4 ms·

Google's South Lake Union campus cost $802 million[1]. Google's parent company, Alphabet, spent $70 billion on stock buybacks[2]. I know I'm drastically overs

Google's South Lake Union campus cost $802 million[1]. Google's parent company, Alphabet, spent $70 billion on stock buybacks[2]. I know I'm drastically oversimplifying the complexities of accounting required for a trillion-dollar empire, but this comes across as more of a punitive measure than a cost-saving measure. I acknowledge that being able to take the force of money and apply in a direction that results in growth at Google's scale is arguably one of the most difficult problems in business at the moment. But how does downsizing your offices do anything but make the hard times for Googlers a bit more uncomfortable? How does this news attract the talent that could help Google grow? It feels as though Sundar and the board decide stray away from doing things that keep their employees at the happiest (and most loyal to the company) because that doesn't help the company grow at a rate that would please shareholders. The Lindy effect[4] suggests that Google will probably be around for another twenty years. To his credit, Sundar has spent the last 3 years navigating one of the largest companies in the history of mankind through an event that society hadn't seen in 100 years. So, Sundar, when do we start thinking about where Google will be in 20 years instead of the next quarter? Google was revered in the media for decades as being one of the best places in the world to work at, you can look Xooglers talking as far back as 2008 and see stories of people who went to work there and left disappointed because of the homogeneous mindset and work benefits failing to match the competition[3]. 1: https://curiocity.com/seattle-google-lake-union-campus-sold-for-a-record-breaking-price/ https://curiocity.com/seattle-google-lake-union-campus-sold-... 2: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/26/alphabet-announces-70-billion-buyback.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/26/alphabet-announces-70-billio... 3: https://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/ 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

rytis 4y ago
> So, Sundar, when do we start thinking about where Google will be in 20 years instead of the next quarter? Why would he care?
- dwrodri 4y ago
  Generally, I'm of the opinion that: 1. The CEO is the leader of the company 2. Good leaders are visionaries that have the capacity of picturing a better future, realizing what needs to be done, and then delegating and executing those requirements to manifest that vision into reality. 3. Sundar wants to be a good leader. It would be easy to say that my #2 is correct, but doesn't apply to Sundar as CEO. I've heard his tenure associated with the "MBA-ification" of Google. Solely focusing on maximizing shareholder returns, which in the case of the company sitting on the multi-billion dollar revenue hose, means cutting down on anything that gets in the way of that. That would indeed allow shareholders to get a great return on their investment for some time, but if you reduce google to a private AI research lab and a digital ads platform, there's nothing left to react (or bring forth) to changes in how people interact with technology. I feel like nothing exemplifies this further than Bard. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist. But it really feels like he should care.
suby 4y ago
Right. I want to know how much money this initiative could possibly save, especially in comparison to the scale of their revenue/profitability/spending on other things. It seems like they don't consider the well being of workers and how mistreating them will impact the well being of their company. People thinking along these lines should not be leading these trillion dollar companies.
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
> It feels as though Sundar and the board decide stray away from doing things that keep their employees at the happiest (and most loyal to the company) because that doesn't help the company grow at a rate that would please shareholders. Which would be completely normal behavior for the CEO of a large publicly traded company and its board, which is the real problem.

rytis 4y ago

> So, Sundar, when do we start thinking about where Google will be in 20 years instead of the next quarter? Why would he care?

dwrodri 4y ago
Generally, I'm of the opinion that: 1. The CEO is the leader of the company 2. Good leaders are visionaries that have the capacity of picturing a better future, realizing what needs to be done, and then delegating and executing those requirements to manifest that vision into reality. 3. Sundar wants to be a good leader. It would be easy to say that my #2 is correct, but doesn't apply to Sundar as CEO. I've heard his tenure associated with the "MBA-ification" of Google. Solely focusing on maximizing shareholder returns, which in the case of the company sitting on the multi-billion dollar revenue hose, means cutting down on anything that gets in the way of that. That would indeed allow shareholders to get a great return on their investment for some time, but if you reduce google to a private AI research lab and a digital ads platform, there's nothing left to react (or bring forth) to changes in how people interact with technology. I feel like nothing exemplifies this further than Bard. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist. But it really feels like he should care.

suby 4y ago

Right. I want to know how much money this initiative could possibly save, especially in comparison to the scale of their revenue/profitability/spending on other things. It seems like they don't consider the well being of workers and how mistreating them will impact the well being of their company. People thinking along these lines should not be leading these trillion dollar companies.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

> It feels as though Sundar and the board decide stray away from doing things that keep their employees at the happiest (and most loyal to the company) because that doesn't help the company grow at a rate that would please shareholders. Which would be completely normal behavior for the CEO of a large publicly traded company and its board, which is the real problem.