Google has rewarded Eric Schmidt for shifting from the CEO's office to exec chairman by bumping up his salary from $1 to $1.25m. The company's latest filing at the SEC shows that Schmidt will also qualify for a bonus of 400 per cent of that salary. The filing also details the move of Alan Eustace from senior VP of engineering …
You'd think he'd be able to pay Fey to interview him.
Oh interview... that wasn't the fist think that came into my mind when you said pay Fey...
hmm icons icons...
Use this figure to argue for your own pay rises!
I will use this figure with my company as an example of what I expect my next pay rise to be.
In reality, I doubt that even cost of living will be provided.
On the other hand, I'm not coming from $1pa!
This would seem reasonable.
Normally you assemble a list of your "peers", whom you deem to be of similar quality and function in related industries.
So if your surname is Schmidt, you could instead make a list of your peers called Schmidt, and sneak this one in.
Whenever I see some useless windbag get paid way, way too much I'm always reminded of these lines from The New Statesman.
Piers Fletcher-Dervish: "But Alan you already have lots of money, you don't need it."
Alan B'Stard: "No Piers I don't need it but I want it, because I'm very, very greedy!"
Excellent reference Fuzzy. Glad to see that there are more fans of Rik Mayall around!
Sitting on $6bn in shares.........
...... He's got piles...
This is just stupid money.. Where does it all come from?
It doesn't. It doesn't actually exist, see?
The stated 'value' of shares is what you'd get if you could sell them all at the current market price.
However, this ignores the fact that if you did start selling lots of them, the market price plummets. Sell enough and the value hits zero.
If you're a 'big shot' in a company, selling your shares results in an even steeper nosedive of market price because everyone assumes you must know something they don't.
Furthermore, there are rules about selling shares in your own company to avoid/limit insider trading.
So the actual realisable value of said "$6bn" in shares is relatively close to zero.
It may be not at all related, but I refer you to the national debts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the rest of Ireland (ROI), Greece, Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal, the U.S. of A. and probably everywhere else except Norway, Switzerland, Luxemburg and Lichtenstein.
What's the point of him interviewing her in the first place?
... Google already knows what she's thinking.
A pay raise...
...which I can do well with :)
Wot? No raise for me?
I don't know why people work when they have that much money. Why don't they go and do something interesting, or give it away?
I wouldn't call what he does "work"
Most actual effort will be done by a team of PAs and employees.
He also has to be around at Google, otherwise those $6 billion may deflate quite quickly with Larry Page as CEO.
They love doing what they do
It's why they have so much money. If they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't be very good at it and would be poor like the rest of us.
That's a bit too simplistic view. He may like some of the moments, but the day to day of running large companies like Google can suck the enjoyment out of anyone.
I'm sure he could easily find more enjoyable things to do with his time than sitting through legal or auditor meetings (just examples).
I think he got so much money because he was at the right time in the right place, and knew the right people, like many others.
Maybe his other interests (see Fast Company's 1996 article on him) also played a role?
"I don't know why people work..."
Because they do enjoy it?
If I sold a million copies of my app (<shamelessplug>Project: Merge</shamelesspulg>) tomorrow (or even tonight, I'm not fussy) I might not bother working for anyone else anymore, but I would almost definitely carry on programming on personal projects (which is a work of sorts). I suspect I would do it in a considerably warmer, and possibly from the sun deck of a large yacht, but I would still do it.
A lot of the time, shares are sold on the basis of the CEO / Chief Wotsit guaranteeing he will remain at the company for X years to give investors enough confidence.
If that's the case here, he can't resign without a massive breach of contract.
Not what it used to be
Eric must not need the tax deduction that the $1 pay scheme used to bring.
With all of the tax breaks the top 10% get in the west it is no surprise.
I'd forego the raise
if my boss gave me a 400% bonus.
Of course, I understand that, in his stead, I would indeed be a bit miffed if I only got a bonus of $4. So yes, put my salary at umpteen million first, THEN give me the 400% bonus.
But really, all this is happening in lalaland and nothing to do with humans.
As a google share holder
me and my 4 shares have a horrendous problem with this, given that he satisified his ability to earn a viable income for several lifetimes. While I am a huge believer in the risk/rewards of building businesses and capitalism, as a whole, at some point, executive management isn't worth the money they're being paid.
Schmidt has reached that lofty plateau.
If he wanted to do good for the employees and investors of google, he'd simply work for a dollar a year and live off of the hard work that he's earned.
But that's just an opinion.
I don't get it. Is Tina Fey suppose to be hot or something?
Re: Geek pinup?
sarah palin look-alike
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
- Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Pic iPhone 6 flip tip slips in Aussie's clip: Apple's 'reversible USB' leaks