Is it really disgusting? Google stock rose 65% in 2021. Unless you are working at the cafeteria, the recent inflation had little impact on the compensation of Google employees.
Executives tend to have salaries that are a fraction of total comp.
>The Mountain View, CA-based company will be raising the salaries of four execs from $650,000 to $1 million...
That $350,000 doesn't even move the needle? Why is the focus there?
context:
other1:
> That’s disgusting. These 4 execs made order 200M in 2020, Google took in 130B in quarterly revenue in q4. and they have the steel procreators to tell their employees about how they can’t give quality of life adjustments during on of the worst inflationary periods in 100 years. Fuck google with a pointy stick.
other2:
> Is it really disgusting? Google stock rose 65% in 2021. Unless you are working at the cafeteria, the recent inflation had little impact on the compensation of Google employees.
other3:
> So by that logic execs certainly didn't need an increase in salary?
you:
> Did they get a salary increase? Or did their equity just go up like everyone else?
> Executives tend to have salaries that are a fraction of total comp.
other4:
> I mean, it's literally the second sentence of the article we're discussing...
> >The Mountain View, CA-based company will be raising the salaries of four execs from $650,000 to $1 million...
you:
> Sure, but "They also received stock awards valued at between $23 million and $35 million, split between performance-based equity and stock that vests over time, the filing states.".
> That $350,000 doesn't even move the needle? Why is the focus there?
So this thread starts off with criticizing Google over not giving COL adjustments in a terrible period of inflation given their massive profits.
Someone says the stock gains negate the impact of inflation.
Someone else says if stock increases were sufficient, then why did execs need a salary bump.
You asked if they got a salary increase.
Someone else points out that they did.
You then point out they got lots of stock.
And then say that their salary increase barely moves the needle so why focus there?
The point seems to have been lost here.
To go back to the original point, the point was that Google denied their employees COL adjustments. If giving their execs salary bumps didn't even move the needle for them, then why give it to them especially when they denied their other employees COL adjustments despite having massive profits?
Mountain View paradise has an underclass?
Since they actually work for the contracting or temp company and not the contracting customer of that company, the arrangement doesn't generally include equity, profit-sharing and other benefits from the contracting company. However, the employee of the temp or contracting company might be able to negotiate equity, profit-sharing or other benefits from their employer if their market value is sufficiently high. It all depends on the arrangement the employee makes with their employer and that is usually driven by how in-demand, rare and proven the particular employee's skills are.
I've found it valuable to have the flexibility to choose whether I want to be an employee or a contractor depending on the market, company and my goals at the time. Over the decades I've experienced the upside and the downside of being an employee working alongside contractors who were taking home substantially more per day than I was but not getting equity. Sometimes my options ended up being nearly worthless and other times it worked out extremely well. Conversely, at other times I've been a short-term contractor able to negotiate fantastic weekly take-home pay. Sometimes that worked out very well and other times it would've been even better for me to have taken the job offer and been an equity employee. But I would have had to stay three or four years to vest, sacrificing the flexibility to pick my assignments, location and schedule.
Having experienced all sides of this, I've found the determining factor isn't really the choice of compensation model. What matters most is developing unique skills and being able to consistently deliver tangible value. How I choose to monetize my value is up to me and, like any investment, I get to 'pick my poison' and live with the consequences. Barring random luck, increased certainty and immediacy of minimum guaranteed compensation tends to come at the cost of potential maximum upside.
Employees only get to plan in the macro. They can go long or short, not respond to real economic events, opportunities, or headwinds.
Frankly, I never found lockdowns to be really onerous at all. You can’t really time the market anyway.
Of course, while waiting on the vesting period, they grow, but those grants were made a while ago - contingent on your employment - which means the growth is part of the expectation of the compensation. After all, the stock _could_ drop during that period too, and you don't get extra cash compensation to, well, compensate.
Therefore, you cannot use the stock price growth to argue that they don't need inflationary wage adjustments.