Hating capitalism is one thing. Being clueless how it works is childish.
200M over 3 years for the CEO of the most consequential tech company on the planet is peanuts. Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune
200M over 3 years for the CEO of the most consequential tech company on the planet is peanuts. Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing autotune
Which pop artist is making anywhere near 220M in take home over 3 years? 70M/year is Taylor Swift numbers, and shes the highest earning female artist ever.
I wasn't the one that made the implication that Taylor Swift's lifetime revenue was "peanuts"
> What pop artist makes that much?
>> Swift
>>> But she's the top of pop artists, that's not a fair comparison (implied: because google should be paying a more "normal" amount)
In which case "but Google is the top of tech" would be a fair counterpoint. But if the argument is that even the top of pop artists doesn't come close, then... I'm not sure what argument we're having, actually, but yes, it's a different point.
The implication is that 220M is peanuts because pop artists who just sell sex and use autotune make that kind money. Describing Taylor swift as someone who "squeeze autotune" is ridiculous; Taylor Swift has arguable done more than Sundar.
Are pop stars who "dress sexy and abuse autotune" making sundar money? Does Taylor Swift fit that profile? How did we go from "scantily clad and squeezing autotune" to "actually I meant elite popstars"? You have a guy making 3-4x more than his peers (at Microsoft and Apple, who CEO, despite performing better than Sundar took a pay cut!), being compared to the highest grossing entertainer of all time.
Satya and Tim weren’t being courted by anyone when they took their jobs.
CEO pay ratio is fucked in the US in any realm. It's just because those at the top have more leverage, they don't necessarily have more value.
It's not about whether it makes sense to pay a CEO a lot, it's more about the disproportionate allocation of capital, and how it allows enough room for error that a CEO or exec could be outrageously overpaid and not harm them overall.
Said differently: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just pointing out that they can also be upset over pop artists' pay
What motivation will Sundar have if you pay him 200K?
The balanced answer then is to pay a CEO {something closer to $20M} and he will be motivated by {something closer to $20M} (plus their expectations of future comp).
Whether that's $20M or $40M or $60M or more is up for debate. Googlers are saying: "It's not $226M"
Imposing a policy that if "the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO should share in that sacrifice" is literally insane because it's counterproductive - it would explicitly motivate the CEO to avoid cutting costs and avoid laying people off (since that would cut their personal income), while shareholders want the exactly opposite thing, to motivate the CEO to be aggressive in cutting costs (including layoffs) whenever it allows to increase long-term profits, so any CEO compensation policy (which is set by the shareholders) should reflect that.
Also, minimizing the effort it takes to become a pop artist and being prude is such a cliche.