5 ms·

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

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]