Why does anyone make 200M at a publicly owned company?
The idea of having some government comittee or mob deciding my value to society and then taking what they feel is undeserved is infinitely scarier than some people doing disproportionately well.
And let's be clear, there is no other way to implement a policy like this because the criteria is totally subjective.
There is a way to implement this in an objective way. Simply heavily tax everybody who earns over a threshold amount. No judgement about what it is that they are doing. It doesn't matter.
> There is a way to implement this in an objective way...
[you earn more] --> [you pay more taxes]
[your job has some positive or negative effect on society] -.--<?><<!>-<>?>---<.. [your income]-Satya Nadella
You don’t get what you deserve. Often you don’t get what you ask for. You get only what you demand through persistent and effective negotiation.
This is true for a lot of things in life, but it is particularly true for engineering salary.
If your point was, perhaps his salary is so “low” because he actually believes what he said then you may be on to something.
Here we have someone of tomorrow they went to the Board and said, “I’m going to need $200M a year in comp to stay on” they would be insane to turn him down.
If you look at what Microsoft has accomplished under Nadella’s leadership, the level of operating profit and growth, he should absolutely be worth $200M to Microsoft and shareholders of Microsoft.
It’s not about the number of hours you work. There is a non-linearity when someone can look at a situation and see a solution, or devise a plan, or organize a strategy, or forge a partnership, or foresee an acquisition, that without that person in that position, the company would miss out on potentially $Billions of opportunity. You pay a lot of money if you can get the right person in the room to make those company-crucial decisions correctly.