91–100 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree about being overpaid. Similar to other professions - engineering and medicine for example - we have a career which requires a dedication to constant learning. We build systems which allow companies to generate billions in revenue and deserve a slice of the pie.
deleted
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 $150m? Or at that level of wealth work for free. Surely it's just for keeping score
In the past 70 years hes had more money than needed for him to decide to give it all up. Why hasn't he?
Google’s board has spoken, and the price of their stock today matters more than the company’s future. If I was an employee who cared about Google’s vision, or what other services they could offer the world, the I’d probably be angry at the squandered opportunity too.
Got to give it to Larry Page and Sergey Brin for having their cake and also eating it. They control ~51% of voting power with shares thanks to owning ~85% of class B shares. They have had the benefit of someone else running the company for 8 years - and increasing the value of it - and now, when things are not looking great, it’s Sundar Pichai who gets the blame, and the focus on his compensation: and not those who s…
Not sure I'm following. They aren't getting new equity grants, they're de-facto out of the picture and just riding the valuation. They have 51% voting power but it's not obvious they are actively making decisions, rather than just holding onto power in just-in-case. Sundar is getting new equity grants based on his "performance". That's not the same.
So if they paid him 0$ they could have kept 500-1,000 out of those 12,000 employees? And that's assuming none of his pay was redistributed to any of the employees they kept. That's the thing with these gigantic numbers, they always look really impressive, but when you divide them by the actual number of employees involved it's not a huge per-employee benefit. Not saying it's fair, just that if you stare starry eyed a…
Were you trying to say 500-1000 of the employees isn't a huge number?
Nevertheless, I still think the outrage is justified. Just not on financial grounds.
So if they paid him 0$ they could have kept 500-1,000 out of those 12,000 employees? And that's assuming none of his pay was redistributed to any of the employees they kept. That's the thing with these gigantic numbers, they always look really impressive, but when you divide them by the actual number of employees involved it's not a huge per-employee benefit. Not saying it's fair, just that if you stare starry eyed a…
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…
Google performed only slightly better than QQQ in the past 5 years, and performed significantly worse than AAPL. Tim Cook doesn't get that comp, if that's what you mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you trying to say 500-1000 of the employees isn't a huge number?
It's roughly 4%. I would not call 4% of anything huge.
Another way to look at his pay -- is he worth 4X what Satya is? Is he having 4X the positive impact at Google as what Satya is at Microsoft?
Or another way to put it, what if you ONLY paid him $50M and kept 400 engineers (assuming they weren't laying off underperformers) -- would they be better off?
While I agree that CEOs are overpayed, I think the same applies to software engineers. Software Engineering has been a pay/perk bubble for years that was due for a correction, and like when Elon cut the free gourmet lunches and coffees for Twitter staff, I'm sure the Google engineers will survive. Meanwhile Google's "raters", the army of workers who do the hard work of moderating and testing Google's platforms are ge…
IMHO the reason is because American tech companies are located in cities with insane costs of living.
If Silicon Valley wants to save some serious money on salary, bribe and cajole state and local governments to change housing policy.
In comparison, Nadella is a bit above $50M which is gross underpay considering how Ballmer left the company. Nadella has been the best CEO in the past decade. In fact, you could argue that he’s the best investment manager in the past decade since MSFT is now a giant technology conglomerate. Better than Berkshire.