11 ms·

> The dude has already lost many more billions of dollars than you or I will ever see Those are mostly virtual dollars and he has a lot more real ones in his a

by 2rsf 4y ago

> The dude has already lost many more billions of dollars than you or I will ever see Those are mostly virtual dollars and he has a lot more real ones in his account, while I agree that whatever he does to "punish himself" will be practically meaningless it might have some symbolic meaning. Lowering his and senior management salaries and incentives won't save jobs but will give a better image of the crisis

crazygringo 4y ago
His salary is already only $1/yr, and has been since 2013. So there's nothing to do there. And lowering the salaries of senior management doesn't make any sense. They're paid market rates. If you punitively cut their compensation in half or something, they'll just leave for another company that does pay market rate. You can't force them to stick around and be "punished", that's not how salaried employment in a market economy works. Also, punishing management goes against the idea that he's taking all the responsibility here. Wouldn't that just be scapegoating?
- paledot 4y ago
  > His salary is already only $1/yr, and has been since 2013. So there's nothing to do there. That's a joke, a tax dodge, a PR gag, a farce. There's nothing fiscally responsible about it. Taking financial responsibility, if such a thing exists, would involve giving up his equity comp or even some of his holdings. Give it to the employees whose careers you've disrupted through your bad business decisions. That's responsibility. "Market rates" is likewise a joke. A: "Market rates for corporate executives are obscene." B: "They're paid market rates, what's the problem?"
  - eru 4y ago
    Corporate executive are also employees. And their careers have been more disrupted than some random software engineer's career.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      It seems fair. If executives were making the decisions that landed the company in a difficult situation, it's only fair they bear the consequences of their failure. Besides, it's difficult to empathize when their compensation packages are, while market rate, significantly higher than the engineers who do their bidding. I wouldn't be surprised if the fraction of executives that would be able to retire at this point was much higher than the one for engineers, which is likely much higher than the one for non-engineering individual contributors. Also remember that since it's executives who set executive compensation, there is some incentive to inflate it.
      - eru 4y ago
        The CEO is obsessed with the metaverse. Not sure the other executive had much say. (They can, of course, walk away if they disagree. But so can every other employee.)
    - lovich 4y ago
      Executives are not employees, they have agency to decide the companies direction. More agency brings more responsibility
    - klyrs 4y ago
      > And their careers have been more disrupted than some random software engineer's career. Were they really? Did they just lose their jobs and are they now underwater on mortgages that their families can no longer afford without that income? How many executives lives were "disrupted" worse than that? Because I'm talking about a significant fraction of 11k people that you're dismissing as "some random software engineer."
      - not2b 4y ago
        Not to mention "here on a H1-B visa with a short time to find a new tech job or be deported".
  - jfdbcv 4y ago
    Does Zuckerberg take equity compensation? I thought he just owned ~14% of FB.
    - airstrike 4y ago
      You're right, he has given up equity comp. I was curious so went looking... Based on the latest proxy, he does not take any equity compensation. He only gets his $1 salary, a corporate private jet for business travel and $10M / year "to cover additional costs related to his and his family's personal security. This allowance is paid to Mr. Zuckerberg net of required tax withholdings, and Mr. Zuckerberg must apply the net amount towards additional personnel, equipment, services, residential improvements, or other security-related costs." https://www.bamsec.com/filing/132680122000043/1?cik=1326801&hl=160773:161086&hl_id=41fcxtvr6 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/132680122000043/1?cik=1326801&...
      - MerManMaid 4y ago
        Just so everyone is clear here, $1 salary + travel/security rounds out to $27,000,001 for 2021. Additionally, travel/security don't seem to have any hard spending limit and alleviates Zuck's personal tax liability. (by $27M anyway) Per the filing you linked: " Mr. Zuckerberg uses private aircraft for personal travel in connection with his overall security program (including, beginning in 2022, a private aircraft that is indirectly and wholly owned by Mr. Zuckerberg and operated by an independent charter company). On certain occasions, Mr. Zuckerberg may be accompanied by guests when using private aircraft. " "the costs of Mr. Zuckerberg's security program vary from year to year depending on requisite security measures, his travel schedule, and other factors." (Emphasis mine)
      - lovich 4y ago
        That says requested and doesn’t specify what he actually receives which is weasely enough to make me question the word choice
        airstrike 4y ago
        That's not how proxies work
- lovich 4y ago
  Need to point out that this “there’s nothing you can do, all the incentives align to him keeping the wealth while others suffer” is the sort of dunking on capitalism that leads people towards socialism
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    We’ve tried it, it was far worse. There are still people alive who were there, maybe all the younger people advocating socialism should chat with them?
    - lovich 4y ago
      Europe is far worse? The New Deal was far worse? We’ve decided to go down the cyberpunk corporate hellscape path since the 80s and post 2001 it’s just been consistently degrading workers lives. I think most millennials and gen z would trade their financial outlook for their parents so I really can’t accept this “far worse” description
      - bradleyjg 4y ago
        None of that was socialism. It’s welfare capitalism which the entire west today has in one variant or another. Saying we should tune up regulations and/or the safety net is an entirely reasonable thing we could have a discussion about. Talking about socialism is ignorant or foolish.
        lovich 4y ago
        They’re all socialist policies, no country is purely capitalistic or purely socialistic. To be clear when I said “leads people towards socialism” I meant pushes them in a direction that advocates for more socialist policies like increasing the safety net
      - snovv_crash 4y ago
        DDR was 'real' socialist.

by 2rsf 4y ago

crazygringo 4y ago

His salary is already only $1/yr, and has been since 2013. So there's nothing to do there. And lowering the salaries of senior management doesn't make any sense. They're paid market rates. If you punitively cut their compensation in half or something, they'll just leave for another company that does pay market rate. You can't force them to stick around and be "punished", that's not how salaried employment in a market economy works. Also, punishing management goes against the idea that he's taking all the responsibility here. Wouldn't that just be scapegoating?

paledot 4y ago
> His salary is already only $1/yr, and has been since 2013. So there's nothing to do there. That's a joke, a tax dodge, a PR gag, a farce. There's nothing fiscally responsible about it. Taking financial responsibility, if such a thing exists, would involve giving up his equity comp or even some of his holdings. Give it to the employees whose careers you've disrupted through your bad business decisions. That's responsibility. "Market rates" is likewise a joke. A: "Market rates for corporate executives are obscene." B: "They're paid market rates, what's the problem?"
- eru 4y ago
  Corporate executive are also employees. And their careers have been more disrupted than some random software engineer's career.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    It seems fair. If executives were making the decisions that landed the company in a difficult situation, it's only fair they bear the consequences of their failure. Besides, it's difficult to empathize when their compensation packages are, while market rate, significantly higher than the engineers who do their bidding. I wouldn't be surprised if the fraction of executives that would be able to retire at this point was much higher than the one for engineers, which is likely much higher than the one for non-engineering individual contributors. Also remember that since it's executives who set executive compensation, there is some incentive to inflate it.
    - eru 4y ago
      The CEO is obsessed with the metaverse. Not sure the other executive had much say. (They can, of course, walk away if they disagree. But so can every other employee.)
  - lovich 4y ago
    Executives are not employees, they have agency to decide the companies direction. More agency brings more responsibility
  - klyrs 4y ago
    > And their careers have been more disrupted than some random software engineer's career. Were they really? Did they just lose their jobs and are they now underwater on mortgages that their families can no longer afford without that income? How many executives lives were "disrupted" worse than that? Because I'm talking about a significant fraction of 11k people that you're dismissing as "some random software engineer."
    - not2b 4y ago
      Not to mention "here on a H1-B visa with a short time to find a new tech job or be deported".
- jfdbcv 4y ago
  Does Zuckerberg take equity compensation? I thought he just owned ~14% of FB.
  - airstrike 4y ago
    You're right, he has given up equity comp. I was curious so went looking... Based on the latest proxy, he does not take any equity compensation. He only gets his $1 salary, a corporate private jet for business travel and $10M / year "to cover additional costs related to his and his family's personal security. This allowance is paid to Mr. Zuckerberg net of required tax withholdings, and Mr. Zuckerberg must apply the net amount towards additional personnel, equipment, services, residential improvements, or other security-related costs." https://www.bamsec.com/filing/132680122000043/1?cik=1326801&hl=160773:161086&hl_id=41fcxtvr6 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/132680122000043/1?cik=1326801&...
    - MerManMaid 4y ago
      Just so everyone is clear here, $1 salary + travel/security rounds out to $27,000,001 for 2021. Additionally, travel/security don't seem to have any hard spending limit and alleviates Zuck's personal tax liability. (by $27M anyway) Per the filing you linked: " Mr. Zuckerberg uses private aircraft for personal travel in connection with his overall security program (including, beginning in 2022, a private aircraft that is indirectly and wholly owned by Mr. Zuckerberg and operated by an independent charter company). On certain occasions, Mr. Zuckerberg may be accompanied by guests when using private aircraft. " "the costs of Mr. Zuckerberg's security program vary from year to year depending on requisite security measures, his travel schedule, and other factors." (Emphasis mine)
    - lovich 4y ago
      That says requested and doesn’t specify what he actually receives which is weasely enough to make me question the word choice
      - airstrike 4y ago
        That's not how proxies work
lovich 4y ago
Need to point out that this “there’s nothing you can do, all the incentives align to him keeping the wealth while others suffer” is the sort of dunking on capitalism that leads people towards socialism
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  We’ve tried it, it was far worse. There are still people alive who were there, maybe all the younger people advocating socialism should chat with them?
  - lovich 4y ago
    Europe is far worse? The New Deal was far worse? We’ve decided to go down the cyberpunk corporate hellscape path since the 80s and post 2001 it’s just been consistently degrading workers lives. I think most millennials and gen z would trade their financial outlook for their parents so I really can’t accept this “far worse” description
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      None of that was socialism. It’s welfare capitalism which the entire west today has in one variant or another. Saying we should tune up regulations and/or the safety net is an entirely reasonable thing we could have a discussion about. Talking about socialism is ignorant or foolish.
      - lovich 4y ago
        They’re all socialist policies, no country is purely capitalistic or purely socialistic. To be clear when I said “leads people towards socialism” I meant pushes them in a direction that advocates for more socialist policies like increasing the safety net
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      DDR was 'real' socialist.