4 ms·
> He is getting a raise because you are getting cost cuts and layoffs. He is getting a raise because the relative power of his position gives him coercive powe
by hayst4ck 3y ago
> He is getting a raise because you are getting cost cuts and layoffs.
He is getting a raise because the relative power of his position gives him coercive power over employees.
If any particular employee is upset with the decision he can make them feel pain, while it would take a lot of employees working together to cause him any pain at all. He can arbitrarily exercise his power because there is little to stop him or hold him back.
- vecter 3y agoThis would be true if Sundar chose his own compensation, but he does not. It is decided by the board. I'm not saying it's the right thing for the board to do (if I were on the board, I would've suggested he keep his pay even or take a cut), but it's not right to say that Sundar gets paid more because he has "coercive power" over employees.
- Retric 3y agoYou’re focusing on the wrong party here, the employees are getting cost cuts rather than a raise because they lack negotiating power. Him getting a raise is a result of employees losing.
- chii 3y ago> Him getting a raise is a result of employees losing. it's not a direct relationship. The CEO gets a pay rise if the board believes it to be something worth doing - for example, rewarding the CEO for doing something unpopular (and taking flak for it). The employees "losing" isn't a cause, it's an effect. The company needs to lower costs, and do some layoffs, in order to make it more profitable. And if a company is more profitable, the CEO is doing it's job. A company doesn't look out for employees; at least only up to the extend where the employees make them money.
- lajupechere 3y agoYou’re still focusing on the wrong thing.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think they're presenting a more accurate description of how the world actually works, which is useful. When people make a claim that X happens because of Y, that is a claim of causality which can be true or false or missing important factors.
- Retric 3y agoExcept he didn’t actually explain why and more specifically when just what. The question isn’t why the CEO got rewarded for doing X, but what changed to allow him to make this now vs those same cuts happening 10 years ago. It’s not like Google was in an unprofitable downward spiral and needed cuts to turn things around the only change is how wildly profitable they are.
- s1artibartfast 3y agolots changed, but mainly the economic environment. Google is still wildly profitable of course. The relevant question is could those workers generate more than %5 returns on that $70B google is using for stock buybacks. The company leadership and investors seem to think the answer is NO. Therefore you fire the workers, Give cash to investors, and the investors park it with the fed getting >5% interest, with zero risk, and no need to worry about workers, products, or customers. This is the entire point of the FED rate raises. Hoover up all of the money floating around being invested in company growth and new product development. Once you get enough layoffs and paycuts, eventually inflation will go down because people cant buy shit. Thats the "long answer why".
- hayst4ck 3y ago> Once you get enough layoffs and paycuts, eventually inflation will go down because people cant buy shit. If people can't buy stuff why wouldn't you expect marginal cost to go up? More people buying more stuff means economies of scale. Less people buying less stuff means the loss of economies of scale. If people are less able to buy stuff, I don't see any reason to believe that prices would go down. If anything it seems like it creates an incredibly negative feedback loop. A company might firesale their inventory resulting a temporary reduction of inflation, but it seems like production would decrease because demand decreased, which would result in more layoffs and stagnation. I am not an economist, so I guess I am curious why stagflation is not the expected result.
- Retric 3y agoAgain you’re ignore the root cause for the proximate cause. A companies looks after their employees when they are forced to do so by market forces, unions, laws etc. None of which applied here. > The company needs to lower costs, and do some layoffs, in order to make it more profitable. That doesn’t explain timing as companies always want to be more profitable and Google was profitable before and after these cuts. So what prevented those cuts from happening sooner? It would have backfired if attempted sooner. Thus the CEO’s decision to shaft these people is the result of those employees lack of economic, political etc power. If everyone would say quit for a better offer then he wouldn’t make that decision and thus wouldn’t get rewarded for the decision.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- s1artibartfast 3y agothe employees aren't giving him a raise, the board is. he is getting a raise because he has more leverage with his boss then they do with theirs.
- Retric 3y agoThe question is why aren’t the employees getting a raise not just why is he getting a raise. Employees are getting cost cuts rather than a raise because they lack power. He’s getting a raise because employees are getting shafted.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- taneq 3y agoCoercive power over the company, no? Otherwise he wouldn’t be getting that pay raise no matter how mean he was to the employees.