3 ms·

I really disagree on this. I’m not saying nadella hat no merit but: * msft was already a giant before he took over. Expanding this is not easy but it’s not like

I really disagree on this. I’m not saying nadella hat no merit but: * msft was already a giant before he took over. Expanding this is not easy but it’s not like becoming a giant, very large companies have huge advantages, many of which completely unfair, which many govt are starting to try to push back on. * as stated before, it’s a one way street: if he increases Msft value, he makes millions. If he crashes msft, he makes millions, just less of them. His risk is not comparable to the risk of “normal” employees who can be laid off tomorrow. Hence I really think the pay gap is ethically questionable.

zpeti 2y ago
He gets laid off to if he fails. And both he and employees get to keep what they've earned up to that point. I don't see the difference except in the size of the paypacket. Both are employees, and are owed AT MOST 30 days of work.
- illiac786 2y ago
  >size of the paypacket that is my point. „Getting laid off“ means millions for him anyway.
- sofixa 2y ago
  CEOs often leave with millions in golden parachutes even after abject failures. Employees don't have such luxuries, especially if they fail at their jobs.