3 ms·

So if they paid him 0$ they could have kept 500-1,000 out of those 12,000 employees? And that's assuming none of his pay was redistributed to any of the employe

So if they paid him 0$ they could have kept 500-1,000 out of those 12,000 employees? And that's assuming none of his pay was redistributed to any of the employees they kept. That's the thing with these gigantic numbers, they always look really impressive, but when you divide them by the actual number of employees involved it's not a huge per-employee benefit. Not saying it's fair, just that if you stare starry eyed at the number thinking cutting out the top would make a huge difference in you're life, you're mistaken.

scarface74 3y ago
Seeing that Google has failed at every single initiative outside of ads, employees aren’t what they need. They need a vision.
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  As I get older and (hopefully) wiser, I’ve come to the conclusion that vision is about 50% of success, and getting that vision to market - execution - is the other 50%. The moment you lose the vision or drop the ball, you’re doomed.
kenjackson 3y ago
Were you trying to say 500-1000 of the employees isn't a huge number?
- ghostpepper 3y ago
  It's roughly 4%. I would not call 4% of anything huge.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    Consensus is that a 4% APR on a savings account is huge...
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    That's just an absurd statement. If there was a new airline that said, "Only 4% of our flights end in crashes" -- I think you'd avoid it at all costs. Another way to look at his pay -- is he worth 4X what Satya is? Is he having 4X the positive impact at Google as what Satya is at Microsoft? Or another way to put it, what if you ONLY paid him $50M and kept 400 engineers (assuming they weren't laying off underperformers) -- would they be better off?
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  Well, turn it around. Instead of letting go of 12,000 people, if they cut his salary to zero the they would “only” have let go of 11,000. Nevertheless, I still think the outrage is justified. Just not on financial grounds.
izacus 3y ago
Now recalculate by using also additionally authorized 70B of stock buybacks to float the stocks that make those 220mil.

scarface74 3y ago

Seeing that Google has failed at every single initiative outside of ads, employees aren’t what they need. They need a vision.

doctor_eval 3y ago
As I get older and (hopefully) wiser, I’ve come to the conclusion that vision is about 50% of success, and getting that vision to market - execution - is the other 50%. The moment you lose the vision or drop the ball, you’re doomed.

kenjackson 3y ago

Were you trying to say 500-1000 of the employees isn't a huge number?

ghostpepper 3y ago
It's roughly 4%. I would not call 4% of anything huge.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  Consensus is that a 4% APR on a savings account is huge...
- kenjackson 3y ago
  That's just an absurd statement. If there was a new airline that said, "Only 4% of our flights end in crashes" -- I think you'd avoid it at all costs. Another way to look at his pay -- is he worth 4X what Satya is? Is he having 4X the positive impact at Google as what Satya is at Microsoft? Or another way to put it, what if you ONLY paid him $50M and kept 400 engineers (assuming they weren't laying off underperformers) -- would they be better off?
doctor_eval 3y ago
Well, turn it around. Instead of letting go of 12,000 people, if they cut his salary to zero the they would “only” have let go of 11,000. Nevertheless, I still think the outrage is justified. Just not on financial grounds.

izacus 3y ago

Now recalculate by using also additionally authorized 70B of stock buybacks to float the stocks that make those 220mil.