3 ms·

Don't forget, to the CEO and their cronies you are all just peons. If they could pay you nothing at all they would absolutely do so.

lultimouomo 5y ago
If you could have your company pay you all the money they have (but still magically continue to function), wouldn't you?
- whydid 5y ago
  This is a ridiculous argument. How could a company continue to function in this case? A pot of gold or some other form of magic? The point is, compensation is inequitable. Upper management at most tech companies is paid 20-50x what a worker is paid. Do you think that is reasonable?
  - pc86 5y ago
    Of course compensation is inequitable. I don't think anyone outside fringe leftist politicos have ever suggested it should be otherwise? And if your company continues to print money decade after decade while paying upper management 20-50x what a worker makes, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      > And if your company continues to print money decade after decade while paying upper management 20-50x what a worker makes, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. This seems at odds with the normal HN view of Google, which is that they can't do anything right but have such a good thing going with ads that they basically cannot fail. If this is true, then an inanimate object could lead the company to success. I am not convinced it is so extreme, but I am definitely not convinced that paying Sundar billions and billions less would actually change the company.
      - pc86 5y ago
        Sundar made $8 million total comp in 2020 and $280 million in 2019 ($276 of which was stock). So I'm not sure paying him "billions and billions less" is appropriate or accurate framing. But even if it was, you're probably right that a massive pay cut to the CEO would have no effect if the CEO stayed. However, if a CEO can reasonably command a 9-figure salary, and that gets slashed, they have an incentive to go somewhere that will pay them a 9-figure salary. So that company now has to hire or promote a new CEO willing to do the work for "less" money (I consider myself a capitalist through and through but even I have trouble calling multi-million dollar comp packages "less" in any reasonable sense). There's a decent chance that CEO is going to be worse. So there could definitely be negative effects as a direct result of decreasing executive compensation. It's the same argument as with developers except there are just more zeros involved. If you want to make the most money possible as a dev, you're probably applying to companies like Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc. The folks who can't make the cut there go to "worse" places for "less" money. Not saying there aren't idiots that make it into Facebook or genius coders that don't want to work at FAANG-level companies, but it's common wisdom in part because it's accurate more often than it's wrong.
  - lultimouomo 5y ago
    Of course it is a ridiculous argument. Same as GP. How would you live and be able to work for your company if it didn't pay you at all? The fact is that the employer/employee relation is a business one, in which each party looks for his own interest first and foremost. The interest of the other party is only instrumental. There are power asymmetries, and we can agree that the average guy gets, on average, shafted, while someone born "on the right side of the table" is always dealt the good cards[0]. But I don't think the nature of the employer/employee relation is the problem. The problem is the vast inequality of opportunity at birth. [0] Though I shall note that in a sense pretty much everyone on this website is born on the right side of the table, and doesn't seem to feel too guilty about that.
system16 5y ago
What a bizarre statement. If you could just not pay your mortgage, or not make your car payments, or just walk out of a restaurant without paying and no repercussions, wouldn't you?
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Generally yes, but you also don't consider your relationship with your bank to be "a family". It is useful for employees to recognize that despite everything that bosses say this is still an adversarial transaction where the bosses want to get the most labor out of the least cost.
  - system16 5y ago
    Fair enough. I guess I've never felt that loyalty to any company and always view employment as a business agreement. "Family" rhetoric has always come off to me as marketing fluff.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sdevonoes 5y ago
Exactly. Not sure why people get surprised, this sort of things (company wins, employees lose) happen all the time. I imagine that since this is HN, people here have Google in some kind of a throne and they think Google employees (engineers, mainly) have some sort of privileges that make them immune. Well, Google is just like any other company out there and Google engineers are just like any other employees out there, peons with zero power of decision. I hope I'm wrong and Google engineers take a step forward to avoid this pay cut, otherwise this will happen in every dumb IT company out there as well (because, if Google does it, it must be good).

lultimouomo 5y ago

If you could have your company pay you all the money they have (but still magically continue to function), wouldn't you?

whydid 5y ago
This is a ridiculous argument. How could a company continue to function in this case? A pot of gold or some other form of magic? The point is, compensation is inequitable. Upper management at most tech companies is paid 20-50x what a worker is paid. Do you think that is reasonable?
- pc86 5y ago
  Of course compensation is inequitable. I don't think anyone outside fringe leftist politicos have ever suggested it should be otherwise? And if your company continues to print money decade after decade while paying upper management 20-50x what a worker makes, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    > And if your company continues to print money decade after decade while paying upper management 20-50x what a worker makes, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. This seems at odds with the normal HN view of Google, which is that they can't do anything right but have such a good thing going with ads that they basically cannot fail. If this is true, then an inanimate object could lead the company to success. I am not convinced it is so extreme, but I am definitely not convinced that paying Sundar billions and billions less would actually change the company.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Sundar made $8 million total comp in 2020 and $280 million in 2019 ($276 of which was stock). So I'm not sure paying him "billions and billions less" is appropriate or accurate framing. But even if it was, you're probably right that a massive pay cut to the CEO would have no effect if the CEO stayed. However, if a CEO can reasonably command a 9-figure salary, and that gets slashed, they have an incentive to go somewhere that will pay them a 9-figure salary. So that company now has to hire or promote a new CEO willing to do the work for "less" money (I consider myself a capitalist through and through but even I have trouble calling multi-million dollar comp packages "less" in any reasonable sense). There's a decent chance that CEO is going to be worse. So there could definitely be negative effects as a direct result of decreasing executive compensation. It's the same argument as with developers except there are just more zeros involved. If you want to make the most money possible as a dev, you're probably applying to companies like Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc. The folks who can't make the cut there go to "worse" places for "less" money. Not saying there aren't idiots that make it into Facebook or genius coders that don't want to work at FAANG-level companies, but it's common wisdom in part because it's accurate more often than it's wrong.
- lultimouomo 5y ago
  Of course it is a ridiculous argument. Same as GP. How would you live and be able to work for your company if it didn't pay you at all? The fact is that the employer/employee relation is a business one, in which each party looks for his own interest first and foremost. The interest of the other party is only instrumental. There are power asymmetries, and we can agree that the average guy gets, on average, shafted, while someone born "on the right side of the table" is always dealt the good cards[0]. But I don't think the nature of the employer/employee relation is the problem. The problem is the vast inequality of opportunity at birth. [0] Though I shall note that in a sense pretty much everyone on this website is born on the right side of the table, and doesn't seem to feel too guilty about that.

system16 5y ago

What a bizarre statement. If you could just not pay your mortgage, or not make your car payments, or just walk out of a restaurant without paying and no repercussions, wouldn't you?

UncleMeat 5y ago
Generally yes, but you also don't consider your relationship with your bank to be "a family". It is useful for employees to recognize that despite everything that bosses say this is still an adversarial transaction where the bosses want to get the most labor out of the least cost.
- system16 5y ago
  Fair enough. I guess I've never felt that loyalty to any company and always view employment as a business agreement. "Family" rhetoric has always come off to me as marketing fluff.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sdevonoes 5y ago

Exactly. Not sure why people get surprised, this sort of things (company wins, employees lose) happen all the time. I imagine that since this is HN, people here have Google in some kind of a throne and they think Google employees (engineers, mainly) have some sort of privileges that make them immune. Well, Google is just like any other company out there and Google engineers are just like any other employees out there, peons with zero power of decision. I hope I'm wrong and Google engineers take a step forward to avoid this pay cut, otherwise this will happen in every dumb IT company out there as well (because, if Google does it, it must be good).