If a person is in a $200m per year job, they're primarily incentivized to keep the job for as long as possible. This one objective dwarfs any other consideration in every decision that the person makes.
And sure, 99% of his compensation is Google stock, but at those magnitudes the marginal utility of the dollar is zero. What's the difference between $100m and $200m anyway?
Agree 100%. This is what stifles innovation and kills companies, people moving into positions where they make more than they ever have before and their goal is look good to financial stakeholders and maintain their position as long as possible. Although difficult for other reasons, I think I prefer working with true visionaries.
Presumably sundar is motivated to remain CEO for as long as possible regardless of the specific motivations, right?
Whether he is motivated by earning a billion dollars over a decade or he’s achieved pure altruism and simply wants to make Google the greatest company in history doesn’t really matter. He can only achieve his goals if he remains CEO. And as a public company, that means keeping shareholders happy. No?
Every decision that we make factors in many variables that are weighed according to how important we perceive them to be. If one coefficient in that "equation" outclasses all others, to a rational person that would become the primary motivator.
>Whether he is motivated by earning a billion dollars over a decade or he’s achieved pure altruism and simply wants to make Google the greatest company in history doesn’t really matter. He can only achieve his goals if he remains CEO.
I don't buy this argument at all. For one, his goals are unknowable and might be what he plans to do with $200m/year, and he could justify anything to attain that $200m up to and including total destruction of the organization. Secondly, many people abdicate power if it's false power i.e. someone forces their hand in critical decisions. He hasn't done that presumably because $200m is more important to him than his pride or (Google) legacy.
To someone in the bottom 10%, I'm sure they think there's no appreciable difference between a $100k/y annual income and $1M annual income. How much rent and food can one person consume, after all?
As others in the thread are trying to explain, there is a huge stratification at those levels. A $1B net-worther has a very different ability to project his will onto the world than a $.1B net-worther, or a $10B net-worther. That matters to them.
It's ability to do things and have an impact on the world. You can afford to try out crazy projects that require enormous amounts of capital. Obviously no one needs this, but there are plenty of things to spend your money on that isn't buying 30 of the same thing.
Observably, quite a lot, considering these CEOs are dedicating so much of their life towards this when they could easily stop working now and be rich forever if they only cared about holiday homes and boats.
I think certain people a lot. As your wealth grows so do your ambitions for sone people. Self actualization is a pyramid onto its own. Power, influence, and legacy are attractive. Of course so is living a quiet life.
And sure, 99% of his compensation is Google stock, but at those magnitudes the marginal utility of the dollar is zero. What's the difference between $100m and $200m anyway?