3 ms·
Remember that's an average. Some people produce less and get paid less, some people produce more and get paid more. The two are not always correlated of cours
by apenwarr 16y ago
Remember that's an average. Some people produce less and get paid less, some people produce more and get paid more. The two are not always correlated of course. In fact, at Google in particular, I'm sure it's crazily skewed: most people there are probably net money losers, and AdWords floats them all.
If you took a vote, I bet the majority of people at Google would be terrified to get paid according to the corporate earnings they account for.
Also note that the quoted earnings have of course deducted anything that got paid directly to the owners; the listed earnings are the money that is getting re-invested straight back into the company, not paid to the founders, so it's not quite valid to compare it directly to what you would earn if you owned the company.
- sophacles 16y agoJust saying, adwords is 100% useless without the other google stuff to run it on. This is important, and certainly makes the "actual per employee" profit much, much more difficult to calculate.
- nostrademons 16y agoIt's hard to do an accounting, because virtually everything at Google is a team effort. There've been projects I've worked on that have generated hundreds of millions in additional revenue. However, there was a group downstream of us in Ads doing the actual sales. And we had groups upstream that we rely upon for data. And those groups had groups upstream of them that managed the infrastructure. Who earned the money? If you take out any one component of the pipeline, it never happened.