Hacker News Reader

Comment by Meekro | Hacker News Reader

Yes-- if he can generate much more than $50 billion in value for Tesla shareholders, and they give him $50 billion in compensation, that's a fair trade in my book.

View on HN

Nobody in the history of work has ever earned 50 billion dollars. It's winnings. That's all.

That wholly depends on your definition of the term 'earned'. If you compare it to the way most people look at it - earning money through hard work against an hourly rate - it does not make any sense at all. If you define it in terms of gains - monetary or otherwise - created through the actions of a person things look different and there are many people who would have 'earned' this amount and more. In practice hardly anyone who 'earns' so much actually is awarded the amount they 'earn' but Musk took a gamble which would normally have paid off like many be-suited-and-tied types (and quite a few be-shirted-and-hoodied in more recent years) have taken such gambles before him have done. As to why Musk is singled out here where others like Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg were left alone does raise a number of questions related to the impartiality of the legal system.

Nobody has ever “earned” any money. They trade services and goods for it.

That's beyond ridiculous. What true value has he generated? Also if the stock tanks then shouldn't investors have a right to strip some of that compensation? 50 billion to millions of investors and 50 million to one guy is hardly a fair trade. Not to mention how many times he's promised to deliver new features or products and comes up terribly short.

Tesla market cap is $600B. The shareholders made a lot of money. That was the deal.

He was paid to be CEO and drive the company towards particular goals. The entire point of leadership is to make sure those happen, not to do them yourself.

You can claim the amount should be lower, but then your argument is with the shareholders who came up with the proposal and approved it.

That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The shareholders allege Musk came up with the proposal, controlled the process, then lied about it to shareholders. The judge found in their favor after a trial.

So why does Musk deserve this again? Because he says so?

No, that’s not what they claimed. The judge found that the board was to biased in favor of Musk. Not that he came up with anything.

The judge found that "At least as to this transaction, Musk controlled Tesla".

Meaning that Musk directed the creation of the compensation package, not that the compensation committee were merely biased. The analysis of this is on pages 103-146 of the ruling.

I want to point out that, you are arguing with a guy who defends a person who spends more time shitposting on twitter then running a company that he really deserves $50bn bonus.

You can spend your time better than this ;)

lol what are you taking about, arguing on the internet is the highest calling! :P

at least argue with someone who might be reasoned with, like flat eathers or underground resistance of reptilian overloads

The stock doesn't pay dividends. Why not pay dividends and let investors purchase more stock with the proceeds. Smells like speculation and an invitation to getting sued and prosecuted.

Yes. All by himself. So many all nighters building cars, alone. “Just one more car, so I can, alone, provide value.”

The board believed (quite reasonably) that Elon had the power to determine the trajectory of the stock over the next 5 years, and they acted on that belief by tying his compensation to particular stock goals. The board then put that compensation plan to a shareholder vote, and the shareholders approved it.

The stock hit those goals, and Elon got paid.

Then one guy with 9 shares said it's not fair, and got a judge to agree.

I love it, the legal system really is a great equalizer sometimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com