7 ms·

Hating capitalism is one thing. Being clueless how it works is childish. 200M over 3 years for the CEO of the most consequential tech company on the planet is

Hating capitalism is one thing. Being clueless how it works is childish. 200M over 3 years for the CEO of the most consequential tech company on the planet is peanuts. Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune

airstrike 3y ago
That's whataboutism. Googlers are comparing their pay (and layoffs) to the CEO's comp--pop artists are an entirely separate matter and Googlers may also feel those are paid too much Said differently: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just pointing out that they can also be upset over pop artists' pay
- jimsimmons 3y ago
  OpenAI is allegedly paying 5-20M for researchers. Shouldn’t CEO deserve 20x more? What motivation will Sundar have if you pay him 200K?
  - nemothekid 3y ago
    Sundar is make 3x more than Satya while doing fuck-all and coasting in his tenure.
  - belval 3y ago
    It's still extreme. I have no doubt that he works extremely hard but what are shareholders getting for a 226M$ compensation instead of a 100M$ one?
  - airstrike 3y ago
    The question isn't about motivation and you're comparing $5-20M to $0.2M when the argument is $200M is too much The balanced answer then is to pay a CEO {something closer to $20M} and he will be motivated by {something closer to $20M} (plus their expectations of future comp). Whether that's $20M or $40M or $60M or more is up for debate. Googlers are saying: "It's not $226M"
  - not2b 3y ago
    There's a lot of room between 200k and 200M, and given that the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Layoffs aren't a sacrifice, it's the CEO acting against the interests of the ex-employees but in the interests of shareholders (which is his job) and for that they get amply compensated by the shareholders. Imposing a policy that if "the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice" is literally insane because it's counterproductive - it would explicitly motivate the CEO to avoid cutting costs and avoid laying people off (since that would cut their personal income), while shareholders want the exactly opposite thing, to motivate the CEO to be aggressive in cutting costs (including layoffs) whenever it allows to increase long-term profits, so any CEO compensation policy (which is set by the shareholders) should reflect that.
      - not2b 3y ago
        It is not necessarily in the interest of the shareholders if the compensation of top executives is so extreme as to starve a company of resources; this is especially the case because executives often only stay with a company a few years and are motivated to play games that produce short-term bumps in the stock price while harming long-term prospects (to pull this off the long term damage can't be completely obvious to analysts, but it often happens).
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    What is his special skill set?
    - jimsimmons 3y ago
      The fact that there’s no TLDR of his skill set is his skill set.
    - MPlus88 3y ago
      [dead]
nemothekid 3y ago
>Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune Which pop artist is making anywhere near 220M in take home over 3 years? 70M/year is Taylor Swift numbers, and shes the highest earning female artist ever.
- jimsimmons 3y ago
  Taylor Swift
  - nemothekid 3y ago
    Saying 'Pop artists make similar money' and then using the highest paid female artist ever is kind of misleading.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      Why? It's not like Google is average, either
      - nemothekid 3y ago
        >>Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune I wasn't the one that made the implication that Taylor Swift's lifetime revenue was "peanuts"
        yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        I'm not following, and rereading the thread now it looks like it's been edited to the point of not making sense. I thought the thread was something like: > What pop artist makes that much? >> Swift >>> But she's the top of pop artists, that's not a fair comparison (implied: because google should be paying a more "normal" amount) In which case "but Google is the top of tech" would be a fair counterpoint. But if the argument is that even the top of pop artists doesn't come close, then... I'm not sure what argument we're having, actually, but yes, it's a different point.
theoldlove 3y ago
Taylor Swift (one of the saaviest and wealthiest pop stars of the last 20 years) has a total net worth of $500 million. $225 million over three years is significantly more than she’s ever made.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
It's not the most consequential because of him. It was at that level when he got the job. Should the comp, in terms of who deserves the most money, go to the guy on top, or to the employees in proportion to their contribution? CEO pay ratio is fucked in the US in any realm. It's just because those at the top have more leverage, they don't necessarily have more value.
- zpthree 3y ago
  start a company and pay your CEO less if you want. Sergey and Larry believe he should get 226M, are you saying they are misjudging the situation?
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    Typical libertarian viewpoint. By that logic everything a company does, every price and all current things going on in the job market are ok and what the invisible hand deems right and fair. It's not about whether it makes sense to pay a CEO a lot, it's more about the disproportionate allocation of capital, and how it allows enough room for error that a CEO or exec could be outrageously overpaid and not harm them overall.
macromagnon 3y ago
If you like capitalism so much, then an artist having their income more clearly directly proportional to their output than some ceo definitely deserves a greater % of the profit. Also, minimizing the effort it takes to become a pop artist and being prude is such a cliche.

airstrike 3y ago

That's whataboutism. Googlers are comparing their pay (and layoffs) to the CEO's comp--pop artists are an entirely separate matter and Googlers may also feel those are paid too much Said differently: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just pointing out that they can also be upset over pop artists' pay

jimsimmons 3y ago
OpenAI is allegedly paying 5-20M for researchers. Shouldn’t CEO deserve 20x more? What motivation will Sundar have if you pay him 200K?
- nemothekid 3y ago
  Sundar is make 3x more than Satya while doing fuck-all and coasting in his tenure.
- belval 3y ago
  It's still extreme. I have no doubt that he works extremely hard but what are shareholders getting for a 226M$ compensation instead of a 100M$ one?
- airstrike 3y ago
  The question isn't about motivation and you're comparing $5-20M to $0.2M when the argument is $200M is too much The balanced answer then is to pay a CEO {something closer to $20M} and he will be motivated by {something closer to $20M} (plus their expectations of future comp). Whether that's $20M or $40M or $60M or more is up for debate. Googlers are saying: "It's not $226M"
- not2b 3y ago
  There's a lot of room between 200k and 200M, and given that the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Layoffs aren't a sacrifice, it's the CEO acting against the interests of the ex-employees but in the interests of shareholders (which is his job) and for that they get amply compensated by the shareholders. Imposing a policy that if "the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice" is literally insane because it's counterproductive - it would explicitly motivate the CEO to avoid cutting costs and avoid laying people off (since that would cut their personal income), while shareholders want the exactly opposite thing, to motivate the CEO to be aggressive in cutting costs (including layoffs) whenever it allows to increase long-term profits, so any CEO compensation policy (which is set by the shareholders) should reflect that.
    - not2b 3y ago
      It is not necessarily in the interest of the shareholders if the compensation of top executives is so extreme as to starve a company of resources; this is especially the case because executives often only stay with a company a few years and are motivated to play games that produce short-term bumps in the stock price while harming long-term prospects (to pull this off the long term damage can't be completely obvious to analysts, but it often happens).
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  What is his special skill set?
  - jimsimmons 3y ago
    The fact that there’s no TLDR of his skill set is his skill set.
  - MPlus88 3y ago
    [dead]

nemothekid 3y ago

>Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune Which pop artist is making anywhere near 220M in take home over 3 years? 70M/year is Taylor Swift numbers, and shes the highest earning female artist ever.

jimsimmons 3y ago
Taylor Swift
- nemothekid 3y ago
  Saying 'Pop artists make similar money' and then using the highest paid female artist ever is kind of misleading.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Why? It's not like Google is average, either
    - nemothekid 3y ago
      >>Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune I wasn't the one that made the implication that Taylor Swift's lifetime revenue was "peanuts"
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        I'm not following, and rereading the thread now it looks like it's been edited to the point of not making sense. I thought the thread was something like: > What pop artist makes that much? >> Swift >>> But she's the top of pop artists, that's not a fair comparison (implied: because google should be paying a more "normal" amount) In which case "but Google is the top of tech" would be a fair counterpoint. But if the argument is that even the top of pop artists doesn't come close, then... I'm not sure what argument we're having, actually, but yes, it's a different point.

theoldlove 3y ago

Taylor Swift (one of the saaviest and wealthiest pop stars of the last 20 years) has a total net worth of $500 million. $225 million over three years is significantly more than she’s ever made.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

It's not the most consequential because of him. It was at that level when he got the job. Should the comp, in terms of who deserves the most money, go to the guy on top, or to the employees in proportion to their contribution? CEO pay ratio is fucked in the US in any realm. It's just because those at the top have more leverage, they don't necessarily have more value.

zpthree 3y ago
start a company and pay your CEO less if you want. Sergey and Larry believe he should get 226M, are you saying they are misjudging the situation?
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Typical libertarian viewpoint. By that logic everything a company does, every price and all current things going on in the job market are ok and what the invisible hand deems right and fair. It's not about whether it makes sense to pay a CEO a lot, it's more about the disproportionate allocation of capital, and how it allows enough room for error that a CEO or exec could be outrageously overpaid and not harm them overall.

macromagnon 3y ago

If you like capitalism so much, then an artist having their income more clearly directly proportional to their output than some ceo definitely deserves a greater % of the profit. Also, minimizing the effort it takes to become a pop artist and being prude is such a cliche.