5 ms·

Completely valid point. The same document points out that the CEO and CCO (both co-founders) each realized more than $168M in compensation in 2021. That's the

Completely valid point. The same document points out that the CEO and CCO (both co-founders) each realized more than $168M in compensation in 2021. That's the number to talk about I think.

peanutz454 4y ago
Wow! $168M/(3800 employee / 100*23 layoff) = $192,219 per layed off employee Not that I am suggesting he should pay the layed off employees from his personal kitty. Just trying to understand the numbers. Edit: OP said CEO and COO each. So $192K x 2 ~= $384,000.
- alain94040 4y ago
  Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    Obviously they should have laid off more employees until the CEO salary per layoff drops below $1000.
  - martin82 4y ago
    I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
    - curious_cat_163 4y ago
      Exactly. Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
      - kortilla 4y ago
        > Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. No there isn’t. Wasting money to keep employing people isn’t good for anyone. The labor market is still tight right now so the employees are better off going to a company that actually wants them.
        curious_cat_163 4y ago
        Ok. I see your point.
    - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
      And if they'd over hired, their business could still be in the same place (or worse) next year. People should just say they don't think executives should earn that much money (in good times or bad) rather than making moral justifications like this.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Sure, but no doubt a Silicon Valley programmer could take a 50% pay cut, still have plenty to live on, and double the salary of 3 cleaning staff that work at their company. Should we talk about that too?
      - smabie 4y ago
        Nah probably not since so many people on HN are programmers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 100001_100011 4y ago
  Maybe Robinhood wants to use this money to buy the dip.
chii 4y ago
Their compensation being high is not really relevant imho. It's the hidden assumption that if only the CxO compensation was lower, those workers could've been saved (aka, instead of redundancy, the CxO takes a pay cut to pay for the wages of those workers). Is this a valid argument? I dont know, but i feel that it isn't.
- bsuvc 4y ago
  I'm trying to understand your point of view. Are you saying executive compensation should be orthogonal to company performance? Overpaid executives failed, so workers lost their jobs, but the executives get to keep theirs all the while saying things like "I take responsibility for this" when it is objectively false that they are taking responsibility. Does that seem right to you? Is that a good way to run a business, to keep failed leadership?
  - chii 4y ago
    > Overpaid executives failed Their failure has already dropped a huge amount of their stock-based compensation. Their base salary shouldn't be determined by the company's failure (only their _future_ salary). What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform?
    - bsuvc 4y ago
      > What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform? Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package. I am skeptical that the CEO is worse off than any employee.
      - chii 4y ago
        > Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package. As in you would accept, without knowing ahead of time, a cut to your salary when the company's performance drops? I'm not talking about performance based bonuses or commission based pay. I'm talking about a salary that was pre-negotiated at the time of your employment, but upon the company performing badly, your salary is dropped. This is what the OP is saying - that high CxO pay is the problem, and that they should have been paid less (after the company's performance dropped).

Completely valid point. The same document points out that the CEO and CCO (both co-founders) each realized more than $168M in compensation in 2021. That's the number to talk about I think.

peanutz454 4y ago

Wow! $168M/(3800 employee / 100*23 layoff) = $192,219 per layed off employee Not that I am suggesting he should pay the layed off employees from his personal kitty. Just trying to understand the numbers. Edit: OP said CEO and COO each. So $192K x 2 ~= $384,000.

alain94040 4y ago
Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Obviously they should have laid off more employees until the CEO salary per layoff drops below $1000.
- martin82 4y ago
  I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
  - curious_cat_163 4y ago
    Exactly. Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
    - kortilla 4y ago
      > Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. No there isn’t. Wasting money to keep employing people isn’t good for anyone. The labor market is still tight right now so the employees are better off going to a company that actually wants them.
      - curious_cat_163 4y ago
        Ok. I see your point.
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    And if they'd over hired, their business could still be in the same place (or worse) next year. People should just say they don't think executives should earn that much money (in good times or bad) rather than making moral justifications like this.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Sure, but no doubt a Silicon Valley programmer could take a 50% pay cut, still have plenty to live on, and double the salary of 3 cleaning staff that work at their company. Should we talk about that too?
    - smabie 4y ago
      Nah probably not since so many people on HN are programmers.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
100001_100011 4y ago
Maybe Robinhood wants to use this money to buy the dip.

chii 4y ago

Their compensation being high is not really relevant imho. It's the hidden assumption that if only the CxO compensation was lower, those workers could've been saved (aka, instead of redundancy, the CxO takes a pay cut to pay for the wages of those workers). Is this a valid argument? I dont know, but i feel that it isn't.

bsuvc 4y ago
I'm trying to understand your point of view. Are you saying executive compensation should be orthogonal to company performance? Overpaid executives failed, so workers lost their jobs, but the executives get to keep theirs all the while saying things like "I take responsibility for this" when it is objectively false that they are taking responsibility. Does that seem right to you? Is that a good way to run a business, to keep failed leadership?
- chii 4y ago
  > Overpaid executives failed Their failure has already dropped a huge amount of their stock-based compensation. Their base salary shouldn't be determined by the company's failure (only their _future_ salary). What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform?
  - bsuvc 4y ago
    > What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform? Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package. I am skeptical that the CEO is worse off than any employee.
    - chii 4y ago
      > Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package. As in you would accept, without knowing ahead of time, a cut to your salary when the company's performance drops? I'm not talking about performance based bonuses or commission based pay. I'm talking about a salary that was pre-negotiated at the time of your employment, but upon the company performing badly, your salary is dropped. This is what the OP is saying - that high CxO pay is the problem, and that they should have been paid less (after the company's performance dropped).