the money come it to it rather than the challenge, opportunity, colour of the carpet in the hall, etc

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

#314

Post by ta1243 »

easytiger wrote: post #298
staticman2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which post asked that

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

#315

Post by not2b »

PeterisP wrote: post #293
not2b wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

It is not necessarily in the interest of the shareholders if the compensation of top executives is so extreme as to starve a company of resources; this is especially the case because executives often only stay with a company a few years and are motivated to play games that produce short-term bumps in the stock price while harming long-term prospects (to pull this off the long term damage can't be completely obvious to analysts, but it often happens).

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

#316

Post by singleshot_ »

hnfong wrote: post #310
singleshot_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I hear this horse argument I picture a horse that is as strong as 1000 horses and goes 300 miles per hour and I get really sad that they invented cars instead of just giving people what they wanted.

But remember the horse shit you'd need to deal with.

Correction, that YOU would have to deal with. I’ll be three hundred miles away looking for oats.

That being said: you are absolutely right. How quickly the externalities are forgotten.

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

#317

Post by Dylan16807 »

runarberg wrote: post #311
Dylan16807 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an employee makes enough money they aren't middle class. And if a CEO is getting paid normally then they're an employee too. Also I was thinking in terms of math applied to percentiles and other statistics, which don't change with inflation. Are you really going to say it's crab bucket if I say a number like "a million dollars" and say it should apply to both income and capital gains? Maybe even a lower number for…

I actually like to use worker class and owning class. Bosses (including CEOs) are apart of the owning class. CEOs being employers is just semantics, they are still bosses, and is the reason I use the word workers to make it clear. Well paid google workers are still workers and deserve our solidarity. Making a distinction among workers between lower classes, and middle and upper class only serves to divide us, destroy…

How many workers get more than a million dollars, keeping the same example threshold? It barely affects solidarity.

And why shouldn't I have some solidarity with an owner of a business that has 30k more assets than debts and personally makes 40k a year?

I think income and wealth are better distinguishers than the role you have.

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

#318

Post by throwaway09223 »

danaris wrote: post #253
throwaway09223 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would other shareholders vote out the board? There's no reason to think their interests wouldn't align with Page and Brin. Do you think Blackrock has substantially different motivations? Like, come on.

Let me introduce you to a new concept. I call it "Not Everyone Is Motivated Solely By Money."

You didn't fully understand the post you're replying to.

Is your position that the institutional investors which comprise >60% of GOOG's common shares (eg Blackrock) have a significantly different motivation?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

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

#319

Post by reaperducer »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #224
reaperducer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we should be getting a slice of total business unit revenue Start a company then. Or go back in time 40 years. It used to be very common for companies to give a portion of the yearly profits to the employees. It was called "profit sharing." Somehow that perk evaporated in the tech industry.

It's publicly traded and they pay RSUs.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

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

#320

Post by staticman2 »

easytiger wrote: post #298
staticman2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You were the one that asked that.
Post reply on HN