They laid off 2000 last year and the CEO gave himself a 30 million dollar raise. If he fires 7000 this year, he’ll give himself a 100 million dollar raise?
No, the bonus was all stocks so he can take a loan at 0% using the stocks as collateral and not have to pay taxes on it. If they paid him an actual bonus in real dollars he would have to pay taxes like one of us poors.
the bonus was all stocks so he can take a loan at 0% using the stocks as collateral and not have to pay taxes on it.
This is not accurate. Stock grants are treated as ordinary income on the date they vest. Sure after income tax is paid, you can do loans against it etc. But vesting of stock is a tax event. This is a common misunderstanding online.
Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands for the sake of “growth”? “They hired more than they fired” isn’t a good thing when they fire thousands of people. it just means the company is willfully and apathetically churning through the labor force while making money hand-over-fist and increasing C-suite compensation.
The bonus was also basically all stocks, so if the company does well, he gets more money. If it fails he gets less.
Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands
Or maybe they hired people with different roles. The article says they want to reduce the management structure. Microsoft probably didn’t hire 100k managers these last couple of years.
If for some reason you feel the need to fire thousands of people all at once when the company is actively expanding and making a profit, then you hired too many people.
Sometimes , probably always, MBA types want to show more profit and so make cuts to staff because labour is always the biggest expense…even if those employees could increase productivity in the long run.
They laid off 2000 last year and the CEO gave himself a 30 million dollar raise. If he fires 7000 this year, he’ll give himself a 100 million dollar raise?
They’re also hiring much more than they’re laying off. They gained like 84k employees in the last 5-6 years (includes like 25k layoffs).
The bonus was also basically all stocks, so if the company does well, he gets more money. If it fails he gets less.
No, the bonus was all stocks so he can take a loan at 0% using the stocks as collateral and not have to pay taxes on it. If they paid him an actual bonus in real dollars he would have to pay taxes like one of us poors.
This is not accurate. Stock grants are treated as ordinary income on the date they vest. Sure after income tax is paid, you can do loans against it etc. But vesting of stock is a tax event. This is a common misunderstanding online.
Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands for the sake of “growth”? “They hired more than they fired” isn’t a good thing when they fire thousands of people. it just means the company is willfully and apathetically churning through the labor force while making money hand-over-fist and increasing C-suite compensation.
… so? Why is this relevant? A bonus is a bonus.
Or maybe they hired people with different roles. The article says they want to reduce the management structure. Microsoft probably didn’t hire 100k managers these last couple of years.
If for some reason you feel the need to fire thousands of people all at once when the company is actively expanding and making a profit, then you hired too many people.
Sometimes , probably always, MBA types want to show more profit and so make cuts to staff because labour is always the biggest expense…even if those employees could increase productivity in the long run.
Is this supposed make people feel “better”, buddy?
Satya the creep has skin in this game boys, pack it up, work is done 🤡
It’s only fair /s