3 ms·

The most remarkable thing to me about this to me isn't necessarily the disparity between CEO and min wage (I already knew it was crazy). Instead, it's the diff

by mlsu 3y ago

The most remarkable thing to me about this to me isn't necessarily the disparity between CEO and min wage (I already knew it was crazy). Instead, it's the differences between CEO compensation. Sundar is making $300 to Satya's $65? what? I know it's an estimate and the numbers are made up at that level but still!

warner25 3y ago
I wonder a lot about what motivates people at that level, and about how these negotiations go. As someone who has always been a W-2 employee, and who has never had much individual negotiating power, it feels impossible to wrap my head around this. On one hand, if I could get compensation in the hundreds of millions per year, it's tempting to think that I'd "work" for six months and then retire with wealth beyond my wildest dreams. On the other hand, nobody appears to do that. So maybe it's lifestyle inflation, or maybe it's just intoxicating to have that kind of power and status and everything that comes with it besides the money. The existence of government executives and military flag officers, who aren't even paid that much money and could retire whenever they want with generous pensions, seems to indicate that money isn't the primary motivation. In terms of negotiations, it's hard to imagine that the boards of Alphabet or Microsoft couldn't find someone equally qualified to take the CEO job for less than these amounts.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  I'm assuming it's a selection bias. If the CEO can retire absurdly wealthy in six months, and the VP of whatever can "only" retire in a couple years, then the VP is probably going to retire before they reach the C-suite. The only people left to get promoted to the C-suite are the ones for whom it's a type A lifestyle or something. Likewise if Zuck had been content selling to google and retiring to an island or wherever, he probably wouldn't have become a name we all still know.
  - warner25 3y ago
    I think you're right (regarding why nobody seems to retire after six months of CEO-level compensation). I mentioned military flag officers because that's the world that I know best. Most career military officers have no interest in becoming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or whatever; they're perfectly content with a normal, middle-class retirement as a lieutenant colonel long before they would become any kind of powerful public figure. So the only people who remain on track competing to become generals or admirals are already kind of weird in this way.
Romanulus 3y ago
[dead]
Veserv 3y ago
You think that is big. Mark Zuckerberg received ~436x the average US worker. Elon Musk received ~462x Mark Zuckerberg. Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg is bigger than the difference between Mark Zuckerberg to the average US worker. To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg does probably make more money from the appreciation of their existing stock rather than their new compensation. David Zaslav, the second lowest listed on the website does ~630x the average worker and Elon Musk makes ~320x David Zaslav. The average S&P 500 CEO does ~270x the average worker and ~1110x the minimum wage. Elon Musk makes ~750x the average S&P 500 CEO. Elon Musk makes the average S&P 500 CEO look proportionally poorer than the average worker and almost makes enough to make the average S&P 500 CEO look like a minimum wage worker.

by mlsu 3y ago

warner25 3y ago

I wonder a lot about what motivates people at that level, and about how these negotiations go. As someone who has always been a W-2 employee, and who has never had much individual negotiating power, it feels impossible to wrap my head around this. On one hand, if I could get compensation in the hundreds of millions per year, it's tempting to think that I'd "work" for six months and then retire with wealth beyond my wildest dreams. On the other hand, nobody appears to do that. So maybe it's lifestyle inflation, or maybe it's just intoxicating to have that kind of power and status and everything that comes with it besides the money. The existence of government executives and military flag officers, who aren't even paid that much money and could retire whenever they want with generous pensions, seems to indicate that money isn't the primary motivation. In terms of negotiations, it's hard to imagine that the boards of Alphabet or Microsoft couldn't find someone equally qualified to take the CEO job for less than these amounts.

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
I'm assuming it's a selection bias. If the CEO can retire absurdly wealthy in six months, and the VP of whatever can "only" retire in a couple years, then the VP is probably going to retire before they reach the C-suite. The only people left to get promoted to the C-suite are the ones for whom it's a type A lifestyle or something. Likewise if Zuck had been content selling to google and retiring to an island or wherever, he probably wouldn't have become a name we all still know.
- warner25 3y ago
  I think you're right (regarding why nobody seems to retire after six months of CEO-level compensation). I mentioned military flag officers because that's the world that I know best. Most career military officers have no interest in becoming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or whatever; they're perfectly content with a normal, middle-class retirement as a lieutenant colonel long before they would become any kind of powerful public figure. So the only people who remain on track competing to become generals or admirals are already kind of weird in this way.

Romanulus 3y ago

[dead]

Veserv 3y ago

You think that is big. Mark Zuckerberg received ~436x the average US worker. Elon Musk received ~462x Mark Zuckerberg. Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg is bigger than the difference between Mark Zuckerberg to the average US worker. To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg does probably make more money from the appreciation of their existing stock rather than their new compensation. David Zaslav, the second lowest listed on the website does ~630x the average worker and Elon Musk makes ~320x David Zaslav. The average S&P 500 CEO does ~270x the average worker and ~1110x the minimum wage. Elon Musk makes ~750x the average S&P 500 CEO. Elon Musk makes the average S&P 500 CEO look proportionally poorer than the average worker and almost makes enough to make the average S&P 500 CEO look like a minimum wage worker.