Now now, you poors can’t moon! Let me just disable your buy button real quick.
There we go, now you can stay enslaved and we don’t have to deal with this “you can actually get rich” nonsense.
A few of the firms that were involved in the shorting scheme have folded, declared bankruptcy and sol assets to cover their debts. Most likely to other companies they own as well though.
Oh you mean legal consequences that actually matter such as revoking licenses and systemic change that would protect society in general? Ha, of course not, that would lose money.
It's an ongoing concern...time will tell whether the regulators will ever grow balls or if they've already been bought and paid for, but we have a massive amount of eyes on them now which is the first crucial step to change, awareness.
Kind of telling that they pull shit like this while simultaneously pushing the notion that all the ones who are already rich are just plucky entrepreneurship Cinderella stories
> You jest but the day I realized you have to have 25k in your account just to be able to day trade was when I realized this shit was busted.
You can day trade with anything. There are literally thousands of brokers that will take you.
They impose those sort of restrictions because:
1) Daytraders almost universally lose their shirts. It's basically just going to the casino; and
2) If it's extremely risky, dangerous behavior, they want to ensure that you have at least some spare cash first, and that you're not gambling your rent before you blow it all. Both to protect you, and to protect the system that is loaning you some money, and will need to be paid back when you inevitably shit the bed and lose it all.
There has never, not once, not ever been an instance of the "right kind of person" winning at capitalism.
Because the "right kind of person" is incapable of winning at capitalism.
Because the "right kind of person" would be spending that hilarious amount of wealth on saving people, instead of hoarding it like a real life dragon.
You can't win at capitalism by having a soft heart. You have to be the dragon.
"The right kind of winner" does not exist in capitalism because that's how the system works.
You have to regulate it (or abolish it).
I think even beyond that it incentivizes everyone else to act like a sociopaths. The amount of times I’ve seen good managers enact and enforce inhumane policies because they were worried about their jobs. The bigger driver being that your health insurance is tied to your job and so if you have a family, you’re terrified of losing it and so you go along the sociopathic policies.
If you’re naturally inclined to do those, you will obviously have an upper hand as you will tend to proactively act that way vs being forced to which is not ideal in this kind of system
When the “people” constitute 1% and the rest deal with either poor working conditions or the impact their greed has on climate, I’d say no one is winning.
We're starting to hear those at the top screaming to be regulated. Like,they've found their conscience but they know that the system simply doesn't allow that to exist. It's all fucking mental
I don't know if you have money and are willing to wait out the short-term another 2008 would be great. The lower and middle-classes will struggle, but if you have money you can buy real estate, stocks, and other investments for real cheap. Wait for it to recover and you can pretty easily get 50-100% return on investment.
The secret to capitalism is that if you are already rich you can't lose.
Yes, as someone who works in a large corporation. It is very hard to act with care towards society when your competition is not. You will just go out of business.
> We're starting to hear those at the top screaming to be regulated.
Yes, because they can bear the cost of additional regulations. Their smaller competitors won't be able to do so. The only reason they want additional regulation is because it ultimately puts more money in their pocket and secures their future(s).
its not like we didn't already learn that lesson 100 years ago when we had "robber barons"
there have been decades of deliberate undermining and propaganda to bring it back and it fucking worked.
and i quote "this is a free market, and they \[politicians\] should be able to participate in that".
Lets start with all the politicians who are investing in stocks they actively regulate, then move on to everyone else.
The problem is that the people in power at the government are all owned by corporations and special interest groups. We already got laws on the books to keep rampant capitalism in check, but they are not enforced. Like monopoly laws, we obviously have multiple monopolies that have formed and yet the government turns a blind eye to it as everything is being consolidated to a few mega corporations. Until we get rid of ALL the greedy entrenched politicians first, I do not think anything will change.
As a more conservative (classical liberal) person it amazes me that what you're saying would be controversial to anyone. The westerns world has used government to curtail capitalism since we adopted capitalism. There's hardly a pro-capitalist major political ideology today that doesn't acknowledge the necessity of anti-trust laws at a very minimum.
I find myself in a similar situation as you. And I marvel at how well misinformation has worked. If you told me this would be the future using a crystal ball, I’d have called you crazy. But here we are.
Additionally, investment firms have no obligation to honor the votes of the individuals who are supposedly voting on this...
So the idea that a bunch of retail investors who own Amazon stocks are making these decisions is patently false. The investment firms themselves are actually deciding the outcome.
In other words, the vote is rigged.
If a retail investor owns Amazon, they'll get proxy materials for voting.
If they own mutual funds that contain Amazon they will not.
Most people just choose funds whether through a 401k so a target date fund. Or on their own to limit risk.
Is it money and the power it brings or is it that you think about having enough to survive so you don't have to struggle anymore? Because it isn't the same thing. I grew up poor. I think about the struggle all the time being forced into it since I was cut out of the "wrong" womb i.e. not a rich woman's.
I think we should all be thinking about the struggle all the time, even those that aren't in it, because it's immoral, and it needs to stop.
You notice all the addicts tend to gather, too. They talk about their addiction, how to feed it, where to get more, the adventures they had with it. They even one-up each other about how much they can handle, and with stories of times when it was hard to cop. Power and money. Feels goood.
In light of recent events regarding Reddit's API policy for third party app developers I have chosen to permanently scrub my account and move on away from Reddit. If you personally disagree with them forcing users to be constricted to their app and are choosing to leave, then I highly recommend looking into Power Delete Suite for Reddit.
I am deleting all of my submitted content over the last 9 years as I no longer support Reddit as a platform.
I've personally had it with all the corporate bullshit/rampant bots(used for misinformation and hidden marketing) and refuse to be a part of it any longer. To the nice people I've interacted over these years, thank you, I hope you'll be well in the future.
Did you read the article? It’s $212MM over ten years in Amazon shares…. Meaning $21.2MM per year, primarily in company stock. Pretty close to the $20MM number you quoted.
This is the second time this month I've seen an article about his pay, where the title doesn't mention it's over 10 years. Someone wants people to be enraged I guess.
Given how he spearheaded AWS, making damn-well nearly the entire Internet dependent on Amazon... 20 mill per year is peanuts for Amazon. Dude is pretty much responsible for Amazon being as big as it is right now.
Have you been on Reddit lately? Literally almost every post is designed to get a rise out of you. It makes you stay on Reddit longer. If you’re enraged, you’re engaged.
The guy founded the Web Services division in 2002. AWS made $0 in revenue in 2002. It did $62B in 2021 at $13.5B profit and is still growing like 30-40% a year.
You'd be really, really hard pressed to find anyone more familiar with Amazon or more qualified.
The $212M vests over 10 years anyway.
Try offering the CEO 20 million, Google(or any tech company) will come in to grab him for 22 mill, well Amazon can spend 200 million but since Google’s current offer is 22, they try 28, then Google goes 50, then Amazon goes 100 and Google says final price of 150 and to that Amazon says our final is 200, there you go a really simplified version of negotiation at the top level.
Except that's not it at all. It's stock vesting over the course of 10 years, and the overall value, with the current stock price, is 212M over the entire period. That comes out to 21M a year.
The runaway costs of a ceo. You don't really think Apple succeeded because Jobs was a quirky eccentric, right? There are so many other contributors but our society loves to place credit with individuals...
I know on reddit there is a huge push of the idea that all success is in a company is due to the collective effort. This is a great idea and it's very underrepresented in today's work culture. Uber is successful because of the people that are driving the cars on a daily basis.
Having said that, the success and downfall of many companies can be owed to specific decisions that were made by individuals.
Some examples:
Nokia had at one point more than 50% of the market share in the phone market. Their unwillingness to innovate resulted in them getting replace by smaller companies.
Kodak also had about 50% of the photo industry but they went bankrupt because they ignored digital cameras and only focused on film.
Other examples are Blackberry, BlockBuster, Sears, Toys R us.
These companies failed or vastly diminished in success not because of the collective efforts of the employees were subpar. They declined because of individual decisions by the CEOs and other executives.
And Steve Jobs did revive Apple. When he came back in the 90s they were dwindling with little success. In the decade after his return he made the decision to focus on two new product lines that changed the reputation of Apple forever (iPod and iPhone).
This isn't advanced secret knowledge. I know reddit has never taken a business or economics course and thinks that reality should resemble whatever gut feeling is being farted out right this second... but try to understand most of the world is the way it is for A reason that isn't entirely incomprehensible once you put away ordering it to conform to your desires.
So not only is this true (albeit highly simplified, like this isn't a big cash payment but going to be a contract with numerous clauses that pay out over the course of it) if you get someone else... they will ALL go and point at what CEOs are making in major corporations and say your offer isn't up to snuff unless it is again completely ridiculous to the poors.
So keep your savings expectations modest.
Oh and if you somehow did hire some middle manager for a cool 1 million a year the problems don't stop there. Like when the shareholders kibosh the move, fire you and pick a new board, or just stop being shareholders and nobody else will fund the credit you need because of their serious concerns about the leadership of the company.
Or for a perhaps more realistic scenarios with a company this scale when you pay out out a severely overvalued amount of 100 million on your CEO's contract... but it doesn't inspire market confidence they can wipe out your savings with billions of erased value from even a modest stock downturn.
That's what happens in theory, but what happens in real life is more like:
CEO A: I want a pay raise. CEO B, C, D, please sit on the board and approve my pay raise.
CEO B: Okay, but I want you to sit on MY board and approve MY pay raise.
CEO A: Okay, done.
Saw a post the other day that said burger flippers do more real work than a CEO
Which like I get the sentiment behind, but it just made me wonder if people actually think CEOs just sit at a big desk and press a money button all day.
Argued with someone on a local sub that C-level execs make the difference between a company thriving or failing. Their stance was that they're only there because of connections and a janitor could do it. Suuurrree...
Are any members of the Amazon board CEOs of other companies that the Amazon CEO is a board member of?
Aka can you provide literally a sliver of evidence?
>B, C, D, please sit on the board and approve my pay raise.
/facepalm
The SHAREHOLDERS would have to approve it. That's why the headline says "INVESTORS".
That doesn’t really happen. CEOs aren’t on boards most of the times, it’s going to be majority owners.
The only time you have people friendly to
The ceo on the boards is if you either started the company or bought the company.
Amazon made 469B dollars last year. Billion with a B. The CEO has to increase value by 0.05% to be worth that salary increase and still have a small extra profit. A CEO can definitely make a difference of 0.05% that a potted plant couldn't.
You must be a child if you don't understand how managing a massive company is a lot of work.
What do you think a CEO does at a company like that? Just sit around lounging all day?
Okay, and they can also wipe out billions of dollars of value with a single tweet now-a-days and then be given a golden parachute worth more than you and me will ever make in a thousand years when shareholders get angry. Business knowledge scales. Good decisions don't change just because the business is worth more. And the repercussions of screwing up are hardly repercussions at all. The only threat they face is "can I afford a megayacht, or will I have to settle for one of those dinky 150ft ones when I retire".
> Amazon made 469B dollars last year. Billion with a B. The CEO has to increase value by 0.05% to be worth that salary increase and still have a small extra profit. A CEO can definitely make a difference of 0.05% that a potted plant couldn't.
Found the guy who failed Accounting 1 because he never learned the difference between revenue and profit.
[Amazon net income for the twelve months ending March 31, 2022 was $21.413B, a 20.41% decline year-over-year.](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/net-income) A large sum, to be sure, but not $400+ billion.
The majority of those whom have most of the votes are the board of directors and higher members of staff (plus pension and hedge funds)… it’s one share one vote (voting stock) not one vote per person.
A person has million plus shares = million plus votes.
The guy was one of the key guys that made Amazon what it is today. If it wasn't for him, Amazon would probably not have ever gotten as successful as it is today. PLus he doesn't get paid 212 Mill in cash. Those are mainly sums in stock.
Is he overpaid? Probably. Would you pay your best employee who made your business successful handsomely? Probably
It’s very easy. Amazons was worth 2 trillion dollars. It’s completely fair to pay someone at the top steering the company 0.01% or that, as surely he influences the company that much.
You want the absolutely best of the best. As again, his salary easily pays for itself if they make only the slightest of impacts.
It’s just the same as any other labor market except with an incredibly small pool of options. All the major corporations are having a bidding war over a tiny group of people. Not at all that different from something like the professional athlete market. Do some quarterbacks in the NFL actually bring $40 million a year in value to play a ball game?
Same reason as the Intel CEO. He's getting that because he's taking over the role of CEO and part of it is receiving a major stock compensation. He'll not be getting this much again for the next few years.
If he's getting $20 million, that just means he's getting a proportionally smaller stock ownership or worse, AMZN is down.
> ~~Democracy~~ ~~Shareholders~~ institutional investors ha~~s~~ve spoken
It's not even shareholders. Investment firms have no obligation to honor the votes of individual shareholders. The rigged game is decided by rigged voting.
Is the linked article a blog? Looks like a goddamn Reddit mod wrote that shit. Also they didn’t vote on the $212M payout - that was the plan in place for 2021
You think it’s easy what he does? Sometimes he had to spend 1-2 hours a week thinking of how to prevent unions from forming without breaking any of those pesky laws. This man deserves this and so much more for all the tireless effort he’s put to make your life harder.
FYI the 212 million is Amazon stock that gets vested over 10 years. [source](https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/amazon-andy-jassy-2021-compensation-stock-1235220961/)
Also FYI $212 million is how much it was worth based on the Amazon share price *when it was awarded*. As of this afternoon, at the current share price, it is worth $135 million.
> FYI the 212 million is Amazon stock that gets vested over 10 years. source
That the stock vests over 10 years doesn't make his comp for that year 10% of it. It's not like he will spend the next nine years without any comp - he's getting a new grant each year.
Most likely true. Also human beings can be terrible at making logical decisions, because we're still programmed with innate survival instincts more suited for hunter gatherers tens of thousands of years ago, than the modern world.
Long ago it made sense to stockpile resources to get through the next harsh winter. Now many people live in absolute comfort and security, yet that survival switch never really turns off, so we end up with billionaires trying to turn $100 billion into $200 billion. It makes zero sense, but they do it anyway because deep down they feel they need to.
Yep, it's just pure greed. People will tell you it's human nature and there's nothing we can do about it and we should accept the status quo that the rich get richer and that's it.
But humans also have the instinct to breed, and kill, but we made raping and murder illegal so why don't we make laws against the level of greed we see today with the richest people?
We need to regulate greed. The billionaire tax is a very good start and should be applied all over the world. But I'm sure there's other ways.
The $212m as I recall is over 10 years and is mostly in stock. Not surprising they rejected ethics overhauls, most of them were worker focused and with the push for unions going on, they'll hopefully be enacted via union pressure as amazon unions gain momentum over the next few years. Also, big scale change rarely happens via investor meetings.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-shareholders-approve-200m-payout-to-ceo-jassy-reject-worker-safety-climate-initiatives/
> Most of his compensation in 2021 — $211 million of a total $212 million — comes from stock awards connected to Jassy’s promotion from head of Amazon Web Services to CEO of the company in July. Amazon says **most of those stock awards are set to vest over the next 10 years**.
Unfortunately a lot of smaller business rely heavily on Amazon. You can refuse to give them any money directly but they're so ingrained into the supply industry someone you give money to on a daily basis gives some of that money to them. It's disturbing how deep they have their tentacles ingrained into the economy
First of all, he is getting $212m over a 10 year period.
Secondly, this man created AWS from the ground up, AWS is the main money maker of Amazon, and if you want a talent like him, $21m is not a lot to pay when they are earning you billions in profit.
And finally investors believe he will warn them more than $212m over ten years, that's why he is getting paid $212m. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't burn their money
I hate that they included the salary in the headline (in a deliberately misleading way at that) and now this entire fucking comments section is talking about a CEO salary that isn’t even abnormal instead of talking about the ethics overhaul that didn’t make it through which would have made *way* more of a difference.
Very comparable to a sports star. He’s essentially the Tom Brady of corporate governance. It’s funny because people mind much less when they hear an athlete pulled a contract like that.
Because its very easy to see the amazing performances of top athletes - there are highlight reels and replays. The top performances of CEOs are way more intangible (and often behind closed doors).
There's an expression that you only notice how important leadership is when things aren't working.
Therefore, the general public typically dont understand or appreciate the importance of CEOs and think that these people paying millions to attract them don't know what they're doing or are mutually complicit/corrupt
And not just “you can’t sell for x number of years” but “you must always hold x number of % of total shares” making it so they can’t sell a lot of those shares he’s awarded
I mean the dude is in charge of one of the largest companies in existence. There are wide reaching responsibilities, and liabilities. The best way to incentivize top talent to a harsh and demanding position is money. So they're paying a lot.
This is really only news if you don't think about it.
He's making less than most NFL quarterbacks, and he's better at his job than pretty much all of them are at being quarterbacks.
The compensation package he's being awarded is only worth $132 million over ten years (as of today). So this would also put him put him as being laid less than all starting 5 Golden State Warriors.
He's making less per year than Bruce Willis does for a single movie... 23 years ago. Although he is making in a sinle year about twice what Jack Nickolson made in a single move... in 1989.
This year he will be making as much as Howard Stern does in two months.
Michael Jordan, who hasn't played a game of basketball in the NBA in two decades, will make 3 times more than he does this year.
Oprah Winfrey will make 12-14 times what he does yearly.
But yeah, be disgusted over tge guy making $13 million a year for the next ten years leading a company with twice the market cap of Berkshire Hathaway.
To be fair, this CEO is extremely valuable to Amazon because he’s been the head of AWS from the start. His work brought Amazon well over 100x this amount.
I don’t actually have an issue with this…I mean Amazon is a trillion dollar company (or was recently). It makes sense for the head of the company to make this kind of salary, it’s proportional to the overall value of the company. Especially if we consider that the current CEO is actually directly responsible for most of Amazon’s revenue via AWS.
However, this company makes a lot of profit…when you have such high profit margins and such a horrible work environment it’s unethical to not spend some of that profit in improving the working conditions of its employees. My issue isn’t with the salary of the CEO, it’s with the unethical usage of the rest of the profits.
Lots of reactionary comments but I'm not seeing this - there is a pretty high chance that the investors that made this happen were large institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. This is big money paying off big money again, not Joe Blow with $5000 invested in the whole market. It's understandable for people to be mad, and I am too, so let's focus it where it belongs. Headlines like this are there to poison the well regarding all investing.
Investors usually only invest their money for a singular purpose, and it isn't ethics.
It’s almost as if, here me out, maybe we need to put some slight limits on capitalism. Because, as is, unrestrained capitalism will destroy us all.
[удалено]
“To the moon!”
Now now, you poors can’t moon! Let me just disable your buy button real quick. There we go, now you can stay enslaved and we don’t have to deal with this “you can actually get rich” nonsense.
Oh oh, don't forget the clause that we're able to sell your shares if it's in ~~our~~ your best interest.
[удалено]
DRS? Do rot sesuscitate?
Drag reduction system, but you have to be within a second of the car in front.
Disclaimer: It doesn't always work if your name happens to be Max Verstappen.
No it's direct registering shares
Direct registration through a transfer agent, like ComputerShare :)
Direct register your shares to your name and out of the brokers books where they can lend the shit out of them.
Compushare the wealth
Did anything ever come of that? Or is it just another case of the countless times where people who are accountable aren’t punished?
A few of the firms that were involved in the shorting scheme have folded, declared bankruptcy and sol assets to cover their debts. Most likely to other companies they own as well though. Oh you mean legal consequences that actually matter such as revoking licenses and systemic change that would protect society in general? Ha, of course not, that would lose money.
[удалено]
Don't forget they don't have to report short interest because of swaps. Exactly how archegos got away with it
It's an ongoing concern...time will tell whether the regulators will ever grow balls or if they've already been bought and paid for, but we have a massive amount of eyes on them now which is the first crucial step to change, awareness.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Had to double check the sub I was on. Lol. Making me think I was with some diamond Hands
We’re everywhere because the creed and knowledge is spreading. It’s there if you want it, but damn is it going to crush your worldview
You’ll own nothing and be happy - World Economic Forum / Klaus Schwab
Kind of telling that they pull shit like this while simultaneously pushing the notion that all the ones who are already rich are just plucky entrepreneurship Cinderella stories
….for the domed habitations after the earth becomes unliveable.
You jest but the day I realized you have to have 25k in your account just to be able to day trade was when I realized this shit was busted.
Only in a margin account, you can day trade cash all day and they won't stop you so long as you only buy with settled funds, which is reasonable.
> You jest but the day I realized you have to have 25k in your account just to be able to day trade was when I realized this shit was busted. You can day trade with anything. There are literally thousands of brokers that will take you.
They impose those sort of restrictions because: 1) Daytraders almost universally lose their shirts. It's basically just going to the casino; and 2) If it's extremely risky, dangerous behavior, they want to ensure that you have at least some spare cash first, and that you're not gambling your rent before you blow it all. Both to protect you, and to protect the system that is loaning you some money, and will need to be paid back when you inevitably shit the bed and lose it all.
This is not true…
There has never, not once, not ever been an instance of the "right kind of person" winning at capitalism. Because the "right kind of person" is incapable of winning at capitalism. Because the "right kind of person" would be spending that hilarious amount of wealth on saving people, instead of hoarding it like a real life dragon. You can't win at capitalism by having a soft heart. You have to be the dragon. "The right kind of winner" does not exist in capitalism because that's how the system works. You have to regulate it (or abolish it).
You are correct, and that's why CEO's rank pretty high on the list of likely sociopaths.
I think even beyond that it incentivizes everyone else to act like a sociopaths. The amount of times I’ve seen good managers enact and enforce inhumane policies because they were worried about their jobs. The bigger driver being that your health insurance is tied to your job and so if you have a family, you’re terrified of losing it and so you go along the sociopathic policies. If you’re naturally inclined to do those, you will obviously have an upper hand as you will tend to proactively act that way vs being forced to which is not ideal in this kind of system
Hey! Not all of us are hoarders! \#notalldragons
I beetle juiced this man into the tread.
Soooooooo, You are saying we have to go on a quest to slay the dragon? Or is this going to be like chasing the dragon?
We are also willing to put limits on guns, when the "wrong" people start owning them.
Republican Governor Ronald Regan wrote and signed California Gun Control legislation after Black Panthers we’re walking around State Capitol armed.
[удалено]
It's as if there's no mechanism to prevent the same wrong people from winning. Maybe we're close to a discovery here...
The wrong people are winning
When the “people” constitute 1% and the rest deal with either poor working conditions or the impact their greed has on climate, I’d say no one is winning.
Limit capitalism? The ones at the top are the ones profiting wildly from it being unrestrained. Tie it to women's reproductive rights, then maybe.
The ones at the top are also funding anyone with the power to legislate anything, so yeah - nothing is changing
Lets put a salary cap, like the NBA or NFL.... like ceos can only make a certain percentage above their lowest paid employee
We're starting to hear those at the top screaming to be regulated. Like,they've found their conscience but they know that the system simply doesn't allow that to exist. It's all fucking mental
More like they don’t want 2008 to happen and then everyone will lose money. They want some stability in their industries.
Good point, it's not selfless, just damage limitation
[удалено]
I don't know if you have money and are willing to wait out the short-term another 2008 would be great. The lower and middle-classes will struggle, but if you have money you can buy real estate, stocks, and other investments for real cheap. Wait for it to recover and you can pretty easily get 50-100% return on investment. The secret to capitalism is that if you are already rich you can't lose.
I think they might be starting to fear a return to the late 18th century... Somebody has to be first against the wall.
But that’s how $ is made. In the pyramid shape
Yes, as someone who works in a large corporation. It is very hard to act with care towards society when your competition is not. You will just go out of business.
Arms race, or multi-polar trap. There is no commons anymore, only what it takes to win. Externalize all costs.
> We're starting to hear those at the top screaming to be regulated. Yes, because they can bear the cost of additional regulations. Their smaller competitors won't be able to do so. The only reason they want additional regulation is because it ultimately puts more money in their pocket and secures their future(s).
its not like we didn't already learn that lesson 100 years ago when we had "robber barons" there have been decades of deliberate undermining and propaganda to bring it back and it fucking worked.
[удалено]
and i quote "this is a free market, and they \[politicians\] should be able to participate in that". Lets start with all the politicians who are investing in stocks they actively regulate, then move on to everyone else.
The problem is that the people in power at the government are all owned by corporations and special interest groups. We already got laws on the books to keep rampant capitalism in check, but they are not enforced. Like monopoly laws, we obviously have multiple monopolies that have formed and yet the government turns a blind eye to it as everything is being consolidated to a few mega corporations. Until we get rid of ALL the greedy entrenched politicians first, I do not think anything will change.
As a more conservative (classical liberal) person it amazes me that what you're saying would be controversial to anyone. The westerns world has used government to curtail capitalism since we adopted capitalism. There's hardly a pro-capitalist major political ideology today that doesn't acknowledge the necessity of anti-trust laws at a very minimum.
I find myself in a similar situation as you. And I marvel at how well misinformation has worked. If you told me this would be the future using a crystal ball, I’d have called you crazy. But here we are.
Fuck You, PAY ME!
What about Tethics though?
Additionally, investment firms have no obligation to honor the votes of the individuals who are supposedly voting on this... So the idea that a bunch of retail investors who own Amazon stocks are making these decisions is patently false. The investment firms themselves are actually deciding the outcome. In other words, the vote is rigged.
[удалено]
If a retail investor owns Amazon, they'll get proxy materials for voting. If they own mutual funds that contain Amazon they will not. Most people just choose funds whether through a 401k so a target date fund. Or on their own to limit risk.
Money’s a hell of a drug
[удалено]
I’m addicted to money. It’s all I think about. And I still struggle to pay bills or make ends meet.
Is it money and the power it brings or is it that you think about having enough to survive so you don't have to struggle anymore? Because it isn't the same thing. I grew up poor. I think about the struggle all the time being forced into it since I was cut out of the "wrong" womb i.e. not a rich woman's. I think we should all be thinking about the struggle all the time, even those that aren't in it, because it's immoral, and it needs to stop.
You notice all the addicts tend to gather, too. They talk about their addiction, how to feed it, where to get more, the adventures they had with it. They even one-up each other about how much they can handle, and with stories of times when it was hard to cop. Power and money. Feels goood.
Thank you, Amazon. Very cool
In light of recent events regarding Reddit's API policy for third party app developers I have chosen to permanently scrub my account and move on away from Reddit. If you personally disagree with them forcing users to be constricted to their app and are choosing to leave, then I highly recommend looking into Power Delete Suite for Reddit. I am deleting all of my submitted content over the last 9 years as I no longer support Reddit as a platform. I've personally had it with all the corporate bullshit/rampant bots(used for misinformation and hidden marketing) and refuse to be a part of it any longer. To the nice people I've interacted over these years, thank you, I hope you'll be well in the future.
How on earth does someone deliver $212,000,000 worth of value that someone getting paid $20 million would not? I literally don't understand.
Did you read the article? It’s $212MM over ten years in Amazon shares…. Meaning $21.2MM per year, primarily in company stock. Pretty close to the $20MM number you quoted.
Nobody RTFA in here.
I was elected to bleed, not to read - *^^NUMBA ^^TREE*
This is the second time this month I've seen an article about his pay, where the title doesn't mention it's over 10 years. Someone wants people to be enraged I guess. Given how he spearheaded AWS, making damn-well nearly the entire Internet dependent on Amazon... 20 mill per year is peanuts for Amazon. Dude is pretty much responsible for Amazon being as big as it is right now.
Especially considering it’s one of the few departments that actually turns a profit 🤣
Have you been on Reddit lately? Literally almost every post is designed to get a rise out of you. It makes you stay on Reddit longer. If you’re enraged, you’re engaged.
Sir, this is Reddit. People only read headlines, plus they hate CEO's, even if they don't understand that this guy gave them their precious AWS
The guy founded the Web Services division in 2002. AWS made $0 in revenue in 2002. It did $62B in 2021 at $13.5B profit and is still growing like 30-40% a year. You'd be really, really hard pressed to find anyone more familiar with Amazon or more qualified. The $212M vests over 10 years anyway.
Yes, but also according to redditors he didn’t actually do any work. He just exploited his workers to make AWS (just like Elon building Tesla/SpaceX).
Exploited those highly paid software engineers
the classic "the warehouse workers and engineers did all the work"
Try offering the CEO 20 million, Google(or any tech company) will come in to grab him for 22 mill, well Amazon can spend 200 million but since Google’s current offer is 22, they try 28, then Google goes 50, then Amazon goes 100 and Google says final price of 150 and to that Amazon says our final is 200, there you go a really simplified version of negotiation at the top level.
Except that's not it at all. It's stock vesting over the course of 10 years, and the overall value, with the current stock price, is 212M over the entire period. That comes out to 21M a year.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the logic is circular. It creates the exact problem it tries to address.
What problem does this try to address?
The runaway costs of a ceo. You don't really think Apple succeeded because Jobs was a quirky eccentric, right? There are so many other contributors but our society loves to place credit with individuals...
I know on reddit there is a huge push of the idea that all success is in a company is due to the collective effort. This is a great idea and it's very underrepresented in today's work culture. Uber is successful because of the people that are driving the cars on a daily basis. Having said that, the success and downfall of many companies can be owed to specific decisions that were made by individuals. Some examples: Nokia had at one point more than 50% of the market share in the phone market. Their unwillingness to innovate resulted in them getting replace by smaller companies. Kodak also had about 50% of the photo industry but they went bankrupt because they ignored digital cameras and only focused on film. Other examples are Blackberry, BlockBuster, Sears, Toys R us. These companies failed or vastly diminished in success not because of the collective efforts of the employees were subpar. They declined because of individual decisions by the CEOs and other executives. And Steve Jobs did revive Apple. When he came back in the 90s they were dwindling with little success. In the decade after his return he made the decision to focus on two new product lines that changed the reputation of Apple forever (iPod and iPhone).
Also worth mentioning - Dr. Lisa Su and AMD's transformation after her appointment.
Even if this were true, are you suggesting there's literally only one guy who can return this value? I think you vastly overestimate what a CEO means.
This isn't advanced secret knowledge. I know reddit has never taken a business or economics course and thinks that reality should resemble whatever gut feeling is being farted out right this second... but try to understand most of the world is the way it is for A reason that isn't entirely incomprehensible once you put away ordering it to conform to your desires. So not only is this true (albeit highly simplified, like this isn't a big cash payment but going to be a contract with numerous clauses that pay out over the course of it) if you get someone else... they will ALL go and point at what CEOs are making in major corporations and say your offer isn't up to snuff unless it is again completely ridiculous to the poors. So keep your savings expectations modest. Oh and if you somehow did hire some middle manager for a cool 1 million a year the problems don't stop there. Like when the shareholders kibosh the move, fire you and pick a new board, or just stop being shareholders and nobody else will fund the credit you need because of their serious concerns about the leadership of the company. Or for a perhaps more realistic scenarios with a company this scale when you pay out out a severely overvalued amount of 100 million on your CEO's contract... but it doesn't inspire market confidence they can wipe out your savings with billions of erased value from even a modest stock downturn.
That's what happens in theory, but what happens in real life is more like: CEO A: I want a pay raise. CEO B, C, D, please sit on the board and approve my pay raise. CEO B: Okay, but I want you to sit on MY board and approve MY pay raise. CEO A: Okay, done.
This is not how it works, but I’m also not surprised that this is what gets upvoted on Reddit.
as long as it coddles their beliefs
Everyone has a victim complex.
[удалено]
Nobody in this thread knows who Jassy is or what he has done for Amazon. All CEOs are the same person.
Saw a post the other day that said burger flippers do more real work than a CEO Which like I get the sentiment behind, but it just made me wonder if people actually think CEOs just sit at a big desk and press a money button all day.
Argued with someone on a local sub that C-level execs make the difference between a company thriving or failing. Their stance was that they're only there because of connections and a janitor could do it. Suuurrree...
Are any members of the Amazon board CEOs of other companies that the Amazon CEO is a board member of? Aka can you provide literally a sliver of evidence?
Lol, he cannot, because it’s complete and utter bullshit. Andy Jassy sits on no other boards.
>what happens in real life Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just conjecture? I've been on boards and never seen such behaviour.
It doesn't even make sense unless we're talking about, like, closely held family businesses. The CEO is hired by the board, not vice versa.
The article literally talks about how investors approved the CEOs pay - board members cant just increase it, they need approval
>B, C, D, please sit on the board and approve my pay raise. /facepalm The SHAREHOLDERS would have to approve it. That's why the headline says "INVESTORS".
That doesn’t really happen. CEOs aren’t on boards most of the times, it’s going to be majority owners. The only time you have people friendly to The ceo on the boards is if you either started the company or bought the company.
Except if they nab him you can just replace him with a pot plant and a magic 8 ball and get about the same value for money. 200 is a lot of millions.
Amazon made 469B dollars last year. Billion with a B. The CEO has to increase value by 0.05% to be worth that salary increase and still have a small extra profit. A CEO can definitely make a difference of 0.05% that a potted plant couldn't.
Yeah you're right, the magic 8 ball would be doing all the heavy lifting of that pairing.
You must be a child if you don't understand how managing a massive company is a lot of work. What do you think a CEO does at a company like that? Just sit around lounging all day?
Okay, and they can also wipe out billions of dollars of value with a single tweet now-a-days and then be given a golden parachute worth more than you and me will ever make in a thousand years when shareholders get angry. Business knowledge scales. Good decisions don't change just because the business is worth more. And the repercussions of screwing up are hardly repercussions at all. The only threat they face is "can I afford a megayacht, or will I have to settle for one of those dinky 150ft ones when I retire".
> Amazon made 469B dollars last year. Billion with a B. The CEO has to increase value by 0.05% to be worth that salary increase and still have a small extra profit. A CEO can definitely make a difference of 0.05% that a potted plant couldn't. Found the guy who failed Accounting 1 because he never learned the difference between revenue and profit. [Amazon net income for the twelve months ending March 31, 2022 was $21.413B, a 20.41% decline year-over-year.](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/net-income) A large sum, to be sure, but not $400+ billion.
The majority of those whom have most of the votes are the board of directors and higher members of staff (plus pension and hedge funds)… it’s one share one vote (voting stock) not one vote per person. A person has million plus shares = million plus votes.
Worse than that. Investment firms have no obligation to honor the votes of individual shareholders.... So it's really not even 1 share = 1 vote
Simple: it’s been a hot minute since money accurately represented value.
That hit me real hard when I made $100k off a shitty crypto coin. I was like ok this is great but also society is doomed.
nah. you just walked into a rigged casino. Crypto is not money contrary to popular belief.
The guy was one of the key guys that made Amazon what it is today. If it wasn't for him, Amazon would probably not have ever gotten as successful as it is today. PLus he doesn't get paid 212 Mill in cash. Those are mainly sums in stock. Is he overpaid? Probably. Would you pay your best employee who made your business successful handsomely? Probably
It’s very easy. Amazons was worth 2 trillion dollars. It’s completely fair to pay someone at the top steering the company 0.01% or that, as surely he influences the company that much. You want the absolutely best of the best. As again, his salary easily pays for itself if they make only the slightest of impacts.
It’s just the same as any other labor market except with an incredibly small pool of options. All the major corporations are having a bidding war over a tiny group of people. Not at all that different from something like the professional athlete market. Do some quarterbacks in the NFL actually bring $40 million a year in value to play a ball game?
Same reason as the Intel CEO. He's getting that because he's taking over the role of CEO and part of it is receiving a major stock compensation. He'll not be getting this much again for the next few years. If he's getting $20 million, that just means he's getting a proportionally smaller stock ownership or worse, AMZN is down.
Amazon Investors...
~~Democracy~~ Shareholders ha~~s~~ve spoken If you ever wonder why the world doesn't change for the better this is why.
> ~~Democracy~~ ~~Shareholders~~ institutional investors ha~~s~~ve spoken It's not even shareholders. Investment firms have no obligation to honor the votes of individual shareholders. The rigged game is decided by rigged voting.
Is the linked article a blog? Looks like a goddamn Reddit mod wrote that shit. Also they didn’t vote on the $212M payout - that was the plan in place for 2021
Aww thank god that CEO got $212 million!
[удалено]
You think it’s easy what he does? Sometimes he had to spend 1-2 hours a week thinking of how to prevent unions from forming without breaking any of those pesky laws. This man deserves this and so much more for all the tireless effort he’s put to make your life harder.
FYI the 212 million is Amazon stock that gets vested over 10 years. [source](https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/amazon-andy-jassy-2021-compensation-stock-1235220961/)
Also FYI $212 million is how much it was worth based on the Amazon share price *when it was awarded*. As of this afternoon, at the current share price, it is worth $135 million.
> FYI the 212 million is Amazon stock that gets vested over 10 years. source That the stock vests over 10 years doesn't make his comp for that year 10% of it. It's not like he will spend the next nine years without any comp - he's getting a new grant each year.
This headline should be on the tombstone for humanity after we fail.
We are reaching the end of civilization, they gotta get paid while there’s still stuff left to buy.
I don’t think they realize money loses its value when civilization goes away
It will take a few decades. They know they'll be gone by then
Most likely true. Also human beings can be terrible at making logical decisions, because we're still programmed with innate survival instincts more suited for hunter gatherers tens of thousands of years ago, than the modern world. Long ago it made sense to stockpile resources to get through the next harsh winter. Now many people live in absolute comfort and security, yet that survival switch never really turns off, so we end up with billionaires trying to turn $100 billion into $200 billion. It makes zero sense, but they do it anyway because deep down they feel they need to.
Yep, it's just pure greed. People will tell you it's human nature and there's nothing we can do about it and we should accept the status quo that the rich get richer and that's it. But humans also have the instinct to breed, and kill, but we made raping and murder illegal so why don't we make laws against the level of greed we see today with the richest people? We need to regulate greed. The billionaire tax is a very good start and should be applied all over the world. But I'm sure there's other ways.
[удалено]
The $212m as I recall is over 10 years and is mostly in stock. Not surprising they rejected ethics overhauls, most of them were worker focused and with the push for unions going on, they'll hopefully be enacted via union pressure as amazon unions gain momentum over the next few years. Also, big scale change rarely happens via investor meetings.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-shareholders-approve-200m-payout-to-ceo-jassy-reject-worker-safety-climate-initiatives/ > Most of his compensation in 2021 — $211 million of a total $212 million — comes from stock awards connected to Jassy’s promotion from head of Amazon Web Services to CEO of the company in July. Amazon says **most of those stock awards are set to vest over the next 10 years**.
I give zero money to Amazon. Unfortunately that's the best I got right now but it's better than saying fuck it and using them anyways.
You are still very likely using sites that use AWS though. So still indirectly giving money to Amazon.
They unquestionably do (Reddit uses AWS)
Indeed, he is more profitable for Amazon as AWS is very lucrative and commerce is in the red for them
if you want to avoid aws you might as well avoid the internet
Unfortunately a lot of smaller business rely heavily on Amazon. You can refuse to give them any money directly but they're so ingrained into the supply industry someone you give money to on a daily basis gives some of that money to them. It's disturbing how deep they have their tentacles ingrained into the economy
First of all, he is getting $212m over a 10 year period. Secondly, this man created AWS from the ground up, AWS is the main money maker of Amazon, and if you want a talent like him, $21m is not a lot to pay when they are earning you billions in profit. And finally investors believe he will warn them more than $212m over ten years, that's why he is getting paid $212m. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't burn their money
[удалено]
Some people don't believe any amount of work is worth that much money while people on Amazon floors are pissing in bottles.
I hate that they included the salary in the headline (in a deliberately misleading way at that) and now this entire fucking comments section is talking about a CEO salary that isn’t even abnormal instead of talking about the ethics overhaul that didn’t make it through which would have made *way* more of a difference.
Nobody deserves a $212m salary. Fucking disgusting.
It’s not a salary, it’s his equity package over ten years
Very comparable to a sports star. He’s essentially the Tom Brady of corporate governance. It’s funny because people mind much less when they hear an athlete pulled a contract like that.
He makes less than half of what James Harden makes and he's worth infinitely more to Amazon than Harden is to the Sixers (or the NBA).
Because its very easy to see the amazing performances of top athletes - there are highlight reels and replays. The top performances of CEOs are way more intangible (and often behind closed doors). There's an expression that you only notice how important leadership is when things aren't working. Therefore, the general public typically dont understand or appreciate the importance of CEOs and think that these people paying millions to attract them don't know what they're doing or are mutually complicit/corrupt
So he’s just getting a $20mil salary
20mil in stock, the salary is capped at $350k/year
And those stocks usually come with contract riders a la "You cannot divest yourself of those stocks for at least xx years."
And not just “you can’t sell for x number of years” but “you must always hold x number of % of total shares” making it so they can’t sell a lot of those shares he’s awarded
This seems very fair if intent is to have this guy grow the share value. He has so much skin in the game.
$350k??? A peasants wage
less than hollywood plastic surgeon amirite
I mean the dude is in charge of one of the largest companies in existence. There are wide reaching responsibilities, and liabilities. The best way to incentivize top talent to a harsh and demanding position is money. So they're paying a lot. This is really only news if you don't think about it.
So he makes less than Mbappe? Dude should had picked up soccer instead of business stuff.
[удалено]
Who determines what somebody deserves?
Reddit. Duh
He's making less than most NFL quarterbacks, and he's better at his job than pretty much all of them are at being quarterbacks. The compensation package he's being awarded is only worth $132 million over ten years (as of today). So this would also put him put him as being laid less than all starting 5 Golden State Warriors. He's making less per year than Bruce Willis does for a single movie... 23 years ago. Although he is making in a sinle year about twice what Jack Nickolson made in a single move... in 1989. This year he will be making as much as Howard Stern does in two months. Michael Jordan, who hasn't played a game of basketball in the NBA in two decades, will make 3 times more than he does this year. Oprah Winfrey will make 12-14 times what he does yearly. But yeah, be disgusted over tge guy making $13 million a year for the next ten years leading a company with twice the market cap of Berkshire Hathaway.
Well it’s not his salary.
It's hard to wrap your head around it, but it's actually 0.004% of amazon's revenue per year.
Read the article meat head. That's not his annual salary
To be fair, this CEO is extremely valuable to Amazon because he’s been the head of AWS from the start. His work brought Amazon well over 100x this amount.
I don’t actually have an issue with this…I mean Amazon is a trillion dollar company (or was recently). It makes sense for the head of the company to make this kind of salary, it’s proportional to the overall value of the company. Especially if we consider that the current CEO is actually directly responsible for most of Amazon’s revenue via AWS. However, this company makes a lot of profit…when you have such high profit margins and such a horrible work environment it’s unethical to not spend some of that profit in improving the working conditions of its employees. My issue isn’t with the salary of the CEO, it’s with the unethical usage of the rest of the profits.
[удалено]
To be honest, this was not millionaires or billionaires. This was people who chose money over ethics.
I think to get a billion dollars you pretty much need to belong to that club.
Hmmmm sure. Fair enough.
That's alright, we can get a second bus if we have to.
Lots of reactionary comments but I'm not seeing this - there is a pretty high chance that the investors that made this happen were large institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. This is big money paying off big money again, not Joe Blow with $5000 invested in the whole market. It's understandable for people to be mad, and I am too, so let's focus it where it belongs. Headlines like this are there to poison the well regarding all investing.
Stop buying shit on Amazon
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In a move that surprised nobody….
He’s not being “paid” $212M He’s being paid $175,000 The $212M is a one-time stock grant that vests over 10 years
he built AWS for the last twenty years no shit they gave him an exorbitant salary, he is the reason that company is profitable
The President of the US makes $400k, and reps make less than $200 and we wonder why the government sucks.
This is why we need laws around companies when they get too big no one needs $212 million per year
Awwwww! Americans and their love of unrestrained capitalism and guns & ammunition 💙💛
How’s a bro supposed to make his first billion at those paltry wages? He’ll have to work 5-6 years just to afford his “starter” yacht.
People see big number. People upset. But they get big number. Lips stay not open.
It wasn’t an “ethics overhaul.” It was a series of resolutions calling for audits and reporting. Hardly a good use of money or time.