4 ms·

By that logic, Sundar's pay is completely justified, as well as the pay cuts for Software Engineers, as more and more people become software engineers every day

By that logic, Sundar's pay is completely justified, as well as the pay cuts for Software Engineers, as more and more people become software engineers every day and available pool of workers continues to increase.

ceejayoz 3y ago
You don’t think they could find a competent CEO for, say, $100M?
- segasaturn 3y ago
  You don't think you could find a competent software engineer for $80k?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Sure can. A race to the bottom for engineers at the same time there’s ever-increasing CEO pay is gross. That’s the point.
  - unpopular42 3y ago
    No chance if the competitor next door pays $300k
  - eftychis 3y ago
    Depending on the field: No. Depends also on the definition of "competent."
- eftychis 3y ago
  Well the whole argument here by a big section of comments -- if not the majority -- including Googlers is "they haven't found one in Sundar." I think finding a great CEO for the particular strategy and company is harder than we all think. (Yes I know the fault of the previous sentence -- it was on purpose.)
- PeterisP 3y ago
  They probably could find "a competent CEO", but that's not the bar, and it doesn't make sense to do so, because of the oversized impact and risks. If you're 99% certain that a person is as competent as the current CEO and 1% they're a dud like Carly Fiorina, then saving a measly $100m is not worth the enormous risk. And if you've got a candidate that makes you certain that they would be even slightly more competent than Pichai, then it would be worth paying an extra $100m to get them; if CEO A can get e.g. 1% more efficiency than CEO B (for example, by being more aggressive at laying off people) then that's easily worth that money.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    You can't be certain of any of this, though, without a time machine to do some A/B testing.
junipertea 3y ago
Well, yeah. Experience with multibillion companies is lottery, knowing software a commodity.

ceejayoz 3y ago

You don’t think they could find a competent CEO for, say, $100M?

segasaturn 3y ago
You don't think you could find a competent software engineer for $80k?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Sure can. A race to the bottom for engineers at the same time there’s ever-increasing CEO pay is gross. That’s the point.
- unpopular42 3y ago
  No chance if the competitor next door pays $300k
- eftychis 3y ago
  Depending on the field: No. Depends also on the definition of "competent."
eftychis 3y ago
Well the whole argument here by a big section of comments -- if not the majority -- including Googlers is "they haven't found one in Sundar." I think finding a great CEO for the particular strategy and company is harder than we all think. (Yes I know the fault of the previous sentence -- it was on purpose.)
PeterisP 3y ago
They probably could find "a competent CEO", but that's not the bar, and it doesn't make sense to do so, because of the oversized impact and risks. If you're 99% certain that a person is as competent as the current CEO and 1% they're a dud like Carly Fiorina, then saving a measly $100m is not worth the enormous risk. And if you've got a candidate that makes you certain that they would be even slightly more competent than Pichai, then it would be worth paying an extra $100m to get them; if CEO A can get e.g. 1% more efficiency than CEO B (for example, by being more aggressive at laying off people) then that's easily worth that money.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  You can't be certain of any of this, though, without a time machine to do some A/B testing.

junipertea 3y ago

Well, yeah. Experience with multibillion companies is lottery, knowing software a commodity.