6 ms·

Those high paying positions that came with all the perks need to be unlearned. Many of those folk will have trouble adjusting to lower pay and lesser perks. Suc

Those high paying positions that came with all the perks need to be unlearned. Many of those folk will have trouble adjusting to lower pay and lesser perks. Such companies might not be willing to risk hiring them.

hezralig 4y ago
Or perhaps the bar will be forced to raise at other companies as these senior employees change the culture from within. You can't close Pandora's box and expect the world to remain unchanged.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  No, middle managers earning $500k total comp for 30 hours of work and flirting with unionizing are never coming back. It’s over
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Why are you so certain of that? They never earned that much because they were unique talented, but because demand was so high and you couldn't find anyone cheaper filling the requirements. Why are you sure demand won't return?
  - paulpauper 4y ago
    people said the same in 2016, 2020, 2012, etc. Bigger tech companies and winner-take-all markets means bigger salaries and more perks to attract top talent when the stakes are so high. The next big arms race is AI. You can be sure tech companies are offering huge salaries for top talent there too.
    - thematt 4y ago
      Perhaps, but the difference between now and then was all those years had near-zero interest rates. It's a lot easier for tech (and growth companies in general) to stage a comeback in that macro environment. Especially when it comes to issuing all the RSUs to fund those compensation packages.
  - pfannkuchen 4y ago
    Has it even stopped? From where I am sitting it doesn’t look like it has stopped, just that a small subset of people who were doing it previously are no longer doing it now.
- civilized 4y ago
  They weren't uniquely talented.
horns4lyfe 4y ago
Maybe the CEOs should have to be the ones to cut down on perks and pay. Naw, that’s crazy
- htag 4y ago
  In 2023 Meta will fire about 20,000 people, and Zukerberg will pull about $30,000,000 from the company. If Zukerberg took 0 it would save about 1500 per laid off person. Tech is generally cutting costs at a large enough number that C-suite compensation packages couldn't cover it.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    You're seeing up a false dilemma where either there are layoffs or Zuck's party gets cut. You could layoff a hundred fewer people and cut Zuck to 0 for the same savings.
    - shagie 4y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/16/meta-to-pay-more-for-mark-zuckerbergs-personal-security-amid-job-losses https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/16/meta-to-p... > Meta’s board declared that the 40% increase was “appropriate and necessary under the circumstances” and was in place “to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as Meta’s founder, chairman, and CEO”. > The tech mogul’s salary is just $1 a year – but his earnings are far more. Zuckerberg ranks as the 16th richest person in the world on the Forbes billionaire list due to his shareholdings in Meta. In 2021 he received compensation from the company worth $27m. https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/mark_zuckerberg_gets_a_26m/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/mark_zuckerberg_gets_... > There were no bonus or stock awards given to Zuckerberg in 2019, 2020, or 2021, but that "other" amount increased by nearly $2 million each year. The bulk of this goes to pay for the Zuckerberg family's security at home and while traveling, even for personal reasons. > Zuckerberg and COO Cheryl Sandberg both get an allowance for personal and family security, which Meta said is necessary to address specific threats to their safety. "We require these security measures for the company's benefit because of the importance of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg to Meta, and we believe that the scope and costs of these security programs are appropriate and necessary," the proxy statement said. > Zuckerberg is in the unique position, Meta said, of being synonymous with the company because of the size of its user base and its continued presence thanks to less-than-positive legal and media attention. "As a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr Zuckerberg."

hezralig 4y ago

Or perhaps the bar will be forced to raise at other companies as these senior employees change the culture from within. You can't close Pandora's box and expect the world to remain unchanged.

monero-xmr 4y ago
No, middle managers earning $500k total comp for 30 hours of work and flirting with unionizing are never coming back. It’s over
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Why are you so certain of that? They never earned that much because they were unique talented, but because demand was so high and you couldn't find anyone cheaper filling the requirements. Why are you sure demand won't return?
- paulpauper 4y ago
  people said the same in 2016, 2020, 2012, etc. Bigger tech companies and winner-take-all markets means bigger salaries and more perks to attract top talent when the stakes are so high. The next big arms race is AI. You can be sure tech companies are offering huge salaries for top talent there too.
  - thematt 4y ago
    Perhaps, but the difference between now and then was all those years had near-zero interest rates. It's a lot easier for tech (and growth companies in general) to stage a comeback in that macro environment. Especially when it comes to issuing all the RSUs to fund those compensation packages.
- pfannkuchen 4y ago
  Has it even stopped? From where I am sitting it doesn’t look like it has stopped, just that a small subset of people who were doing it previously are no longer doing it now.
civilized 4y ago
They weren't uniquely talented.

horns4lyfe 4y ago

Maybe the CEOs should have to be the ones to cut down on perks and pay. Naw, that’s crazy

htag 4y ago
In 2023 Meta will fire about 20,000 people, and Zukerberg will pull about $30,000,000 from the company. If Zukerberg took 0 it would save about 1500 per laid off person. Tech is generally cutting costs at a large enough number that C-suite compensation packages couldn't cover it.
- karpierz 4y ago
  You're seeing up a false dilemma where either there are layoffs or Zuck's party gets cut. You could layoff a hundred fewer people and cut Zuck to 0 for the same savings.
  - shagie 4y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/16/meta-to-pay-more-for-mark-zuckerbergs-personal-security-amid-job-losses https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/16/meta-to-p... > Meta’s board declared that the 40% increase was “appropriate and necessary under the circumstances” and was in place “to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as Meta’s founder, chairman, and CEO”. > The tech mogul’s salary is just $1 a year – but his earnings are far more. Zuckerberg ranks as the 16th richest person in the world on the Forbes billionaire list due to his shareholdings in Meta. In 2021 he received compensation from the company worth $27m. https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/mark_zuckerberg_gets_a_26m/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/mark_zuckerberg_gets_... > There were no bonus or stock awards given to Zuckerberg in 2019, 2020, or 2021, but that "other" amount increased by nearly $2 million each year. The bulk of this goes to pay for the Zuckerberg family's security at home and while traveling, even for personal reasons. > Zuckerberg and COO Cheryl Sandberg both get an allowance for personal and family security, which Meta said is necessary to address specific threats to their safety. "We require these security measures for the company's benefit because of the importance of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg to Meta, and we believe that the scope and costs of these security programs are appropriate and necessary," the proxy statement said. > Zuckerberg is in the unique position, Meta said, of being synonymous with the company because of the size of its user base and its continued presence thanks to less-than-positive legal and media attention. "As a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr Zuckerberg."