Microsoft's CEO Set To Make $84M

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Hmmm, a total compensation package worth $84.3 million? Not bad for less than nine months on the job.

Microsoft Corp’s new Chief Executive Satya Nadella has become one the technology industry’s biggest earners, with a total compensation package worth $84.3 million this year, according to a document filed with securities regulators on Monday.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, hasn't done a thing yet. He could walk and never have to lift a damn finger again in his life.

Good for him/screw that guy. :D
 
Yeah thats bullshit, could have kept all those people working and some of them I bet some had great ideas. Also kept their families going as well. But decided, "Naw, screw them all, I need the money more than they do" Thats the problem, you are rewarded for being cutthroat in the Corporate world...breeds a society of sociopaths at the top
 
The numbers have been going insane like this since the 70s.

Notice there isn't much trickling down?

Funny that. To think those fine, "conservative economists" said that the top percent getting richer would make everyone richer yet the exact opposite has been happening. Here we are living in the elitist dystopia of every sociopath's dreams still trying to get all that money to trickle down while our leaders are busting their fat bellies with laughter watching the western world unmake itself.
 
Uhh, CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world... How much money did Ballmer make not including his stock owned before he took over as CEO? A lot.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The numbers have been going insane like this since the 70s.

Notice there isn't much trickling down?

Funny that. To think those fine, "conservative economists" said that the top percent getting richer would make everyone richer yet the exact opposite has been happening. Here we are living in the elitist dystopia of every sociopath's dreams still trying to get all that money to trickle down while our leaders are busting their fat bellies with laughter watching the western world unmake itself.
Click to expand...
The money trickles all the way down to their bank accounts and tax shelters. And stays there. Forever.

But it's dumb blaming businesses for doing business, or expecting them to do anything that impacts their profits. MS swims in revenue because of the way they're allowed to sell Windows, i.e. "OEM" is MS vernacular for endless end-user sales with zero liability for end-user support.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The numbers have been going insane like this since the 70s.

Notice there isn't much trickling down?

Funny that. To think those fine, "conservative economists" said that the top percent getting richer would make everyone richer yet the exact opposite has been happening. Here we are living in the elitist dystopia of every sociopath's dreams still trying to get all that money to trickle down while our leaders are busting their fat bellies with laughter watching the western world unmake itself.
Click to expand...

In the real world it's trickle down shaft'nomics. You give the big man tax breaks, he gets rich. You tax and regulate the snot out of the big man, and he just passes the costs to the consumer and is forced to cut jobs... but he still gets rich and the little guy gets the shaft. The more you try to shaft the big man, the little guy gets hurt more. Either way, the big man will get rich. Higher taxes and regulations might actually be to the rich man's advantage, because he has less smaller competition to deal with.

And can't forget that big goverment with their large and complex laws like to do business with large lobby budgets.
 
Parmenides said:
In the real world it's trickle down shaft'nomics. You give the big man tax breaks, he gets rich. You tax and regulate the snot out of the big man, and he just passes the costs to the consumer and is forced to cut jobs... but he still gets rich and the little guy gets the shaft. The more you try to shaft the big man, the little guy gets hurt more. Either way, the big man will get rich. Higher taxes and regulations might actually be to the rich man's advantage, because he has less smaller competition to deal with.

And can't forget that big goverment with their large and complex laws like to do business with large lobby budgets.
Click to expand...

Sad but this is pretty much how things work to date. Short of government intervention limiting executive salaries (+ compensation) to something like 10x-15x the lowest paid person in the company, this will never be resolved.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The numbers have been going insane like this since the 70s.

Notice there isn't much trickling down?
Click to expand...
Actually it's accelerating somewhat. Since the start of the recession, about 95% of all income gains have gone to the top 1%. Even with job recovery, the majority of them are lower paying than the ones that were lost.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Sad but this is pretty much how things work to date. Short of government intervention limiting executive salaries (+ compensation) to something like 10x-15x the lowest paid person in the company, this will never be resolved.
Click to expand...

And 3 seconds after that law gets passed all the corporations get split into two. A holding company type construct that employs all the executives who earn within 15x of each others pay and then the group companies with the hoi polloi who earn 100th of the executives salary. Pay the executive roles in the group companies (have to exist for regulatory reasons) a nominal salary and the rort continues.
 
Every time I think I can't despise this twat anymore than I already do...

I'm sure the thousands of people you laid off will be so relieved to hear you'll be able to eek out a meager existence...you twat.
 
What a shock... a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company making just under 100million.
 
Apparently none of you RTFA. The vast majority of it is a long tern stock awards package that he won't even recieve until much later. His actual max annual compensation package is around $18 million (Salary + Bonuses + Stock).

Nadella is slated to receive stock worth an estimated $59.2 million under a long-term incentive scheme that stretches out over seven years and is dependent on Microsoft’s shares beating the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.
Click to expand...

The outsize number is mostly made up of the estimated value of certain one-time stock awards given to Nadella, who became the company’s third CEO in February. Most of it Nadella cannot actually receive until 2019.
Click to expand...

Yea, $18 Million / year is a ridiculous amount of money...but he's also the CEO of a company with a market cap of $350 Billion (in other words the 4th most valuable company in the world). If he leads the company in the wrong direction, you can bet your ass there will be a shitload more people going jobless in the coming years. Like or not, layoffs are a necessary evil on our corporate dominated business environment and are essential to trimming the fat and refocusing. Otherwise you'll get organizations like the US military where there are 94 support personnel out of 100 not doing jack shit other than making it impossible to get things done. If he's successful as the CEO of Microsoft, I'd say he's worth every bit of the $18 Million they pay him.
 
Iratus said:
And 3 seconds after that law gets passed all the corporations get split into two. A holding company type construct that employs all the executives who earn within 15x of each others pay and then the group companies with the hoi polloi who earn 100th of the executives salary. Pay the executive roles in the group companies (have to exist for regulatory reasons) a nominal salary and the rort continues.
Click to expand...

Loopholes like that can get plugged. The bigger problem would be stopping them from leaving the country.
 
Grahamkracka said:
Apparently none of you RTFA. The vast majority of it is a long tern stock awards package that he won't even recieve until much later. His actual max annual compensation package is around $18 million (Salary + Bonuses + Stock).





Yea, $18 Million / year is a ridiculous amount of money...but he's also the CEO of a company with a market cap of $350 Billion (in other words the 4th most valuable company in the world). If he leads the company in the wrong direction, you can bet your ass there will be a shitload more people going jobless in the coming years. Like or not, layoffs are a necessary evil on our corporate dominated business environment and are essential to trimming the fat and refocusing. Otherwise you'll get organizations like the US military where there are 94 support personnel out of 100 not doing jack shit other than making it impossible to get things done. If he's successful as the CEO of Microsoft, I'd say he's worth every bit of the $18 Million they pay him.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true 1%'er, or one of their lap dogs.
 
And this is why as retarded as socialism is as a fundamental ideology, you can see that nonsense like this bullcrap that occurs in a capitalist society at the extreme ends is what motivates it.

Compensation needs to be proportional to contribution, and no matter how awesome he was, he's just one suit among thousands. High salary, absolutely! $84M? Time for a French revolutionary war... I'll WD40 the guillotine.
 
tazeat said:
Uhh, CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world... How much money did Ballmer make not including his stock owned before he took over as CEO? A lot.
Click to expand...

He made about 1.2 mil towards the end. Pretty much all of his wealth came from stocks.

However, I can say that as of right now, I make more money than Steve Ballmer..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................did in 1980. :(
 
People in this thread seem to have some strange expectations. I guess he should just voluntarily cut his salary out of the kindness of his heart?

He has NO non-business obligation to the company whatsoever.
 
You are right, kindness of heart is a strange concept these days. I guess I'll just pick that hat full of change up from the ground next time I see it.
 
Youn said:
You are right, kindness of heart is a strange concept these days. I guess I'll just pick that hat full of change up from the ground next time I see it.
Click to expand...

So when your boss tells you that you're getting a 15% pay cut so that they can hire an additional worker, you would be:

Happy?

Or does generosity only apply when it's someone else's money we are talking about?
 
I admit I've no idea what it feels like to make that much money. I make 75% less than what most folks with my skill level and experience make, by choice... I'd make even less if my boss were not so friggin charitable and keeps giving me raises every year... I dunno, I'm not saying I the most generous person, but I don't understand the need for more money than you use. If the CEO is feeding 10,000 kids in africa then maybe I'd understand.
 
GotNoRice said:
People in this thread seem to have some strange expectations. I guess he should just voluntarily cut his salary out of the kindness of his heart?

He has NO non-business obligation to the company whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It's more like Nadella is just another symbol of how fucked our priorities are in society. The problem with corporations is they're completely top-down, run by shareholders who only care about growth from quarter to quarter. In something like a cooperative, all employees have some say in how the company is run and you don't have the extreme imbalances in salaries between workers. For example the Mondragon Corporation is one of the more successful ones in Europe, made 12 billion in revenue, hires 74k people, yet the salary of their top position is only 6.5x their lowest position, as a rule everyone in the company voted on it. It's far more democratic than most corporations which are purely hierarchial. In short, it's not really Nadella that's the problem, it's the system that enables him.
 
psyclist said:
Yeah thats bullshit, could have kept all those people working and some of them I bet some had great ideas. Also kept their families going as well. But decided, "Naw, screw them all, I need the money more than they do" Thats the problem, you are rewarded for being cutthroat in the Corporate world...breeds a society of sociopaths at the top
Click to expand...

Did you ever actually consider the fact that most companies are not charities and that if people are not contributing or are just not working out, companies can fire them?

Many large companies go on massive hiring spree's and then trim the fat later or merely down size as the markets change....

Or would it be better of these companies just let the fat accumulate to the point they go bankrupt and fire everyone..
 
I love how people say he is getting paid all that money for not doing anything for the company... First off, all CEOs of Microsoft get paid in a percentage of stock as a benefit. Its the stock that encompasses the majority of their pay. Typically they do not sell much at all of that stock and so on paper it looks like a ton, but in reality they aren't getting paid much in liquid assets. In addition, the CEOs of Microsoft have always been known to be more than generous with charitable contributions.

Second, he has been with Microsoft since 1992, since that time he has brought nothing but success with him improving every sector he has worked on within Microsoft. The most recent being their cloud solution programs which are doing great things for Microsoft and is an integral part of the future in computing.

And as for the layoffs, every company goes through that. The total layffs are supposed to be around 18k employees, but then put it in perspective. They employ over 125,000 employees. Then to further look into that, about 13k of those layoffs were employees from their acquisition of Nokia. So really only about 5k of all the planned layoffs were Microsoft employees. With the mergers and acquisitons you get a hell of a lot of redundancy. So you weed through that and find the best people for those positions and properly realign your divisions. So what he really did was remove redundant positions and areas that were no longer effective for the company, so they could spend money on areas that were far better for the company.

Finally, Microsoft offers great salaries and benefits to their employees. They have also been known to give generous severance packages when laying off people. So really I fail to see what all the butthurt is about here.
 
NoOther said:
In addition, the CEOs of Microsoft have always been known to be more than generous with charitable contributions.
Click to expand...
Money is money, whether its stocks, cash, or gold bullion, and if I mad $84 million for not even a year's work, of course I would be charitable as hell too.

I can honestly say without hesitation that I wouldn't know how to spend money that quickly. I would seriously need help, and would give to charity simply out of pure cash flow overload.

Besides, yes they give to charities, but what percentage of their actual net worth? Cmon... when you or I give away $50-60 to our charities, its a lot more meaningful because it means that we actually have to SACRIFICE something we really want that would have meaning to us. When insanely rich people give to charity, at the end of the day they can still have anything and everything they want. They don't feel it on their bottom line.
 
Ducman69 said:
Besides, yes they give to charities, but what percentage of their actual net worth? Cmon... when you or I give away $50-60 to our charities, its a lot more meaningful because it means that we actually have to SACRIFICE something we really want that would have meaning to us. When insanely rich people give to charity, at the end of the day they can still have anything and everything they want. They don't feel it on their bottom line.
Click to expand...
Actually it's been consistently proven that both the middle and even lower case give to charities MORE of their income percentage-wise than the wealthy. So that $60 likely represents more of your income than sometimes millions from the super rich.
 
tetris42 said:
Actually it's accelerating somewhat. Since the start of the recession, about 95% of all income gains have gone to the top 1%. Even with job recovery, the majority of them are lower paying than the ones that were lost.
Click to expand...

More of this has to do with the stock market manipulation of the fed through Quantitative Easing. The theory was that giving banks basically free money would spur them to loosen up the purse strings and loan it. While this did bring mortgage interest rates down and saved the housing market it had the unfortunate side effect of completely SCREWING over institutions and individuals who prefer secure assets like bonds and savings accounts. This forced those people to dump money in the equity market and junk bonds. This artificially inflated the stock market to the point where it is today and the prime benefactor is that wealthy 1%, many of which who get paid nearly entirely in stock options. What these CEOs do now to pad their quarterly earnings is through layoffs, when that wont work they resort to stock buyback programs(financed by those super cheap interest rate loans they are getting from banks) to artificially inflate the stock price for long enough for them to cash out their options before the house of cards falls instead of using that money to actually invest in growing their business. You know who gets killed when this shit hits the fan? Those who are retired or close to retired, public pensions plans, and anyone with a 401k or IRA.

TLDR, Wealthy got all the gains cause of the fed and quantitative easing. Not necessarily because of them just inflating their pay package.
 
Chaos Machine said:
More of this has to do with the stock market manipulation of the fed through Quantitative Easing. The theory was that giving banks basically free money would spur them to loosen up the purse strings and loan it. While this did bring mortgage interest rates down and saved the housing market it had the unfortunate side effect of completely SCREWING over institutions and individuals who prefer secure assets like bonds and savings accounts. This forced those people to dump money in the equity market and junk bonds. This artificially inflated the stock market to the point where it is today and the prime benefactor is that wealthy 1%, many of which who get paid nearly entirely in stock options. What these CEOs do now to pad their quarterly earnings is through layoffs, when that wont work they resort to stock buyback programs(financed by those super cheap interest rate loans they are getting from banks) to artificially inflate the stock price for long enough for them to cash out their options before the house of cards falls instead of using that money to actually invest in growing their business. You know who gets killed when this shit hits the fan? Those who are retired or close to retired, public pensions plans, and anyone with a 401k or IRA.

TLDR, Wealthy got all the gains cause of the fed and quantitative easing. Not necessarily because of them just inflating their pay package.
Click to expand...

That is a big part of the problem. Too much incentive to get that stock price up and they are rewarded for that more so than running a productive company.
 
Ducman69 said:
Money is money, whether its stocks, cash, or gold bullion, and if I mad $84 million for not even a year's work, of course I would be charitable as hell too.
Click to expand...

No money is not money. The is liquid funds and there are tied up funds. You can't just pull out all your stocks at once or liquidate all your assets at once, its not that easy. Also those funds are much more volatile than other liquid assets. Also paying the CEO in stock gives them even more reason to want to improve the company. The better the company does, the more the stocks are worth.

As for charities, you say that, but you could give money right now to charities. You don't have to be rich to do it.


tetris42 said:
Actually it's been consistently proven that both the middle and even lower case give to charities MORE of their income percentage-wise than the wealthy. So that $60 likely represents more of your income than sometimes millions from the super rich.
Click to expand...

It has? Where? I know far more people who are wealthy that give than people that are poor. In fact I find a lot more people that are middle class or lower relying more and more on people that are wealthy to give and use it as an excuse. Reference said argument above. Also the percentage argument is a very tired argument.

You could also say it has been consistently shown that those that are wealthy contribute far more to the welfare of the community through taxes, charity, providing jobs, investing in more infrastructure, etc.
 
NoOther said:
No money is not money. The is liquid funds and there are tied up funds. You can't just pull out all your stocks at once or liquidate all your assets at once, its not that easy.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, its goods or services of value, in this case $84 million in value for 9 months work. There's no amount of mental gymnastics you can do to justify that kind of compensation.

If the world were a simulation, and you could cap salaries at say $3 million a year, do you really think we'd experience a shortage of motivated and qualified people to take those CEO positions? Its BS, and you know it.
 
Ducman69 said:
It doesn't matter, its goods or services of value, in this case $84 million in value for 9 months work. There's no amount of mental gymnastics you can do to justify that kind of compensation.

If the world were a simulation, and you could cap salaries at say $3 million a year, do you really think we'd experience a shortage of motivated and qualified people to take those CEO positions? Its BS, and you know it.
Click to expand...

9 months of work? How about try 20+ years? He has been working with Microsoft for a long time, being CEO is just one more facet on top of that. I don't need any mental gymnastics to justify paying the head of a company which makes Billions of dollars 84 million. It takes more mental gymnastics to criticize what a company pays its lead individual. Really how much butthurt does it take to complain about what others make?
 
NoOther said:
No money is not money. The is liquid funds and there are tied up funds. You can't just pull out all your stocks at once or liquidate all your assets at once, its not that easy. Also those funds are much more volatile than other liquid assets. Also paying the CEO in stock gives them even more reason to want to improve the company. The better the company does, the more the stocks are worth.

As for charities, you say that, but you could give money right now to charities. You don't have to be rich to do it.




It has? Where? I know far more people who are wealthy that give than people that are poor. In fact I find a lot more people that are middle class or lower relying more and more on people that are wealthy to give and use it as an excuse. Reference said argument above. Also the percentage argument is a very tired argument.

You could also say it has been consistently shown that those that are wealthy contribute far more to the welfare of the community through taxes, charity, providing jobs, investing in more infrastructure, etc.
Click to expand...


http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm
 
NoOther said:
9 months of work? How about try 20+ years? He has been working with Microsoft for a long time, being CEO is just one more facet on top of that. I don't need any mental gymnastics to justify paying the head of a company which makes Billions of dollars 84 million. It takes more mental gymnastics to criticize what a company pays its lead individual. Really how much butthurt does it take to complain about what others make?
Click to expand...

Pfft, as if the 20+ year are not compensated.
CEO compensation is a bunch of BS, boys-club crap, has nothing to do with reality.
1000's that god knows could do better than the typical boys-club selection we see in mayor companies.
 
NoOther said:
I love how people say he is getting paid all that money for not doing anything for the company... First off, all CEOs of Microsoft get paid in a percentage of stock as a benefit. Its the stock that encompasses the majority of their pay. Typically they do not sell much at all of that stock and so on paper it looks like a ton, but in reality they aren't getting paid much in liquid assets. In addition, the CEOs of Microsoft have always been known to be more than generous with charitable contributions.
Click to expand...

Stock option is a bad idea in long term. It encourages CEO to focus on short term profit. .
 
Uvaman said:
http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm
Click to expand...

You realize that shows that people who make over 10mil, of which Chief Executive Satya Nadella is now a member of, donate the most percentage wise?

tetris42 said:
Here you go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasa...omes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/
Click to expand...

One, look at the figures in the article above, which shows those making an excess of money, are still giving more percentage wise as well.

Two, the article you linked says they are giving less compared to 2006, not that they are overall giving less than people who are much poorer.

Three, you are trying to apply generalities to a single individual.
 
CEO's salaries are often set by board members who are all prospective CEO's for the company or other companies, this is what happens when you let people set their own salary. Only Stockholders forcing companies to pay CEO's less would get it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top