Google CEO Receives Stock Grant Worth $199M

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Whoa, as part of a promotion to CEO you get a $199 million stock grant? I think we are all in the wrong business.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai received restricted stock worth about $199 million, according to a regulatory filing by Google parent company Alphabet Inc. Pichai, who took over in August, received a grant for 273,328 Class C Google stock units on Feb. 3. The valuation is based on the stock's closing price on that date.
 
hmmm, maybe I should have spent my life telling people to do stuff instead of learning to do stuff? got it.
 
And.... So what?? CEO's are granted stock options as part of their total compensation package. Good for him.
 
Jarod888 said:
And.... So what?? CEO's are granted stock options as part of their total compensation package. Good for him.
Click to expand...

The problem with that attitude is, think of the total amount of money in the economy as a big pie. If someone takes a bigger slice, there is less left for everyone else.
 
Gweenz said:
The problem with that attitude is, think of the total amount of money in the economy as a big pie. If someone takes a bigger slice, there is less left for everyone else.
Click to expand...

It is becoming an issue. Some of these super wealthy literally hold over 50% of a nations wealth. There is only so much "money" in an economy, and 50 people holding the majority of it and granting one another more of it is not a good end game.
 
Being a CEO definitely has it's benefits. As most CEO's are granted huge stock options, not really a major story.
 
Gweenz said:
The problem with that attitude is, think of the total amount of money in the economy as a big pie. If someone takes a bigger slice, there is less left for everyone else.
Click to expand...

If the U.S. dollar was still on the gold standard, that would be true.
 
amddragonpc said:
If the U.S. dollar was still on the gold standard, that would be true.
Click to expand...
Until more gold is mined out of the ground.

Anyone who thinks that an economy has a set amount of wealth has no idea how economies on any scale work. None whatsoever.
 
jardows said:
Until more gold is mined out of the ground.

Anyone who thinks that an economy has a set amount of wealth has no idea how economies on any scale work. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Huh, but also you do know that 'economies' are not laws of nature, or any kind of inherent attribute of 'reality' ... I mean economies can be and do whatever, so yeah, no set anything... Reality on the other hand..
 
Gweenz said:
The problem with that attitude is, think of the total amount of money in the economy as a big pie. If someone takes a bigger slice, there is less left for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a communist country somewhere that would be happy to have you. Google makes billions, and a large part of that is the ceo. If it makes more money everyone is happy, but the second anything bad happens first person to catch shit from the investors and customers is the CEO, its a high pressure job. I routinely deal with my companies president and VP and I see how much pressure and stress they get from our customers whose contracts are only worth 10-50 mil and makes me firmly think I don't want their job.

If google thinks the CEO is worth that much money, guess what its their money and they can spend it or pay it out how ever they see fit.
 
Jarod888 said:
And.... So what?? CEO's are granted stock options as part of their total compensation package. Good for him.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know what exactly he does that's worth $200M or the equivalent in compensation. Is he paying for his own jet? Spaced out over 20 years that still that's still nearly $30,000 worth of stock for every single day. For the most part wages seem to scale pretty well with labor/education/experience requirements until you get up to the top, then things go crazy.

It frustrates people that there's a class of high-wealth individuals who are demanding ever-increasing 'compensation' and 'retention' packages that don't seem to have any basis in reality while everyone else's wages are stagnating. Many of these companies (including Google) owe years worth of taxes.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I'd like to know what exactly he does that's worth $200M or the equivalent in compensation. Is he paying for his own jet? Spaced out over 20 years that still that's still nearly $30,000 worth of stock for every single day. For the most part wages seem to scale pretty well with labor/education/experience requirements until you get up to the top, then things go crazy.

It frustrates people that there's a class of high-wealth individuals who are demanding ever-increasing 'compensation' and 'retention' packages that don't seem to have any basis in reality while everyone else's wages are stagnating. Many of these companies (including Google) owe years worth of taxes.
Click to expand...

Maybe they rewarded him for what he does? Bonuses seem to be awesome and great for people when they are going to the middle and lower class but as soon as a big company gives a ceo a bonus, everyone likes to throw things at the company. Google is very profitable so why shouldn't the ceo be rewarded more money than a failing companys ceo?
 
Lots of armchair economists here. So wealth inequity is not an issue to any of you? Then it is you who does not understand how economies work. Keep preaching your trickle-down bullshit.

I understand that money is not a finite number, we print more and inflation runs rampant. It is still a fucking pie, the size of the pie changes. But what then, of the middle class whose wages have been stagnating for 30 years? As inflation goes up, their wages do not increase and therefore their money is worth even less relative to the size of the (ever growing) pie, further compounding the problem. I am not a socialist, I just believe some regulation is in order. I'm not talking about the guys making $500k a year. They are not rich, not even in the traditional sense. It's the .1%'ers who are so locked into their wealth that they cannot possibly fail that need regulation. If you do not see wealth inequity as a problem, you are hopeless and we are done here.
 
That amount of money is fucking ridiculous and is the reason why there is such a wealth gap between middle class and executives these days. NOBODY is that much smarter than their average employee to deserve being paid that amount of money. CEOs and other executives wages should be limited to a certain percentage above their average employees wages. If they want more money for themselves, then they need to increase the money paid to everybody else in the company. After all, it's the rest of the employees who are doing the actual work that the executives delegate. It's not as if the executives are the sole reason a company succeeds or fails.
 
ceo-pay-vs-average-worker.jpg
 
Gweenz said:
Lots of armchair economists here. So wealth inequity is not an issue to any of you? Then it is you who does not understand how economies work. Keep preaching your trickle-down bullshit.

I understand that money is not a finite number, we print more and inflation runs rampant. It is still a fucking pie, the size of the pie changes. But what then, of the middle class whose wages have been stagnating for 30 years? As inflation goes up, their wages do not increase and therefore their money is worth even less relative to the size of the (ever growing) pie, further compounding the problem. I am not a socialist, I just believe some regulation is in order. I'm not talking about the guys making $500k a year. They are not rich, not even in the traditional sense. It's the .1%'ers who are so locked into their wealth that they cannot possibly fail that need regulation. If you do not see wealth inequity as a problem, you are hopeless and we are done here.
Click to expand...

+1

Trickle down economy=golden shower!
 
$4B profit per quarter. This is a very small piece of the pie...it's pocket change for this corp.
 
Gweenz said:
The problem with that attitude is, think of the total amount of money in the economy as a big pie. If someone takes a bigger slice, there is less left for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is how it has to be. If you spread that money across everyone then it has no value, because everyone has exactly the same amount of money. You can see that only way for it to have value then is to give to some (Group A) and not others (Group B). The larger the discrepancy between Group A and Group B, the more "value" that amount of money has.

It sucks, but there is no way around it so long as we expect money to have value.
 
westrock2000 said:
Unfortunately that is how it has to be. If you spread that money across everyone then it has no value, because everyone has exactly the same amount of money. You can see that only way for it to have value then is to give to some (Group A) and not others (Group B). The larger the discrepancy between Group A and Group B, the more "value" that amount of money has.

It sucks, but there is no way around it so long as we expect money to have value.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's pure socialism, and has been proven not to work. We don't need pure socialism. We need regulated capitalism, because pure capitalism doesn't work either. No "pure" ethos works, there needs to be flexibility and compromise. Hence the reason why nothing gets done in Congress.
 
Darunion said:
Google pays its employees pretty well too and seem to be decently happy to work there. If he is helping to make lots of people happy then those that pay his salary are allowed to pay him more. We aren't exactly talking about a chinese sweat shop here.
Click to expand...

Google is better than most, but take your pick of any other corporation and look at the living conditions of the lowest tier employee. WalMart, which profits in the billions, instructs their employees on how to best take advantage of government assistance (WELFARE), for fucks sake. How can they profit in the billions but not pay their employees a living wage?
 
westrock2000 said:
Unfortunately that is how it has to be. If you spread that money across everyone then it has no value, because everyone has exactly the same amount of money. You can see that only way for it to have value then is to give to some (Group A) and not others (Group B). The larger the discrepancy between Group A and Group B, the more "value" that amount of money has.

It sucks, but there is no way around it so long as we expect money to have value.
Click to expand...

That is one strange perspective of seeing things. Strange to reality.

I don't advocate that everyone get the same pay for different jobs and occupations, but the value of wealth does not decrease simply because one has the same than the next guy.
Rather, and that is how the economy works, the more wealth you have, the more you you can spend. The more you can spend, the more you contribute to the economy.

That value you speak of has nothing to do the amount of one's personal wealth in relation to others. It has OTOH everything to do with inflation and strength of the currency.
 
Gweenz said:
Google is better than most, but take your pick of any other corporation and look at the living conditions of the lowest tier employee. WalMart, which profits in the billions, instructs their employees on how to best take advantage of government assistance (WELFARE), for fucks sake. How can they profit in the billions but not pay their employees a living wage?
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

Let the private sector regulate itself! Yeah!

If the gov't weren't in corporations' pockets, then the gov't would tax corporations like Walmart for all the food stamps they have to pay Walmart's employees and get the that money back!
 
westrock2000 said:
Unfortunately that is how it has to be. If you spread that money across everyone then it has no value, because everyone has exactly the same amount of money. You can see that only way for it to have value then is to give to some (Group A) and not others (Group B). The larger the discrepancy between Group A and Group B, the more "value" that amount of money has.

It sucks, but there is no way around it so long as we expect money to have value.
Click to expand...
Bull. Even if everybody received the same amount of money, different people have different priorities and ideas about what to spend it on. Therefore products and services would still be priced based on supply and demand.

It's the rich who place zero value on money because they can buy anything they want at any time they to. The poor and middle class value money the most because a good portion of it is tied up in monthly living expenses. Luxury items and vacations must be saved up for months/years.

If you truly wanted money to have the greatest value to the greatest number of people, then there would have to be a much smaller wage gap between the CEO and janitor of any given company.
 
Gweenz said:
Lots of armchair economists here. So wealth inequity is not an issue to any of you? Then it is you who does not understand how economies work. Keep preaching your trickle-down bullshit.

I understand that money is not a finite number, we print more and inflation runs rampant. It is still a fucking pie, the size of the pie changes. But what then, of the middle class whose wages have been stagnating for 30 years? As inflation goes up, their wages do not increase and therefore their money is worth even less relative to the size of the (ever growing) pie, further compounding the problem. I am not a socialist, I just believe some regulation is in order. I'm not talking about the guys making $500k a year. They are not rich, not even in the traditional sense. It's the .1%'ers who are so locked into their wealth that they cannot possibly fail that need regulation. If you do not see wealth inequity as a problem, you are hopeless and we are done here.
Click to expand...

government creates inflation, not CEOs.

Wealth inequality has only expanded under the Obama administration (it's certainly not his invention, I know), as a consequence of his trickle down policies. Obama has implemented trickle down economics on a scale unimagined in the Reagan era.
 
spintroniX said:
government creates inflation, not CEOs.

Wealth inequality has only expanded under the Obama administration (it's certainly not his invention, I know), as a consequence of his trickle down policies. Obama has implemented trickle down economics on a scale unimagined in the Reagan era.
Click to expand...

I am surprised by this statement. The reason why I am so skeptical is, if it were true, then Obama would have found favor among the Republicans. And the latest reports show, that they wouldn't spit on Obama if he was on fire!
 
spintroniX said:
government creates inflation, not CEOs.

Wealth inequality has only expanded under the Obama administration (it's certainly not his invention, I know), as a consequence of his trickle down policies. Obama has implemented trickle down economics on a scale unimagined in the Reagan era.
Click to expand...

Is this from the MSN comments section? I'm not socialist. I'm not a democrat. Try again. Right, left, they are all guilty. Got news for you here, chief, there is NO LEFT anymore. Even the most far left politicians when viewed in the traditional sense are right of center.
 
aShrubbery! said:
I am surprised by this statement. The reason why I am so skeptical is, if it were true, then Obama would have found favor among the Republicans. And the latest reports show, that they wouldn't spit on Obama if he was on fire!
Click to expand...

What does the opinion of republicans have to do with the empirical fact that Obama federal reserve has pumped trillions into the economy? Or that this resulted in a massive stock market bubble that damn near pricked as soon as they raised the overnight rate? Or the fact that the labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in decades? How about record numbers of americans on public assistance?

what does the opinion of anybody have to do with these facts?
 
Gweenz said:
Is this from the MSN comments section? I'm not socialist. I'm not a democrat. Try again. Right, left, they are all guilty. Got news for you here, chief, there is NO LEFT anymore. Even the most far left politicians when viewed in the traditional sense are right of center.
Click to expand...

I did not mention your party or political affiliation. I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your logic.

There's no such thing as externally regulated capitalism. As soon as a monopolizing force attempts to exert power over a capitalist system, it is no longer capitalist. Dysfunction will ensue, in proportion to the degree of intervention in that economy.

It's an empirical fact.
 
Gweenz said:
Lots of armchair economists here. So wealth inequity is not an issue to any of you? Then it is you who does not understand how economies work. Keep preaching your trickle-down bullshit.

I understand that money is not a finite number, we print more and inflation runs rampant. It is still a fucking pie, the size of the pie changes. But what then, of the middle class whose wages have been stagnating for 30 years? As inflation goes up, their wages do not increase and therefore their money is worth even less relative to the size of the (ever growing) pie, further compounding the problem. I am not a socialist, I just believe some regulation is in order. I'm not talking about the guys making $500k a year. They are not rich, not even in the traditional sense. It's the .1%'ers who are so locked into their wealth that they cannot possibly fail that need regulation. If you do not see wealth inequity as a problem, you are hopeless and we are done here.
Click to expand...

Well Said Sir!
 
Gweenz said:
Lots of armchair economists here. So wealth inequity is not an issue to any of you? Then it is you who does not understand how economies work. Keep preaching your trickle-down bullshit.

I understand that money is not a finite number, we print more and inflation runs rampant. It is still a fucking pie, the size of the pie changes. But what then, of the middle class whose wages have been stagnating for 30 years? As inflation goes up, their wages do not increase and therefore their money is worth even less relative to the size of the (ever growing) pie, further compounding the problem. I am not a socialist, I just believe some regulation is in order. I'm not talking about the guys making $500k a year. They are not rich, not even in the traditional sense. It's the .1%'ers who are so locked into their wealth that they cannot possibly fail that need regulation. If you do not see wealth inequity as a problem, you are hopeless and we are done here.
Click to expand...

I agree... I try to express to some people that the system is the system, and just that a human construct... Many take it as if our capitalist system is somekind of inherent truth.. I think that thats part of why they cant see past it, or that theres real problems about it. Most people like me percieve unfairness, some might say its rigged, but the truth is this is starting to be something past unfairness, even in the context of capitalism something seems genuinely down ....this mayor inequality seems more like symptom of a mayor breakdown in process. Goldman sachs agrees in a way... I mean shiiiiit!


http://news.groopspeak.com/goldman-sachs-memo-says-capitalism-may-not-be-working/
 
spintroniX said:
I did not mention your party or political affiliation. I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your logic.

There's no such thing as externally regulated capitalism. As soon as a monopolizing force attempts to exert power over a capitalist system, it is no longer capitalist. Dysfunction will ensue, in proportion to the degree of intervention in that economy.

It's an empirical fact.
Click to expand...

No, it is no longer capitalism. Call it whatever you want then. There is already plenty of dysfunction, wouldn't you agree?
 
spintroniX said:
that's not how an economy works.
Click to expand...
No, but in the case of CEOs, their wages really ARE coming at the expense of the workers:

2012-05-02-ProdWages.arrow.jpg


If they weren't taking a bigger piece of the pie (that fluctuates, it's obviously not a fixed thing), worker pay would be scaling with productivity. The companies are earning more money. CEO pay is at a higher ratio than ever. That money goes to the top, the workers helping to make it are getting an increasingly small percentage. If it WASN'T coming at the expense of the workers, then the ratio of CEO to worker pay would remain about the same.

Gweenz said:
Agreed, that's pure socialism, and has been proven not to work. We don't need pure socialism. We need regulated capitalism, because pure capitalism doesn't work either. No "pure" ethos works, there needs to be flexibility and compromise. Hence the reason why nothing gets done in Congress.
Click to expand...
No it's not. That's pure COMMUNISM, not socialism. There's nothing about socialism that says someone can't get paid more than another, especially people who contribute more. Socialism isn't about everyone being equal, it's about the economy working for everyone as a whole. At least get your terms right if you're going to talk about an ethos.

spintroniX said:
There's no such thing as externally regulated capitalism. As soon as a monopolizing force attempts to exert power over a capitalist system, it is no longer capitalist. Dysfunction will ensue, in proportion to the degree of intervention in that economy.
Click to expand...
I think you need to clarify what you mean. The way you're defining capitalism, it's never existed. For example, if the government puts regulations on companies saying they can't dump toxins into the water, or release pollutants in the air, that's an external force intervening with how the company does business, since it's often more economical to not have to spend more money on containing their pollution if there are no laws preventing it. By your definition, that's no longer capitalist, because regulation is occurring, which affects the market. Most people don't use the word capitalist in that sense.
 
spintroniX said:
government creates inflation, not CEOs.

Wealth inequality has only expanded under the Obama administration (it's certainly not his invention, I know), as a consequence of his trickle down policies. Obama has implemented trickle down economics on a scale unimagined in the Reagan era.
Click to expand...

I don't think US government has printed a single dollar.
But i know its more complicated than that... But its private banks.
Its all legalized corruption.
This not a capitalist system its a Corruptionist system, and this filthy payment is representative of this... Has nothing to do with merit or hardwork.
 
tetris42 said:
No it's not. That's pure COMMUNISM, not socialism. There's nothing about socialism that says someone can't get paid more than another, especially people who contribute more. Socialism isn't about everyone being equal, it's about the economy working for everyone as a whole. At least get your terms right if you're going to talk about an ethos.
Click to expand...

cyMuxkU.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top