As a "council worker" myself, I'm intrigued by the implied indignation towards me in that post
Does Google Chief's bashfulness prove pay at the top is skewed.
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Really? I'd say someone who doesn't know something that fundamental can't be fully competent.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,366
Left wing contempt as usual 
Not at all. When you have plenty of it you start to disregard it entirely. It doesn't make the basis of your life and your life doesn't revolve around can I afford that, can't I afford that etc. Whatever bill you get, whatever you fancy, you just pay it.
This is something that is very difficult for "normal" people to get their head around.
Oh sorry, this is another one of those pepsilol i'm rolling in it posts!
Didn't even refer to myself. Was talking about him and wealthy folks in general.
I could understand someone not knowing what their total income is when questioned, as it could depend on bonuses and dividends from stock options etc. But I'm not convinced someone who is employed rather than a contractor for their own company or whatever couldn't even give a ballpark answer of what their salary is.
They are executing the business model from Mountain view. They are analyzing results and modifying strategies for successful UK operation, and handling localized issues.
That is not revenue generation.
Take a supermarket as an example.E.g., Tesco decides what products to sell, negotiates with supplies, sets prices, manages marketing, develops new products etc. A single store just executes the business model. the actions of the manager have little to do with the Tescos corporate business, but Tescos wants to hire good store managers and that might require good pay.
The google guys in Lodon are trying to maximize the profits, but they don't generate revenue, Google IP does.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
It was quite entertaining watching him squirm but it was equally as entertaining when the select committee got wound up about it.
There is something nauseating watching MPs grill others on matters of integrity and ethics when Westminster ranks with the best as a festering pit of corruption.
There is something nauseating watching MPs grill others on matters of integrity and ethics when Westminster ranks with the best as a festering pit of corruption.
Too true. The thing is we all know if MP's have, and when they do have, the opportunity they'd do exactly the same!
Re-read what you quoted when you said it was one of my usual posts. Are you a council worker or something?
Are you touched? It's part of a conversation as a whole. Not just individual posts. That's how conversations work. Why would being a council work have anything to do with anything?
For the record, no I'm not, I work for an oil company.
I've been awake for over 30 hours and my brain isn't functioning at full capacity, but I still don't understand why that fact means he should declare his income?
They can pay people what ever they like and unless we, the general public, are paying salaries/expenses via our tax then I really don't see why we need to know, regardless of the job they are doing.
Why would pay be meritocratic?
It doesn't make much sense, at a basic level supply and demand comes in - if there is a shortage of people with knowledge of the language 'wibble' then the market rate for them goes up... suddenly wibble developers earn more than wobble developers even if they work as hard as each other
then there are the effects of trade unions, professions etc.. which have a sort of protectionist effect... if tube drivers weren't unionised and applications completely open then there would be plenty of people willing to do the job for fewer holidays and say a 15k pay cut.
This google exec might be one of the senior guys in London but he's not one of the senior exec's who's pay needs to be public knowledge - his compensation is likely confidential, there might well be people in London earning more than him, there might well be others within the company earning less but who believe they should be earning more than him. Maybe he could have revealed his base salary - that is less important at his level - but it is easy to see why he didn't, he hadn't anticipated the question as it wasn't really relevant and he's not just going to breach any non disclosure agreement he might be subject to on a whim.
Last edited:
This seems to be the issue. We have people who whether they fail or do well seem to get pay that is completely out of touch with their performance and don't necessarily have any significant skill.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,366
There aren't many CEOs who have no skill, otherwise the companies they were running would go bust.
I'd bet you're wrong...
firstly it is a public company and it is in our interests to know what some of the most senior people earn in a public company... but he isn't senior enough.
Secondly he's a PAYE employee - he'll pay tax just like anyone... and there isn't going to be much he can hide about his RSUs either.
Got any proof of that? I've encountered many people in a position above their skill level who are supported by far more competent people ranked below them.