4 ms·

If Google CEO Sundar Pichai split his entire 2021 $6,322,599 [1] compensation among their 156,000 employees [2], each would get ~$40. If he split his entire st

If Google CEO Sundar Pichai split his entire 2021 $6,322,599 [1] compensation among their 156,000 employees [2], each would get ~$40. If he split his entire stock worth of $280M among them they'd each get under $2000. Not life changing when the median pay at Alphabet is already ~295k. So the massive CEO pay, even if completely taken away and given to employees, does not change incomes much at all. [1] https://www1.salary.com/ALPHABET-INC-Executive-Salaries.html https://www1.salary.com/ALPHABET-INC-Executive-Salaries.html [2] https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/alphabet-meta-had-highest-paid-median-workers-in-2021-says-report-122060300275_1.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/alph...

mistrial9 4y ago
low-relevance scenario - there are hundreds of thousands of companies serving consumers, with millions of employees, across the Western system. The vastly disproportional reward of C-Suite versus employees since the 1990s is very well documented. Google Inc is not any of those companies, and their economics do not apply.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  I was replying to the person above me that specifically mentioned the results of Google CEO giving money to employees, so it was high relevance. As to the "since the 1990s," all of those are quite oddly cherry picked. The actual facts on CEO pay in those stories forgets that actual CEO pay is the following: in May 2021, there were 200,480 CEOs, with mean annual wages of $213,020 [1]. Mean annual pay across all workers is $58,260 [2]. So, if you were honest about understanding >there are hundreds of thousands of companies serving consumers all these companies, then your claim is wrong. CEOs across these hundreds of thousands of companies make less than 4x the median wage, which I just demonstrated. To get the ridiculous numbers people rage over, that you're likely thinking apply to CEOs in general (and certainly not the "hundreds of thousands of companies" that you mention), you must only take a tiny handful of top paid CEOs (who change positions from year to year as pay bonuses and such vest, making it yet more bad stats, but good for headlines) and compare this tiny fraction to all workers (with annual mean pay of $58260[2]). Why not be fair and compare the top 0.01% (around 20 of them as is usual in the articles that you claim are "very well documented") of highest paid CEOs to the top 0.01% of highest paid workers? Because that won't generate enough outrage. Yet it's vastly a better metric, statistically defensible. If someone did this type of shoddy comparison on nearly any other topic people would rightfully call foul for bad statistics. As a good example, comparing the wages of all CEOs ($200K) to the top tiny fraction of workers (say, top silicon valley programmers for example, all well over $400k), would make the headline that "Workers earn over twice what CEOs do!". And of course you would (and should) call this dishonest. Because comparing outliers of one set to the median of another is dishonest. So why would you accept the same bad reasoning when it suits your world view? [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    most C-suite compensation is not in direct salary this topic relates to total compensation, overall
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      The numbers include all that. Read the BLS methodology and you'll find it clearly explained. The Google CEO I listed is the same, as you can check in SEC filings. Please don't make claims without checking if it's true. It wastes time. Again, do you find it reasonable to compare a tiny fraction of highest paid CEO salaries to all worker salaries as a valid comparison?
rk06 4y ago
Sundar Pichai is just one of many c suites and senior management. If you transfer Total Compey of C suites and senior management to Low level FTEs, here would be a significant difference
- SideQuark 4y ago
  Feel free to provide the math, because it's not much at all. C suite pay drops rapidly as you move past a tiny few people. You can get all the data, do the math, then you'll be surprised :)

mistrial9 4y ago

low-relevance scenario - there are hundreds of thousands of companies serving consumers, with millions of employees, across the Western system. The vastly disproportional reward of C-Suite versus employees since the 1990s is very well documented. Google Inc is not any of those companies, and their economics do not apply.

SideQuark 4y ago
I was replying to the person above me that specifically mentioned the results of Google CEO giving money to employees, so it was high relevance. As to the "since the 1990s," all of those are quite oddly cherry picked. The actual facts on CEO pay in those stories forgets that actual CEO pay is the following: in May 2021, there were 200,480 CEOs, with mean annual wages of $213,020 [1]. Mean annual pay across all workers is $58,260 [2]. So, if you were honest about understanding >there are hundreds of thousands of companies serving consumers all these companies, then your claim is wrong. CEOs across these hundreds of thousands of companies make less than 4x the median wage, which I just demonstrated. To get the ridiculous numbers people rage over, that you're likely thinking apply to CEOs in general (and certainly not the "hundreds of thousands of companies" that you mention), you must only take a tiny handful of top paid CEOs (who change positions from year to year as pay bonuses and such vest, making it yet more bad stats, but good for headlines) and compare this tiny fraction to all workers (with annual mean pay of $58260[2]). Why not be fair and compare the top 0.01% (around 20 of them as is usual in the articles that you claim are "very well documented") of highest paid CEOs to the top 0.01% of highest paid workers? Because that won't generate enough outrage. Yet it's vastly a better metric, statistically defensible. If someone did this type of shoddy comparison on nearly any other topic people would rightfully call foul for bad statistics. As a good example, comparing the wages of all CEOs ($200K) to the top tiny fraction of workers (say, top silicon valley programmers for example, all well over $400k), would make the headline that "Workers earn over twice what CEOs do!". And of course you would (and should) call this dishonest. Because comparing outliers of one set to the median of another is dishonest. So why would you accept the same bad reasoning when it suits your world view? [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
- mistrial9 4y ago
  most C-suite compensation is not in direct salary this topic relates to total compensation, overall
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    The numbers include all that. Read the BLS methodology and you'll find it clearly explained. The Google CEO I listed is the same, as you can check in SEC filings. Please don't make claims without checking if it's true. It wastes time. Again, do you find it reasonable to compare a tiny fraction of highest paid CEO salaries to all worker salaries as a valid comparison?

rk06 4y ago

Sundar Pichai is just one of many c suites and senior management. If you transfer Total Compey of C suites and senior management to Low level FTEs, here would be a significant difference

SideQuark 4y ago
Feel free to provide the math, because it's not much at all. C suite pay drops rapidly as you move past a tiny few people. You can get all the data, do the math, then you'll be surprised :)