Technology

60080 readers

3354 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

637

Google lays off hundreds of 'Core' employees, moves some positions to India and Mexico (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

147 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google is laying off more employees and hiring for their roles outside of the U.S.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What I'm perplexed at is - what if I went to the board and said "I have a guaranteed way to increase profit by 150 million - just pay me 50 million a year and fire Bitchai". I would legit do my best to make great decisions for 50 million.

Why doesn't the board care about cutting costs by cutting CEO pay? I can't imagine any difference that would really justify Bitchai 's pay difference.

I also cannot imagine they are all part of some secret conspiracy where they all know each other and like each other so much that they just want to pay him that money because they're buddies.

Wouldn't $150 million be more than enough justification to hire someone else?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

People who sit on boards are also those very same CEOs at other companies...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This assumes that they aren't hiring the CEO to be the fall guy. Someone who's job is largely (as things stand now) meant to take on the risk that if the company does not increase profits or make shareholders happy, they will blame and fire that person and hire someone else.

Since a lot of CEOs kind of bet on this they take ridiculous chances (like getting paid in stock options that only mature at a certain point with the knowledge that they need to make stock options valuable so they can cash out).

Valuable doesn't have to be long term. It just has to last long enough for the person in question to cash out.