6 ms·
Google would still be making a ton of money even with a CEO that did nothing. For a $226M compensation, we should be able to demand a bit more don't you think?
by lawn 4y ago
Google would still be making a ton of money even with a CEO that did nothing.
For a $226M compensation, we should be able to demand a bit more don't you think?
- hammyhavoc 4y agoWho is "we" in your comment?
- blthroaway 4y agoProbably he means the collective that has installed themselves to be the vocal judges of all things humanity - mostly for their own benefit.
- osigurdson 4y agoMaybe OP is a shareholder. Most people probably own some google stock via ETFs even if they didn't explicitly buy the stock.
- sysstemlord 4y agoWe the guys discussing whether he has or hasn't done something worth hundreds of millions, you don't have to be so word picky.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoI'm not picky, I asked an honest question. I'd argue that most human beings never do anything worth even a million dollars, let alone hundreds of millions, especially execs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- stanwesley 4y ago> we should be able to demand a bit more Are you a major shareholder?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lawn 4y agoNo, just a minor one.
- hcks 4y agoThere is no "we". Google's purpose is not to advance peoplekind. The shareholders decide on the compensation of the CEO, that's literally it.
- lawn 4y agoAnd yet here we are, on the front-page of HN discussing exactly this. These responses asking who "we" are feels like (bad) attempts at justifying the hilariously inefficient salary, as if "it's none of your business" is the best counterargument to why they should be paid so much but provide so little. Also, I and I'm sure many others here are shareholders, if that matters.