CEOs’ pay climbed before layoffs at tech giants like Alphabet and Microsoft

Post by ztrww » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 11:00 AM UTC

cudgy wrote: post #235

opportune wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but he decides how to allocate resources, make acquisitions, etc. across over 100k employees. If he decided to pull another Google+ he could easily destroy many tens of thousands of engineers’ worth of labor. And it’d only take him a few hundred hours to make that decision, set up the org to lead the project and delegate the execution to them. Putting those engineers on something that actually makes money and i…

Any moron knew it was time to invest in da Cloud once AWS was successful. I’d expect more interesting ideas than the old tried and true “get some lucrative government and enterprise contracts”, “guess we better dust off our AI tech and react to OpenAI”, etc. He seems to be a reactionary not a visionary.

Post by ztrww » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 11:08 AM UTC

cudgy wrote: post #238

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should there be a justification? The only argument should be between Google and Pichai. Strangely, why aren't we doing the same for actors and sports stars?

Poor example. How many people bought or used a tech product solely based on the CEO of the company? Virtually none How many movies do people attend solely based on the actors in the movie? Or sporting events due to a player on a team? Many

Post by ztrww » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 11:11 AM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #127

HDThoreaun wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Yes we should think about option grants differently, but not that differently. At the end of the day I don't think anyone would say Sundar has been that much better than his replacement level CEO. Certainly not better enough to deserve 225 million in equity. The stock is up 10% this year, still below 2021 levels.

Do you think he “actually” earned less than one million in 2021? Because that’s what accepting this framing means. Did his pay actually increase? We don’t know. Maybe I’m an odd duck, but I expect journalists to journalist.

Post by ztrww » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 11:18 AM UTC

JJMcJ wrote: post #75

whimsicalism wrote: post #49

I am extremely skeptical that at the higher levels of CEO pay there is any marginal utility. I just don’t think the improved management quality you get from an additional $1M is actually making the company more than $1M in profits. Seems like a failure of markets

When Ford went public around 1956, the man who ran that got $250,000, about $2.8 million today, with much higher taxes than today. But he also got a thank you letter from Henry Ford II, so he had that going for him. That was the largest IPO at the time, very complicated. I believe all the shares offered publicly were held by the Ford Foundation, for complicated tax and dynastic reasons. But the main point here is how…

Post by Aerbil313 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 11:27 AM UTC

dizhn wrote: post #320

Aerbil313 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islam bans stock markets and interest (though not all current so-called muslim countries) and every person who is rich (who have more than 87 grams of gold worth of things) is obliged to donate %2.5 of their total wealth to the poor every year. In Muslim countries, the state collects and distributes this, so it's effectively a tax. Necessities of life (shelter etc.) are excluded from total value calculation. Muslim c…

That's probably state land and regular people are not allowed to own land. If they don't work it, it gets transferred to someone else.