CEO pay is a market rate. This is not much different than complaining about the price point of gas, or milk, or eggs.
You can describe it as being too high in your opinion, or not worth it in your opinion, but that's completely different than pretending that its not being set by the market (and approved by the board) weighing myriad inputs. And btw, one of those inputs is...the ability to successfully tighten the belt and restructure costs to hit numbers.
Make the case to fire Pichai if you want, I'm fine with that, but recognize that you're going to pay "replacement cost" at the same rate or higher for someone else. That's showbiz baby.
you're going to pay "replacement cost"at the same rate or higher for someone else
How do you know this is true? This is an assertion you are making, but the evidence is to the contrary given significantly lower compensation for Microsoft or Apple's CEO.
Very unpopular opinion sadly. The most common argument I’ve heard is, “Just hire me! I’d do it for way less!” As if running a company employing ~150k people into the ground to make a quick buck is morally better than letting a hyper-competent professional run the operation and make “too much” money.
You can describe it as being too high in your opinion, or not worth it in your opinion, but that's completely different than pretending that its not being set by the market (and approved by the board) weighing myriad inputs. And btw, one of those inputs is...the ability to successfully tighten the belt and restructure costs to hit numbers.
Make the case to fire Pichai if you want, I'm fine with that, but recognize that you're going to pay "replacement cost" at the same rate or higher for someone else. That's showbiz baby.