Microsoft Lay-offs - while CEO earns $84m in first year

[Murdoch]

Probably something to do with companies growing to unprecedented levels (how big is Apple again?) and the idea of globalization. As more and more jobs are starting to become transferrable over seas, the pool of labor increases and as with the law of supply and demand, you get paid less when there are 500 other people competing for the same job. The thing with CEOs however, is that they're not really able to do their jobs behind a computer overseas. They very much need to be present.

 

Yeah, on a similar note I've said for a long while that the free movement of people is not a "liberal ideal" it's a consequence of the business sector's demand for competition for jobs and a method of driving down labour costs. I'm not sure exactly how you deal with that.

[IAMSWIFT1]

do what gates does donate it all away before he dies !

He's Gonna Have To Donate ALOT To Burn Through All His Money

[Arty]

He's Gonna Have To Donate ALOT To Burn Through All His Money

he would have passed a 100B net if he didn't

hes gvin 30Billion so far.

[TroubleKlef]

Yeah, on a similar note I've said for a long while that the free movement of people is not a "liberal ideal" it's a consequence of the business sector's demand for competition for jobs and a method of driving down labour costs. I'm not sure exactly how you deal with that.

 

It's a slippery slope that clashes the ideals of what a humans needs vs what a human deserves. Should everyone deserve $15/hr min wage because that's what a human needs to live a comfortable and "livable" life? Or should people work to earn what they deserve (i.e. low level skill jobs are paid less than high level skill jobs)?

 

I don't agree with the idea that "everyone can win". I believe that's some social utopian bullshit that, while ideal, isn't possible. Yes, it's worrying that the wealth gap between the "rich" and the "poor' is becoming alarmingly distant and I think that some measures should be taken to curb it. However, I don't agree that people should be given hands outs just for being human. Be a USEFUL human and then let's talk.

[dalekphalm]

It's a slippery slope that clashes the ideals of what a humans needs vs what a human deserves. Should everyone deserve $15/hr min wage because that's what a human needs to live a comfortable and "livable" life? Or should people work to earn what they deserve (i.e. low level skill jobs are paid less than high level skill jobs).

Well even the notion as to what is a comfortable "livable" salary is debatable. Living on $15/hour is fine if you have no debt (student or otherwise), and live at home or in a cheap apartment, with no car, no house etc. It also is highly variable based on cost of living in the region you reside.

 

$15/hour is not a comfortable "livable" wage to me. Sure, I could get by. But I wouldn't be able to afford the car that I need to drive for my job. I'd have to ditch my "decent" (not excellent, but decent) apartment for a tiny box apartment, and I could say goodbye to any amount of savings.

 

$25-30/hour is a comfortable livable wage to me. $30 is obviously closer to the higher scale of comfortable - for an individual only.

 

$20 would be the bare minimum for a "comfortable" living for a single person with no family or large debts or financial commitments.

 

Throw kids into the mix, and neither of those would be enough for a comfortable living with kids.

[TroubleKlef]

Well even the notion as to what is a comfortable "livable" salary is debatable. Living on $15/hour is fine if you have no debt (student or otherwise), and live at home or in a cheap apartment, with no car, no house etc. It also is highly variable based on cost of living in the region you reside.

 

$15/hour is not a comfortable "livable" wage to me. Sure, I could get by. But I wouldn't be able to afford the car that I need to drive for my job. I'd have to ditch my "decent" (not excellent, but decent) apartment for a tiny box apartment, and I could say goodbye to any amount of savings.

 

$25-30/hour is a comfortable livable wage to me. $30 is obviously closer to the higher scale of comfortable - for an individual only.

 

$20 would be the bare minimum for a "comfortable" living for a single person with no family or large debts or financial commitments.

 

Throw kids into the mix, and neither of those would be enough for a comfortable living with kids.

 

Which is why I put "livable" in quotations. Everyone has their own definition on what that may be and judging by your post, your definition of livable is quite luxurious (relative of course). I'm not sure what kind of car you need for your job that warrants a $52,000+ annual income pre-tax (this is $25/hr) or what kind of home you are living in.

 

EDIT: And this is assuming that you meant $20-25 as a minimum wage to appease people who want a livable wage. If you meant this as $20-25 is a livable wage you should work towards for rather than just be given than I agree with you.

[Murdoch]

It's a slippery slope that clashes the ideals of what a humans needs vs what a human deserves. Should everyone deserve $15/hr min wage because that's what a human needs to live a comfortable and "livable" life? Or should people work to earn what they deserve (i.e. low level skill jobs are paid less than high level skill jobs)?

 

I take a more macro approach, societies function better when inequality is kept lower. Keep on increasing inequality and we will face significant problems ahead. Also if you take a look at the shape and scope of our Western economies, we can handle the basics of life with a tiny fraction of the working population (food / energy etc), with the rise of automation this is set to decrease further. I think the "basic living allowance" is something that will keep being brought up in the next few decades, that is to say, we collectively should take care of the basics of life, regardless of what you do for a living. I think there's probably a compelling argument for that going forward. I don't think it will happen though.

[IAMSWIFT1]

he would have passed a 100B net if he didn't

hes gvin 30Billion so far.

DAMN

[TroubleKlef]

I take a more macro approach, societies function better when inequality is kept lower. Keep on increasing inequality and we will face significant problems ahead. Also if you take a look at the shape and scope of our Western economies, we can handle the basics of life with a tiny fraction of the working population (food / energy etc), with the rise of automation this is set to decrease further. I think the "basic living allowance" is something that will keep being brought up in the next few decades, that is to say, we collectively should take care of the basics of life, regardless of what you do for a living. I think there's probably a compelling argument for that going forward. I don't think it will happen though.

 

I have thought about that as well and yes our world is moving more and more towards automation and in a perfect world, we would have 100% efficiency where robots would design themselves, harvest raw materials for new designs, build themselves, maintain themselves, etc etc. but that won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future so the humans that do work to learn the skills to design these robots, what do they get paid? And does the pay warrant people to strive to learn these skills or would it be much easier and much more preferable to just live with just the "basics" of life while others work to give them those basics?

[Murdoch]

I have thought about that as well and yes our world is moving more and more towards automation and in a perfect world, we would have 100% efficiency where robots would design themselves, harvest raw materials for new designs, build themselves, maintain themselves, etc etc. but that won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future so the humans that do work to learn the skills to design these robots, what do they get paid? And does the pay warrant people to strive to learn these skills or would it be much easier and much more preferable to just live with just the "basics" of life while others work to give them those basics?

 

That is one of the criticisms of a basic allowance, that people would have no incentive to work. But I think it would largely depend on the generosity of the allowance. I'd find it hard to believe that motivated people would become less motivated if they didn't have to worry about food, housing and clothing. That is not what drives motivated people in my experience. It might drive the millions of people doing low paid jobs though, which for the most part, will be easily automated.

 

I think in reality it will be a similar approach to what has happened after industrial and information technology booms, people claimed that nobody would have to work so much, that long hours and 5 day weeks would end. But in reality, we just invented new types of jobs. For example, my company's work offshore requires a single person to carry out the hands on work, but around 30-40 people play a role from start to finish.

[TroubleKlef]

That is one of the criticisms of a basic allowance, that people would have no incentive to work. But I think it would largely depend on the generosity of the allowance. I'd find it hard to believe that motivated people would become less motivated if they didn't have to worry about food, housing and clothing. That is not what drives motivated people in my experience. It might drive the millions of people doing low paid jobs though, which for the most part, will be easily automated.

 

I think in reality it will be a similar approach to what has happened after industrial and information technology booms, people claimed that nobody would have to work so much, that long hours and 5 day weeks would end. But in reality, we just invented new types of jobs. For example, my company's work offshore requires a single person to carry out the hands on work, but around 30-40 people play a role from start to finish.

 

Which is the particular segment that I'm interested in. The millions of people doing low paid jobs, what's next for them? 

 

and I agree with the second point. Lot's of people fuss when certain job markets are closed but they tend to forget that new job markets are always being created. 

[Murdoch]

Which is the particular segment that I'm interested in. The millions of people doing low paid jobs, what's next for them? 

 

and I agree with the second point. Lot's of people fuss when certain job markets are closed but they tend to forget that new job markets are always being created. 

 

Probably hard times ahead for them dude. Policy will only change when automation hits the middle classes. And we're incredibly bad at predicting how quickly technology advances, so I'd take a stab and guess that automation won't affect the middle classes for at least the rest of our working lives. 40 odd years at least.

[Yoinkerman]

Why do they need employees when they can perpetually beta test to the public using reskinned software IP they already have

[Arty]

Probably hard times ahead for them dude. Policy will only change when automation hits the middle classes. And we're incredibly bad at predicting how quickly technology advances, so I'd take a stab and guess that automation won't affect the middle classes for at least the rest of our working lives. 40 odd years at least.

#inhighschoolprobblyshouldlearnprogramingrobotscantakethatyet!

[dalekphalm]

Which is why I put "livable" in quotations. Everyone has their own definition on what that may be and judging by your post, your definition of livable is quite luxurious (relative of course). I'm not sure what kind of car you need for your job that warrants a $52,000+ annual income pre-tax (this is $25/hr) or what kind of home you are living in.

 

EDIT: And this is assuming that you meant $20-25 as a minimum wage to appease people who want a livable wage. If you meant this as $20-25 is a livable wage you should work towards for rather than just be given than I agree with you.

I should probably clarify.

 

$15/h is totally fine for a student, or someone with no advanced technical skills. And of course, you shouldn't start at $25-30/hour.

 

But even for that person working minimum wage at McDonalds for $15/hour, they won't be able to afford a house or a nice car, unless they are sharing their finances with a significant other.

 

I think that $20/hour is the minimum for any skilled worker - whether that is a highly skilled factory line worker, an engineer, a programmer, a mill, a plumber, etc. You can start to afford nice things at that wage.

 

But of course, this will vary per region, as I said in my previous post - the cost of living is variable even in North America.

 

A brand new, "decent" car will set you back $30,000 CAD after fees and taxes. A house can vary wildly - with smaller communities and rural areas having prices as cheap as $100,000 to $150,000 for a multi bedroom house. That same house can cost upwards of $350,000 in a medium sized city. And let's not even talk about if they live in a large city like Vancouver, Toronto, Mississauga, etc.

 

You're not going to afford a $350,000 house and a $30,000 car on $15/hour. Hell, even at $20/hour.

 

Again, couples that pool their income will be able to afford more, but not everyone gets married or wants to be in a serious relationship.

 

I think that everyone should work up to earning those higher figures (We're still smack in the middle of Middle Class - even Upper Middle class is still quite a bit more than $30/hour - Upper-Middle is more like $50/hour).

 

And I don't think everyone deserves that much. If you clean toilets at McDonalds, then no, you don't deserve $20/hour. If you live at home with your parents, then you don't even deserve $15/hour in my opinion (When I started working, I was paid ~$6.50 CAD per hour - obviously cost of living has increased since then, but you get my point).

 

But once you're on your own, then things are a lot different. Most people don't want to live in a shitty apartment with 4 roommates to save on living expenses for the rest of their lives.

[Murdoch]

#inhighschoolprobblyshouldlearnprogramingrobotscantakethatyet!

 

This hash tag raises an interesting point. Haha. The education system is designed in part to churn out quite a lot of "low earners" people to do these low level jobs. How exactly can we educate these people to higher levels to do skilled jobs, and are they even capable of it?

[Arty]

This hash tag raises an interesting point. Haha. The education system is designed in part to churn out quite a lot of "low earners" people to do these low level jobs. How exactly can we educate these people to higher levels to do skilled jobs, and are they even capable of it?

schools don't really educate in terms of practical knowledge

thank god my school has the stem program

Learned html/css last year, going to take a c+ class this year.

[thekeemo]

also known as socialism, which leads to issues like a lack of motivation to work. In theory socialism is a great idea, but in practice it doesn't work.

uhmmm it actually works very well see Europe

[AlwaysFSX]

Honestly,You Don't Need More Than A Million A Year,I Wouldn't Even Know What To Do With 1 Million A Year

I could blow through a million really fucking quick so I'd have to disagree.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Being the CEO of ANYTHING isn't just sitting at a desk all day counting your millions...

It's tough work. A simple mistake could have horrible consequences...

Oh ofcourse it's hardwork, it's so worth 84 Million dollars. Are you out of you mind? What is wrong with you. Like any other sports player this is way to much.

[Pumcy]

I've only gone throught a couple pages, so maybe someone pointed this out already, so if that's the case, i apologize. 

I'm seeing a lot of people commenting about how much per hour this is, and blah blah blah. 
There were even comments about how some CEO make lower salaries and then take money in stocks. 

Guess what! So does Satya Nadela. 
His base salary is 900k. The majority of that "$84 million" IS stock - and what's more, he can't cash it out for years. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-pay-84-million-2014-10

 

• base salary of $918,917,
• a cash bonus of $3.6 million,
• a one-time grant of stock valued at $59.2 million in connection with his promotion to CEO that he will not be able to cash out until 2019,
• and another one-time stock grant worth $13.5 million given to him in August 2013, to keep him around during the CEO search process.

Considering Microsoft is one of the biggest companies on the planet, this payscale is actually pretty low. Sure he got a lot of stocks, but consider the fact that Steve Balmer is now a BILLIONAIRE because of his stocks at Microsoft - Pay expectation at that level is high. These guys don't need to work, they've made enough money to get by. Big companies like that have to make it worth thier time for tallented execs to run a company. 

[6God]

I've only gone throught a couple pages, so maybe someone pointed this out already, so if that's the case, i apologize. 

I'm seeing a lot of people commenting about how much per hour this is, and blah blah blah. 

There were even comments about how some CEO make lower salaries and then take money in stocks. 

Guess what! So does Satya Nadela. 

His base salary is 900k. The majority of that "$84 million" IS stock - and what's more, he can't cash it out for years. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-pay-84-million-2014-10

 

• base salary of $918,917,
• a cash bonus of $3.6 million,
• a one-time grant of stock valued at $59.2 million in connection with his promotion to CEO that he will not be able to cash out until 2019,
• and another one-time stock grant worth $13.5 million given to him in August 2013, to keep him around during the CEO search process.

Considering Microsoft is one of the biggest companies on the planet, this payscale is actually pretty low. Sure he got a lot of stocks, but consider the fact that Steve Balmer is now a BILLIONAIRE because of his stocks at Microsoft - Pay expectation at that level is high. These guys don't need to work, they've made enough money to get by. Big companies like that have to make it worth thier time for tallented execs to run a company. 

 

Not only that, but they need to offer incentives to keep employees (that includes the CEO, who is just a very powerful employee who answers to the board) within their company, otherwise competitors will snatch them up. 

 

How do people on this forum think the government is able to keep such talented employees? They offer more than just a salary. They offer tax exemptions, they offer amazing severance packages and they offer incredible pension funds to keep talented employees from jumping ship to the private sector. How does the private sector handle this? They just offer more money and companies like Microsoft, Apple, Samsung et al leverage their stock market presence by offering stock options. 

 

Ballmer owns a NBA team because of those options. Tim Cook will eventually join Ballmer in that realm of billionaire status because of his options. This is how capitalism works across the globe for employees of this calibre. 

[TheSLSAMG]

Okay? He works, he earned that money. Whether you think his pay is fair or not, he isn't at liberty to lower his pay and give it to his employees. Satoru Iwata did that because he felt it was necessary. Microsoft's CEO shouldn't have to keep useless (as in they were of no valuable use to Microsoft) employees and pay them out of his pocket.

 

Ah well, this topic is just going to turn into capitalists and socialists clashing anyways.

[FaZe Booce]

Damn Micro$oft.

[Pumcy]

I could blow through a million really fucking quick so I'd have to disagree.

 

And if you did that you'd be an absolute moron. This is why lotto winner end up going bankrupt. 

Anyone COULD blow through a million, but a million dollars should last a LONG time if you plan it properly. 

With 1 Million dollars, invested properly, can net you around 25-35k/year of interest that you can add to your day job income. 

With 2.5 Mil, you'd be able to earn 75k/year on the interest easily without even having to do anything.

People don't need the type of money that CEO's make, but I'd argue that people do need the products that massive companies like Microsoft makes, so those companies need to make the job interesting to those who can do it well. The fact of the matter is, if you are at the level of being able to run a company like that, companies will be chomping at the bit to get you to run them, at ANY cost.

It's like anything else. Supply and demand. The demand for top execs is MASSIVE, but there are a very small group of individuals that have the capacity to do the job at that level.