4 ms·

Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more

Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more important? Like what else could he buy? But his reputation is taking severe hits. Maybe I just don't understand ultra rich people though. Maybe money is everything.

spicyusername 4y ago
Yeah, I think compensation is a kind of score that the ruling class competes on. It's not about whether they are happier, are making the world better, or have enough. It's only about having more at all costs.
refulgentis 4y ago
When you get that high up in a corp., your North Star is “shareholder value”, and you’re probably right to do that. I wouldn’t want to and won’t if I was ever lucky enough to have the opportunity. But what are the alternatives?
- esafak 4y ago
  Crashing your company does not create shareholder value.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  The alternative I was envisioning was similar to what Costco does on the retail side. Nearly every other retailer aims to maximize profits from their customers. Costco tries to offer the lowest prices it possibly can. This has huge implications for how the company is structured and where it uses its energy. Imagine a tech company that focused entirely on making the user experience as good as it possibly could, rather than one trying to extract as much money as they can this quarter.
dorkwood 4y ago
Wouldn’t half of that go to tax, though?
- vore 4y ago
  Poor Pichai would only end up with a meager $113 million after tax, so sad.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  No. Just under 1/3 would go to taxes.
balderdash 4y ago
Part (and I do mean part) of the explanation is that people’s expectations around peer group and lifestyle changes. He’s probabaly looking at Larry Ellison and feeling poor, and that he needs to have (make up a number) $1b in the bank to support his lifestyle (planes, houses, hobbies, philanthropic giving, etc.). I bet if you asked in 2004 (pre-google) what the comparable number was, it was like $20-40m…
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  What type of lifestyle does $1 billion make available that is not already affordable with $200 million?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    Mega-yachts and associated maintenance, larger private jets and associated maintenance, naming any given building or school etc. in the world after yourself
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      I'd classify those things as ways of showing off your reputation, not improving your quality of life. Once your yacht is of a certain size, the only reason to make it bigger is to demonstrate how much wealthier you are than other yacht owners. And that's fine, but I wish we lived in a society where "runs a company that doesn't mistreat users" (or treats employees well, or helps the planet, etc) was clearly more important to someone's reputation than the size of their yacht.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        > Once your yacht is of a certain size, the only reason to make it bigger is to demonstrate how much wealthier you are than other yacht owners. This may or may not be the opinion of people in the position to actually assess it. It can be the difference between being able to go to a place you want to go or not, based on range or seaworthiness. It can be the difference between having an amenity on the craft or not.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Some people just don't care about things like that. They might pretend to care because that might get them what they want, but they see actually caring to be a weakness.
assbuttbuttass 4y ago
It's not about Pichai personally. By design, a company must deliver value to it's shareholders.
lumb63 4y ago
The CEO just executes the will of the board, who in turn execute the will of shareholders (types A and B shareholders, specifically, for Alphabet) who are mostly focused on delivering maximum returns. If you look at the voting power of Alphabet shareholders, it is dominated (~60%) by Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
- rchaud 4y ago
  It is humorous to see posts laying the blame for increased ads on Gmail at the CEO's doorstep. What is Gmail's split of ad revenue compared to Search or YouTube? A hundredth of a percent?
p_j_w 4y ago
>Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more important? Perhaps it is, but your reputation among which group? HN users or the other billionaires that you're hanging out with?
derefr 4y ago
Remember that these bigcos have tens of thousands of salaried employees, and those employees all get stock options. A bigco CEO might no longer be motivated by personal gain, nor by public reputation; but rather, by private reputation, within their own company, among their employees. After all, their employees — especially the executives — are the group of people a CEO is surrounded by every working day. So, assuming they're neither a sociopath nor an Effective Altruist, why wouldn't they feel a strong empathetic desire to "help" the people right in front of them? And presuming they want to help those people, why wouldn't they then conclude that the best, most scalable way they have to do that, is to make sure that those people are all set for life by holding high-value amounts of company stock; and that the most comparative-advantage-y way the CEO has of accomplishing that, is to make the share price go up? Or, to put that another way: a pirate captain doesn't go home once they're personally rich. They made a (perhaps unstated) agreement with their crew: they won't go home until everyone is rich, and they can all comfortably retire. Until then, they'll continue to exploit others for their own gain.

spicyusername 4y ago

Yeah, I think compensation is a kind of score that the ruling class competes on. It's not about whether they are happier, are making the world better, or have enough. It's only about having more at all costs.

refulgentis 4y ago

When you get that high up in a corp., your North Star is “shareholder value”, and you’re probably right to do that. I wouldn’t want to and won’t if I was ever lucky enough to have the opportunity. But what are the alternatives?

esafak 4y ago
Crashing your company does not create shareholder value.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
The alternative I was envisioning was similar to what Costco does on the retail side. Nearly every other retailer aims to maximize profits from their customers. Costco tries to offer the lowest prices it possibly can. This has huge implications for how the company is structured and where it uses its energy. Imagine a tech company that focused entirely on making the user experience as good as it possibly could, rather than one trying to extract as much money as they can this quarter.

dorkwood 4y ago

Wouldn’t half of that go to tax, though?

vore 4y ago
Poor Pichai would only end up with a meager $113 million after tax, so sad.
HWR_14 4y ago
No. Just under 1/3 would go to taxes.

balderdash 4y ago

Part (and I do mean part) of the explanation is that people’s expectations around peer group and lifestyle changes. He’s probabaly looking at Larry Ellison and feeling poor, and that he needs to have (make up a number) $1b in the bank to support his lifestyle (planes, houses, hobbies, philanthropic giving, etc.). I bet if you asked in 2004 (pre-google) what the comparable number was, it was like $20-40m…

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
What type of lifestyle does $1 billion make available that is not already affordable with $200 million?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  Mega-yachts and associated maintenance, larger private jets and associated maintenance, naming any given building or school etc. in the world after yourself
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    I'd classify those things as ways of showing off your reputation, not improving your quality of life. Once your yacht is of a certain size, the only reason to make it bigger is to demonstrate how much wealthier you are than other yacht owners. And that's fine, but I wish we lived in a society where "runs a company that doesn't mistreat users" (or treats employees well, or helps the planet, etc) was clearly more important to someone's reputation than the size of their yacht.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > Once your yacht is of a certain size, the only reason to make it bigger is to demonstrate how much wealthier you are than other yacht owners. This may or may not be the opinion of people in the position to actually assess it. It can be the difference between being able to go to a place you want to go or not, based on range or seaworthiness. It can be the difference between having an amenity on the craft or not.

heavyset_go 4y ago

Some people just don't care about things like that. They might pretend to care because that might get them what they want, but they see actually caring to be a weakness.

assbuttbuttass 4y ago

It's not about Pichai personally. By design, a company must deliver value to it's shareholders.

lumb63 4y ago

The CEO just executes the will of the board, who in turn execute the will of shareholders (types A and B shareholders, specifically, for Alphabet) who are mostly focused on delivering maximum returns. If you look at the voting power of Alphabet shareholders, it is dominated (~60%) by Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

rchaud 4y ago
It is humorous to see posts laying the blame for increased ads on Gmail at the CEO's doorstep. What is Gmail's split of ad revenue compared to Search or YouTube? A hundredth of a percent?

p_j_w 4y ago

>Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more important? Perhaps it is, but your reputation among which group? HN users or the other billionaires that you're hanging out with?

derefr 4y ago

Remember that these bigcos have tens of thousands of salaried employees, and those employees all get stock options. A bigco CEO might no longer be motivated by personal gain, nor by public reputation; but rather, by private reputation, within their own company, among their employees. After all, their employees — especially the executives — are the group of people a CEO is surrounded by every working day. So, assuming they're neither a sociopath nor an Effective Altruist, why wouldn't they feel a strong empathetic desire to "help" the people right in front of them? And presuming they want to help those people, why wouldn't they then conclude that the best, most scalable way they have to do that, is to make sure that those people are all set for life by holding high-value amounts of company stock; and that the most comparative-advantage-y way the CEO has of accomplishing that, is to make the share price go up? Or, to put that another way: a pirate captain doesn't go home once they're personally rich. They made a (perhaps unstated) agreement with their crew: they won't go home until everyone is rich, and they can all comfortably retire. Until then, they'll continue to exploit others for their own gain.