3 ms·

> This is completely stupid and unacceptable. Why? > Why does Sundar Pichai make 500x more than the President? Do we, as a society, value running Google well

by cgmg 9y ago

> This is completely stupid and unacceptable. Why? > Why does Sundar Pichai make 500x more than the President? Do we, as a society, value running Google well 500x more than running our government well? Why must the Presidency be the most highly-paid position for the government to run well? That is a ridiculous and silly assumption.

michael_storm 9y ago
Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well? The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society. (Including thousands of career civil servants, since leadership positions have their own trappings.) If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should pay them commensurate with how much we value them -- and get better results in the bargain.
- chronic193 9y ago
  > If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should pay them commensurate with how much we value them We don't value those who serve society. People care more about Facebook than their president/prime minister.
- cgmg 9y ago
  > Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well? That's up to Google, not me. Unlike you, I don't seek to dictate what organizations should pay their managers. > The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society. You are making two implicit claims here, both highly suspect and probably false: - Working for Google contributes no value to society. - Working for the government is synonymous with 'serving society'. Google's flaws notwithstanding, the government has a terrible track record when it comes to incentives, inefficiency, corruption (particularly graft), accountability, and so on. Equating 'working for government' with 'serving society' is baffling. > If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should... Therein lies the problem with your rhetoric. When you say 'we', you pretend to speak for all taxpayers, but you do not. Your claim that higher pay would yield better results is probably true for some sectors and false for others, yet you make no attempt to distinguish between these and speak as if a universal raise would lead to better outcomes rather than more graft.

by cgmg 9y ago

michael_storm 9y ago

Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well? The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society. (Including thousands of career civil servants, since leadership positions have their own trappings.) If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should pay them commensurate with how much we value them -- and get better results in the bargain.

chronic193 9y ago
> If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should pay them commensurate with how much we value them We don't value those who serve society. People care more about Facebook than their president/prime minister.
cgmg 9y ago
> Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well? That's up to Google, not me. Unlike you, I don't seek to dictate what organizations should pay their managers. > The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society. You are making two implicit claims here, both highly suspect and probably false: - Working for Google contributes no value to society. - Working for the government is synonymous with 'serving society'. Google's flaws notwithstanding, the government has a terrible track record when it comes to incentives, inefficiency, corruption (particularly graft), accountability, and so on. Equating 'working for government' with 'serving society' is baffling. > If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should... Therein lies the problem with your rhetoric. When you say 'we', you pretend to speak for all taxpayers, but you do not. Your claim that higher pay would yield better results is probably true for some sectors and false for others, yet you make no attempt to distinguish between these and speak as if a universal raise would lead to better outcomes rather than more graft.