4 ms·

Yea how about not handing out giant executive packages while downsizing your teams.

• ericd 6y ago
  I agree that they shouldn’t be raising executive pay given that they’re not doing a very good job. But let’s not be hyperbolic, it’s not “giant”. Sundar Pichai’s pay is measured in billions, for comparison.
  • selectodude 6y ago
    Sundar Pichai's base pay is $2m/yr. The rest is stock.
    • ericd 6y ago
      Yes, over $1B in liquid stock over 5 years.
      • selectodude 6y ago
        Which is a function of his management. The stock didn't go up in a vacuum.
        • zepto 6y ago
          Yes, it was all Sundar’s doing. Nothing to do with the search monopoly.
        • ericd 6y ago
          I mean, keep in mind that the Nasdaq is up more than Google’s stock over the past 5 years.
  • samatman 6y ago
    The existence of giants forty feet tall, isn't a good argument against calling ten foot tall creatures "giants".
    • ericd 6y ago
      Giant is usually reserved for something much larger than the norm of that thing. Would you say that Mozilla’s executive pay is much higher than the norm for executive pay? I wouldn’t, but opinions certainly vary on this topic.
  • foobiekr 6y ago
    If mozilla had the level of market influence that Google has, and was as effective in accomplishing its goals that google is, no one would be saying anything. On the other hand, pay steadily increasing as all metrics of success are declining is something that would get criticism for anyone.
  • banachtarski 6y ago
    I'm using the word "giant" in terms relative to the value of the staff and engineering talent that was downsized.
    • ericd 6y ago
      As in they're spending more on executive comp boosts than they saved by downsizing?