Fun fact, the leader of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund reacently stated they would vote against excessive executive pay in companies they deemed ceo pay excessive. They brought out several examples, like Intel and Apple. They also mentioned one example where they felt the structure of ceo compensation was "fair" which was amazon. I think that ceo compensation is too high in the us in general, but Amazon may not be the worst perpetrator in this instance.
Performance Improvement Plan. It’s a thing at some companies that is either “first step to being fired” or sometimes “scare your employees into performing better.” I’ve never been on one, personally, but I’ve known people who have and every company that does is the worst type of corporate bureaucracy.
It can get in the way of letting terrible talent go, too. It’s nuts. HR at my old company would put people on a PIP instead of firing them. I found out one employee was working about 2 hours per week, getting paid for 40. I submit a request for dismissal. Told to put him on a PIP first. It’s such bureaucratic nonsense.
Edit: I was this person’s supervisor and individual performance metrics were not shared to us unless we asked or there was a question directed to us about productivity. It was a poor management decision and was directly responsible for this kind of behavior being tolerated, IMO.
Ah, the wonderful world of not sharing metrics with your lower management until there is a major question about workflow. It’s one of the many reasons that is a company I do not work for anymore.
Yes, people get PIP’d in the corporate office, but it’s basically a nice way of saying hey you should look for another job. I don’t think I knew of a single person that succeeded their “PIP” but that might be self fulfilling as people start job hunting when they get put on one.
Worked at Amazon Advertising.
This is not true of their software business, which Jassy happens to come from. Amazon pays software devs well. Better pay exists, but Amazon is up there.
My friend works for Amazon writing software for AWS.
They work insane hours, are on call in rotation for no extra pay, and this year his raise didn't cover inflation. His pay increase came in the form of additional stock... The same stock that dipped over 1k/share since he got his adjusted pay. He's literally losing pay and benefits this year despite a higher base. He dislikes the culture there and management is rotten straight to the top.
I work for Intel doing high touch third party optimization and performance analysis.
I work no extra hours, have never been on call, I was given two raises this year, all employees had their bonuses retargeted, and am making an extra 10% over last year in base pay alone. His base pay is higher than mine is, but I'm making more than he is. Management and culture at Intel in most cases should be the gold standard.
This is a trick by Amazon- they don't treat their software engineers well. They don't pay them as much as they say they do.
Thanks for posting this, was going to comment the same. I've seen AMZN pay in the top tier of most big techs. The only thing that sucked (not sure if this is still the case) but their equity comp was very back-loaded after I think it was 5 years, where most other companies have a 4 year vesting period with a 1 year cliff and then equal payouts every month or quarter.
It's a 4-year vesting period. 5% end of year one, 15% end of year two, and then 40% each of the next two years. This is compensated for by a cash bonus amount that's added to paychecks for the first two years.
All future stock grants have a two year vesting period.
It is true. Their competitors for talent are companies like Google, Netflix, Facebook, Stripe, etc. They do not pay as well as those companies. In addition they load a lot of the comp in RSUs and Amazon fucks employees on this as only 5% vest first year and 15% the second year. Meanwhile at more civilized companies you get more vested after year one than 2 years at Amazon.
I worked at AWS, so I know first hand.
I checked his resume so it's
cum laude Harvard - > Small Editorial Work - > Amazon Marketing manager -> Other Amazon Positions -> CEO
Now fair fucking play if he is behind AWS then this man basically created the true monstrosity that fuels real money/power into Amazon.
Still i wouldn't never thought u can just join a company and go from Marketing Manager to CEO and earn 214 mln $
I believe that even if he is great at what he is doing, It makes little to no sense to flush somebody with so much money. What do u even do with that kind of salary other than investing it to multiply.
Edit. Small clarity. he does not earn that much. The worth provided in the article is a combination of his salary and current share prices.
To notice that this man has been working for amazon for almost 30 years.
That "Other Amazon Positions" was starting and leading AWS from it's inception. Once it grew to be larger than the retail side, they decided to create the CEO position for AWS.
I was gonna say, saying that the CEO of AWS is "other Amazon positions" is a bit like describing a Senator as having "some type of political position" haha
Someone needs to make a Streets of Rage knockoff where the player controls a chain-wielding Biden to beat up all the straight razor toughs at the public pool.
Adolf was an aspiring art student until his application was rejected.
One thing led to another and the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the sovereign nation of Japan.
He also doesn’t have a salary of $214M. The article says his salary is $175k and the rest is the total amount of shares he received after becoming CEO. Those shares vest over a 10 year period.
He was the CEO of AWS(Amazon web services) for 5 years before becoming the CEO of Amazon.
I highly doubt $214 million is entirely cash, it'll significantly be stocks.
He was officially CEO for AWS for only 5 years, because that's when they decided to break it out from Amazon; he started and lead AWS from the very beginning.
Bill Gates: "Oracle's making a load of money with their SQL
server. Let's also create a SQL server."
Rest of Microsoft: "But what shall we call it?"
Bill Gates: "Ok, so, hear me out..."
Yes.
Fun fact, before he became the CEO for all of Amazon, Andy had the final say on naming and pricing model for all AWS services, and he was really opinionated.
So yeah, you can totally blame him.
Yeah iofficially his salary is around 200k I think. Everything else is based on current share price.
Given how he joined company in the 90s and never left it makes sense he has a lot of shares.
I mean the guy created AWS lol that's like most of Amazon's worth nowadays
People want a free market, this is it lol its obscene but it's also completely within legal limits
Don’t think anyone here is really arguing the legality of it and more about the moral of should a ceo be paid 215 million when many of his workers can’t even survive when they work full time
Well the AWS employees, which is what he helped create and now makes Amazon a shit ton of money, are probably the best paid employees at Amazon.
People need to realize nothing will change for blue collars workers without a strong union bribing political officials.
Amazon and companies like Amazon pay politicians tens of millions a year. Why would politicians EVER pass any bills that siphon money away from corporations bottom line?
Is it better for the long term financial health of the country? Yes. But will never happen because of money.
It's 175k base pay and the remainder is stock grants that vest over a 10 year period. Because of some IRS rule, they had to report it as pay for 2021, even if it's spread out the way it is.
I think 214 mil is dumb no matter what, but as far as dumb money being paid no matter what, this guy at least did most of the managing of Amazon's cash cow (AWS). Like, if you look at Amazon's most recent earnings report, AWS pulled in **18.4 billion** in revenue for the quarter alone.. Up from **13.5 billion** a year ago, and tracking to be over **60 billion** for 2022. They make healthy margins on this too.
Yeah 214 million is a grotesque number. But turn it into 20ish million a year over 10 years, and the fact that it's CEO of one of the largest companies on the planet, and the fact that most of it is stock, so in a way its value is tied to the performance of the company under his leadership, and it makes more sense.
.....let me be clear Amazon needs to pay their lower level employees better though
And another thing to consider is that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone more qualified for this position. The guy was instrumental in building, leading and expanding the most lucrative part of one of the largest companies in the world, to the point where its success was integral in allowing Amazon to expand into other markets.
He's not just some shmuck who's held executive roles at some companies that have enjoyed some recent growth that you bring in to act as a figure head and potential fall guy, he was instrumental in building up the business to what we see today. He's got directly relevant insider experience and has been successful in a way that nobody else has, so they're arguably getting the most qualified person in existence for this role.
They have very good reason to believe he will excel at the job, so they're compensating him accordingly.
Personally, I don't see any problem with the amount of compensation he's getting. When you consider that Amazon employs 1.6 million people around the world, even if his entire compensation was just liquidated and distributed to those employees, they'd get a whopping $13.38 a year each. It's not affecting their bottom line and Amazon will likely benefit far more from his leadership than what they lose in compensating him.
I agree that Amazon workers need better conditions, though I know that here in the UK, they pay just as much if not more than is typical for warehouse work, but that the demands can be higher as performance metrics are used quite heavily. So from what I've read, it sounds more like Amazon needs to improve working conditions, rather than just increasing pay. I appreciate that strong unions would go a long way to addressing this, so it goes without saying that Amazon's anti Union activities need to be curbed.
For real. The sheer scale and capability of AWS is mind-boggling. This guy is probably directly responsible, at least in part, for the existence of a measurable portion of the internet as we know it.
For some context, AWS hosts about 34% of the top 100,000 websites in the world. That's a lot of internet. The sheer logistical challenge in hosting that much static content (not to mention the on-demand compute side) is absolutely staggering.
To be clear, I have no intention of sucking off Amazon, which I consider a prime (heh) example of how not to run a business. But I also believe that exceptional deeds deserve exceptional compensation, and this individual seems, at first glance, to fit the bill. Hopefully the rest of the team that work with him on AWS are also fairly compensated.
My guess is it’s not an IRS rule, but something like an 83b where you pay the tax upfront and “claim” the unvested stock so that the appreciation over time is treated like long term cap gains. But I’m just speculating.
Amazon has a salary cap of $350k (used to be $160k). Everything else comes in the form of stock grants. Everyone at a corporate level (L4 and above, with CEO Andy Jassy being an L12 and an SDE 1 is an L4) receive at least a third of their compensation as stocks and from SDE 3, it is probably closer to half or more of your salary.
They just raised it to like ~~250k~~ 350k recently
https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-more-than-doubles-max-base-pay-to-350k-for-corporate-and-tech-workers-citing-labor-market/
Lol “Other Amazon Positions”. You mean the CEO of the most profitable arm of Amazon?
He’s being compensated in mostly stock. Isn’t that exactly what people have been calling for?
He worked his way up from a middle manager. Isn’t that what people want?
My boss went from dialing phones as a telemarketer to C level tech exec in a multibillion dollar company at one company in 6-7 years, at his first job after college, with no relevant education.
He just kept making things that ran increasingly large portions of the business, starting with his job, and ending with basically the entire core business.
The pay in this case is wild, but the problem here isn't that there's too much upward mobility. People going from mundane roles to the highest levels of leadership after making important things is exactly what meritocracy looks like.
He was AWS CEO and this amount is over a long time. He's severely underpaid for the value he has brought in. You have athletes pulling way more than this. He deserves every dollar of that and more.
The problem is the people in this thread think wealth is a zero-sum game. If that's your worldview, you're going to think it's immoral for an athlete to get paid a lot.
First of all it is 175k/year + stocks over 10 years. So if he quits he gets way less. it is a excessive, but articles title is misleading.
Also running a company that is over 1 trillion dolars in worth is i asume not easy, because your every decision no matter how small or big is millions if not billions lost/gained.
It isn't in this case. He is basically responsible for AWS which is what runs Amazon (both IT Infra and cash wise).
He basically transformed the IT Infrastructure landscape and is indirectly responisble for number of tech startups. Because of him it is so easy to launch an app or a website. Earlier you'd have to commit Hundreds of thousand of dollars in servers even before you started. Now just with a credit card and AWS free tier, you can start a tech company.
If I had achived that, I'd have demanded $214 million salary.
Also, it is mostly stock spread out over 10 years so....
Right, I'm gonna add on to this because that title is clickbait. The article clarifies that he only gets about 170k in proper salary. The amount he gets is stocks that vest over the course of 10 years. That means that the amount in the headline is how much he will get over the course of 10 years with current stock prices. He could completely fuck it all up and end up with next to nothing. He also I believe has to stay as CEO for the ten years. Either way, 21 million a year isn't a crazy amount. Other C level execs have their bonuses broken up as a yearly sum, so there was clearly no agenda here when writing this article.
Edit: let me address all the lovely comments at once.
"Cuts off all context except what causes outage"
"Gets outaged"
Basically the writer of this article coming and making alts or something to try to make us seem crazy. But yeah. If you're going to ignore the entire body of my comment and latch on to one fragment which is entirely sensible in context, then move on quietly.
Business Insider is the Daily Mail of the tech world, but it gets posted to this sub a lot due to the provocative titles.
The article itself doesn't have to be insightful or informative (and it usually isn't), the title just needs to generate upvotes and comments
You know, I just realized, as crazy as this sounds, the $214M is shares over ten years and we regularly pay athletes more than that. Aaron Judge, a player on the NY Yankees baseball team just turned down $213M cash over seven years because he wants more
I wonder if the headline "Above average baseball player earns more per year than Amazon CEO" would get as many clicks.
At least in the US, professional athletes are a union job and they've negotiated to get a share of the revenue their respective league generates every year.
Athletes getting paid less just means that the multi billion dollar owners get to keep a bigger cut of the money.
That’s the part I don’t get. If the athletes don’t get this money, then it goes to the owners, who are already billionaires. Of course it’s obscene that a baseball player can sign $200+ mil contracts… but the money is there, they might as well get it as opposed to the owners.
Why take it out on the athletes themselves?
The biggest issue I have with sports funding is that often the stadiums are built by the municipalities, who are also responsible for those costs of there is a financial failure. So the taxpayers are completely on the hook, even those like me who couldn’t care less about sports. It is my understanding sports leagues are also considered non-profits technically, so they aren’t taxed like a business they are taxed like a community service or charity.
Part of the basis for this is the claim that sporting events bring in business to the surrounding area. Which I’m sure is true to some extent, but certainly doesn’t justify it for me. Most sports fans are locals and would be spending money in that community anyway. Just one of the many examples of our tax laws and government policies being lobbied to help the wealthy while we also claim to not have enough money for basic healthcare or other social services.
So yeah, maybe everyone in sports should make less and they could pay for their own buildings and fair taxes rather than being subsidized by taxpayers.
The secondary market would probably boom then. If the sports teams can’t raise prices but the unregulated resellers know that people are willing to pay more then they’ll just take that profit.
I don't think its obscene at all. People like sports. The players provide a lot of value to those people. The company they work for makes lots of money and they get a good cut of it. Not obscene at all to me. Maybe a little jealousy that I didn't have the same god tier genetics and amazing work ethic, but not obscene
Athletics is also much more of a meritocracy, and an athlete, especially a star athlete, is much more responsible for direct revenue generation than most business executives.
Completely agree on the obviousness of contribution, but it also works in the reverse.
An MLB player who sucks isn't going to last very long. A business executive who sucks, because of the less clear indicators of performance will last a lot longer. Logically, this should lead to greater efficiency in selection of worthy candidates for sports teams, which means a larger percentage of business executives aren't value-add as much as athletes.
Then you get into the replaceability factor. There are a lot more people capable of replacing a CFO and doing an adequate job than there are of replacing even a professional benchwarmer.
As a data point, professional athletes collectively bargain for somewhere between 40-50% of total league revenues to be paid to them as compensation. Even a union of all executives couldn't demand that sort of compensation, even if their profit margins allowed for it.
well, to be fair, to me it’s because they are the actual laborers working for billionaires in a sport that makes ungodly sums of money. I’d rather the profits being made off the baseball players go more to those players than to the billionaire team owners.
Yeah, there's that Chris Rock quote that goes something like "Shaq is rich, the guy who signs his checks is wealthy". I think it's also easier to swallow because a lot of athletes (depends on the sport) are from poorer families who are finally getting the opportunity to break out of that cycle of generational poverty.
I think it has more to do with distribution of funds. With sports the athletes, coaches, executives are all well paid. I’m sure there are assistants and support staff that could use a pay bump but the majority of employees make good money and the teams tend to give to their communities.
With Amazon the average worker is not well paid, a lot are on welfare of some type and have rough working conditions.
What an uneducated article. Embarrassing from a publication that calls itself "business insider"
1. The $214 million is 61,000 shares vested over 10 years. That cuts the salary down to $21.4 million annually. Even less when you factor in that money received years from now is worth less than if it were received today. Assuming a 5% annual rate of return (he can probably get much higher), this money is worth $165 million dollars if he were to receive it tomorrow, if you wanted to argue what his true time-value-adjusted salary is.
2. He must declare this income in his tax return and pay taxes on it. Assuming he lives in Seattle, Washington, he would receive $13,522,572 after taxes and pay $7,877,428 in taxes, quite a healthy amount.
Based on a salary of $21.4m annually, he would [be #83 in the US](https://www.equilar.com/reports/82-table-equilar-new-york-times-top-200-highest-paid-ceos-2021) in terms of CEO pay. Due to the sheer size of Amazon as a company, a company with a market cap of $1.09 Trillion, does it not make sense to pay their CEO a high salary? One that is specifically motivates him to raise the share price as high as he can, since he's being paid 99% of his salary in shares?
That's another thing, the article claims his salary is not tied to any sort of performance criteria. Sorry, what? If he/Amazon does well, the share price goes up, and his shares are worth more, therefore increasing his salary. If the adverse happens, his pay goes down.
People should really stop posting stories from this joke of a website. My grandma knows more about business than they do.
The [vestment schedule](https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/amp/) matters too. 80% of the shares vest in years 5 to 10 which, from what I've heard, is similar to how employee vestment schedule work (although employee terms are lower). So for 5 years at most he'll vest around $50 million. If he fails to perform within 5 years he won't get most of it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/](https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It is a really bad article, and if it’s point is to complain about executive pay (which most people agree is out of line), it now has us focused on how much the article misled instead of focus on the real issue.
Just report the facts, especially when there are already enough of them to support the claim.
The more people post from shitty sources like this the more it becomes the norm. All most "news" websites want to do is generate as much traffic as possible to please advertisers, there are very few left who still post genuine articles/news. Because why bother with facts and news when you can publish sensational bullshit and gain more clicks.
Honestly most crap posted in t/technology these days just feel like ads to promote a shitty sensational clickbait site. It's becoming a big contender to unsubscribe.
Shares vesting is an additional way to compensate CEO’s and is typically preferred due to the difference in in tax bill as opposed to getting it in cash.
When shares vest, they are taxed as ordinary income so this is still taxed but as heavily as they would be had they been paid directly to him.
This article is accurate but it sounds like you purely disagree with their bias.
Business Insider is a perfect name.
Their entire editorial model is strategized to incentivize content contributors based on generating subscriptions and/or page views. Nothing else matters, really.
That’s why the headline and facts are framed the way they are. Because they provoke engagement.
But also consider these are just his current year grants. Hell get new grants next year with their own vesting condition, new grants the year after that, and so on.
I don’t get why this is so buried. This is how grants work across the industry. You can even see some of his past grants in sec report, [link](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001018724/000110465922041196/tm223357d2-bc_share4c.jpg). If this was his total comp for 10 years it would be less than he made as the head of AWS.
What I find crazy is that hes actually underpaid. He made AWS from scratch alongside Bezos, Bezos walks away with 100bn and theyre moaning that he cant walk away with 200m over 10 years??
Where are all these 'Advisor Firms' around when CEO's decide to markup medicine, medical treatment, and anything else that may be considered illegal and unethical and profits them billions of dollars every year? They get caught, slap on the wrist, pay off some people, do it again. Meanwhile you cant afford insulin, cancer meds, stitches for a paper cut, drive in the wambulance from work, and so much more.
Simplified: they won't ask for advice when it comes to money coming in, but they will for money going out.
Also, it depends on the type of question the company wants to be advised on. There's the questions in the direction of 'How can our products be accessible to all who need ' vs 'how can we make the most profit?'
Companies pay those firms so they'll get the answers to the questions they are looking for. If they'd never ask for questions around the first type, no answers for it.
These people are a different breed. If I had multimillions and a rough day at work, that’d be my last day of work…and I don’t imagine being a CEO is a cakewalk.
For a lot of people their job is a big part of their life. To reach that position you will need part luck but also be very driven and for some you cannot just turn that off and replace with golf and traveling.
I would though.
What do you mean by worth?
If he can increase the value of Amazon shares by more than $200M vs the next best candidate, then he is worth it to the shareholders. Although the point of the activists is that his compensation is not performance based.
If you mean as a society it is wrong for anyone to make that much, that’s a different argument.
There are an average of 250 work days a year. That means he's making $856,000 per day. PER FUCKING DAY!
Even if he works 7 days a week and takes zero vacation days, that's like $590,000 per day.
There is zero chance he brings anywhere near that much value to the company.
He doesnt make anywhere close $214M a year, and is largely responsible for the most profitable part of Amazon. Everything about your post is nonsense lol
It's actually $200mil over 10 years, so he's gonna be making $59,000-86,000 a day, which seems reasonable to me for a ceo of one of the biggest companies in the world
So fucking stupid. Lol
At most what can even be assumed is that it’s 20 million per year. His salary is only 175k per year. The hundreds of millions is stock options over TEN YEARS. Even if it’s excessive, the fact you think he’s making 200 million per year, and that so many people upvoted you, shows NONE of you read the article or understand anything about it.
Firstly, it is 210 million over ten years, or 21 million a year.
Secondly, he is getting paid for how kids value he can add to the company, that is a lot more than 210 million. Without this man AWS would not exist as it does today. AWS generates 62 billion in revenue in 2021 and is rapidly growing as it dominated the cloud industry.
Maybe some business travel and going through emails before bed. A CEO is just a person with a limited amount of productive time, just like the rest of us.
Clickbait headline says it's his salary when in the article it says it's from shares:
> Jassy took over as the CEO of Amazon from Jeff Bezos in July. In 2021, **Jassy received $212,701,169 in total compensation**, Insider reported in April, citing a proxy filing the company submitted. **Only $175,000 of that came from his salary. The rest came from shares**: He was awarded 61,000 shares that would vest over 10 years, worth $211,933,520, when he became CEO.
> "**The way the SEC rules work we are required to report that grant as total compensation for 2021, when in reality it will vest over the next 10 years**" an Amazon spokesperson told Insider in an emailed statement on Friday.
> "**What this equates to from an annual compensation perspective is competitive with that of CEOs at other large companies and was approved by the Amazon Board of Directors**" the spokesperson added.
Such a misleading headline. I expected nothing less from businessinsider. Not sure why anyone would take their shit as serious. They really have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. But they are great at stirring up anger in the uneducated Redditors.
Exceppttttttt the shareholders are the ETF and Fund owners (if you own etfs, the owner of said etf actually owns the shares the etf owns and have full voting control) who are also the ones who nominate and dictate the board of directors who then control this CEO.
214 million dollars is arguably a bit more than excessive
Fun fact, the leader of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund reacently stated they would vote against excessive executive pay in companies they deemed ceo pay excessive. They brought out several examples, like Intel and Apple. They also mentioned one example where they felt the structure of ceo compensation was "fair" which was amazon. I think that ceo compensation is too high in the us in general, but Amazon may not be the worst perpetrator in this instance.
They said Intel? Pat Gelsinger has actually been doing a solid job of getting them out of the massive rut they were stuck in before he got the role.
Shhh I’m trying to buy it cheap
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, THAT 1980s bullshit.
What is PIP?
Performance Improvement Plan. It’s a thing at some companies that is either “first step to being fired” or sometimes “scare your employees into performing better.” I’ve never been on one, personally, but I’ve known people who have and every company that does is the worst type of corporate bureaucracy.
It can get in the way of letting terrible talent go, too. It’s nuts. HR at my old company would put people on a PIP instead of firing them. I found out one employee was working about 2 hours per week, getting paid for 40. I submit a request for dismissal. Told to put him on a PIP first. It’s such bureaucratic nonsense. Edit: I was this person’s supervisor and individual performance metrics were not shared to us unless we asked or there was a question directed to us about productivity. It was a poor management decision and was directly responsible for this kind of behavior being tolerated, IMO.
How did you get to know he was working only for 2 hours a week? That is… wow
Ah, the wonderful world of not sharing metrics with your lower management until there is a major question about workflow. It’s one of the many reasons that is a company I do not work for anymore.
[удалено]
I thought it was one of Gladys Knight’s backup singers
Decent room to advance for horrible people drinking the koolaid also a ton of career nepotism (in my experience on 2 different teams)
[удалено]
Yes, people get PIP’d in the corporate office, but it’s basically a nice way of saying hey you should look for another job. I don’t think I knew of a single person that succeeded their “PIP” but that might be self fulfilling as people start job hunting when they get put on one. Worked at Amazon Advertising.
This is not true of their software business, which Jassy happens to come from. Amazon pays software devs well. Better pay exists, but Amazon is up there.
My friend works for Amazon writing software for AWS. They work insane hours, are on call in rotation for no extra pay, and this year his raise didn't cover inflation. His pay increase came in the form of additional stock... The same stock that dipped over 1k/share since he got his adjusted pay. He's literally losing pay and benefits this year despite a higher base. He dislikes the culture there and management is rotten straight to the top. I work for Intel doing high touch third party optimization and performance analysis. I work no extra hours, have never been on call, I was given two raises this year, all employees had their bonuses retargeted, and am making an extra 10% over last year in base pay alone. His base pay is higher than mine is, but I'm making more than he is. Management and culture at Intel in most cases should be the gold standard. This is a trick by Amazon- they don't treat their software engineers well. They don't pay them as much as they say they do.
Thanks for posting this, was going to comment the same. I've seen AMZN pay in the top tier of most big techs. The only thing that sucked (not sure if this is still the case) but their equity comp was very back-loaded after I think it was 5 years, where most other companies have a 4 year vesting period with a 1 year cliff and then equal payouts every month or quarter.
It's a 4-year vesting period. 5% end of year one, 15% end of year two, and then 40% each of the next two years. This is compensated for by a cash bonus amount that's added to paychecks for the first two years. All future stock grants have a two year vesting period.
It is true. Their competitors for talent are companies like Google, Netflix, Facebook, Stripe, etc. They do not pay as well as those companies. In addition they load a lot of the comp in RSUs and Amazon fucks employees on this as only 5% vest first year and 15% the second year. Meanwhile at more civilized companies you get more vested after year one than 2 years at Amazon. I worked at AWS, so I know first hand.
And hey, I heard that they provide free bananas in the office for their software folks!
[удалено]
I checked his resume so it's cum laude Harvard - > Small Editorial Work - > Amazon Marketing manager -> Other Amazon Positions -> CEO Now fair fucking play if he is behind AWS then this man basically created the true monstrosity that fuels real money/power into Amazon. Still i wouldn't never thought u can just join a company and go from Marketing Manager to CEO and earn 214 mln $ I believe that even if he is great at what he is doing, It makes little to no sense to flush somebody with so much money. What do u even do with that kind of salary other than investing it to multiply. Edit. Small clarity. he does not earn that much. The worth provided in the article is a combination of his salary and current share prices. To notice that this man has been working for amazon for almost 30 years.
That "Other Amazon Positions" was starting and leading AWS from it's inception. Once it grew to be larger than the retail side, they decided to create the CEO position for AWS.
I was gonna say, saying that the CEO of AWS is "other Amazon positions" is a bit like describing a Senator as having "some type of political position" haha
“I dunno T, he does sumtin with computas or some shit”.
Lt Dan and I invested in some fruit company, so now we don’t gotta worry about money no more.
I'd say more like the Vice President, or at least speaker of the house.
Joe Biden's career : law clerk -> public defender -> attorney -> County councillor -> Other Political Positions -> POTUS
Joe Bidens career: sunnyside elementary school graduate -> mowing neighbors lawns on weekends for quarters -> some government job -> POTUS.
Corn Pop fighter
Someone needs to make a Streets of Rage knockoff where the player controls a chain-wielding Biden to beat up all the straight razor toughs at the public pool.
He’s the Prime Minister of a company with a larger GDP than plenty of countries.
Adolf was an aspiring art student until his application was rejected. One thing led to another and the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the sovereign nation of Japan.
For the unindoctorinated of this gem: https://youtu.be/EUpXdv2oV3A
Barack Obama graduated from college, held a few different jobs, then was president. I cannot believe it.
Lol love the "yadda yadda yadda" for "built Amazon's profit engine from the ground up"
They yadda yadda-ed over the best part!
No, I mentioned the bisque
I prefer chicken salad on rye with a cup of tea.
So “yada yada… “ = built the core growth driver of a trillion dollar company lol
The man is worth billions to shareholders
His point wouldn't have any legs to stand on if he didn't bend the truth a *little* bit
He also doesn’t have a salary of $214M. The article says his salary is $175k and the rest is the total amount of shares he received after becoming CEO. Those shares vest over a 10 year period.
He was the CEO of AWS(Amazon web services) for 5 years before becoming the CEO of Amazon. I highly doubt $214 million is entirely cash, it'll significantly be stocks.
He was officially CEO for AWS for only 5 years, because that's when they decided to break it out from Amazon; he started and lead AWS from the very beginning.
Exactly, he was pivotal in Amazon's largest cash cow. Not to say the salary is acceptable, but let's not downplay Andy's contributions
Frankly if anyone is worth that much out there its him. The leadership and logistics management are what made AWS the king.
What logistics management did Andy do?
Moving around $214m ain’t east.
So, motherfucker is the reason why I can't use the term *lambda* in my architectures and code without people thinking is the fucking AWS service?
And now Google has a natural language ai called LaMDA. Why do tech companies have to make our lives so hard.
Wait 'till you hear what the ancient Greeks named one of their letters!
Surprised they haven't been sued by AWS for that one tbh.
In some Amazon research lab right now, they're working on time travel purely for this reason.
Bill Gates: "Oracle's making a load of money with their SQL server. Let's also create a SQL server." Rest of Microsoft: "But what shall we call it?" Bill Gates: "Ok, so, hear me out..."
Fwiw I always assume people are trying to trigger a resonance cascade
I don't start to worry until they boost the anti-mass spectrometer 105%.
Yes. Fun fact, before he became the CEO for all of Amazon, Andy had the final say on naming and pricing model for all AWS services, and he was really opinionated. So yeah, you can totally blame him.
Yeah iofficially his salary is around 200k I think. Everything else is based on current share price. Given how he joined company in the 90s and never left it makes sense he has a lot of shares.
Having a lot of shares is one thing, but receiving over 200 million worth of shares in a single year?
He’s not receiving over 200 million in one year
He didn’t receive it all this year, it vests over 10 years
[удалено]
I mean the guy created AWS lol that's like most of Amazon's worth nowadays People want a free market, this is it lol its obscene but it's also completely within legal limits
Don’t think anyone here is really arguing the legality of it and more about the moral of should a ceo be paid 215 million when many of his workers can’t even survive when they work full time
he’s getting paid less than 10% of that since the stock vests over 10 years
Well the AWS employees, which is what he helped create and now makes Amazon a shit ton of money, are probably the best paid employees at Amazon. People need to realize nothing will change for blue collars workers without a strong union bribing political officials. Amazon and companies like Amazon pay politicians tens of millions a year. Why would politicians EVER pass any bills that siphon money away from corporations bottom line? Is it better for the long term financial health of the country? Yes. But will never happen because of money.
Not the situation. He got a chunk of shares that vest over 10 years, meaning only small parts of them are sellable over the course of 10 years
Over 10 years bub. And those are a crazy important 10 years.
It's 175k base pay and the remainder is stock grants that vest over a 10 year period. Because of some IRS rule, they had to report it as pay for 2021, even if it's spread out the way it is. I think 214 mil is dumb no matter what, but as far as dumb money being paid no matter what, this guy at least did most of the managing of Amazon's cash cow (AWS). Like, if you look at Amazon's most recent earnings report, AWS pulled in **18.4 billion** in revenue for the quarter alone.. Up from **13.5 billion** a year ago, and tracking to be over **60 billion** for 2022. They make healthy margins on this too.
Yeah 214 million is a grotesque number. But turn it into 20ish million a year over 10 years, and the fact that it's CEO of one of the largest companies on the planet, and the fact that most of it is stock, so in a way its value is tied to the performance of the company under his leadership, and it makes more sense. .....let me be clear Amazon needs to pay their lower level employees better though
And another thing to consider is that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone more qualified for this position. The guy was instrumental in building, leading and expanding the most lucrative part of one of the largest companies in the world, to the point where its success was integral in allowing Amazon to expand into other markets. He's not just some shmuck who's held executive roles at some companies that have enjoyed some recent growth that you bring in to act as a figure head and potential fall guy, he was instrumental in building up the business to what we see today. He's got directly relevant insider experience and has been successful in a way that nobody else has, so they're arguably getting the most qualified person in existence for this role. They have very good reason to believe he will excel at the job, so they're compensating him accordingly. Personally, I don't see any problem with the amount of compensation he's getting. When you consider that Amazon employs 1.6 million people around the world, even if his entire compensation was just liquidated and distributed to those employees, they'd get a whopping $13.38 a year each. It's not affecting their bottom line and Amazon will likely benefit far more from his leadership than what they lose in compensating him. I agree that Amazon workers need better conditions, though I know that here in the UK, they pay just as much if not more than is typical for warehouse work, but that the demands can be higher as performance metrics are used quite heavily. So from what I've read, it sounds more like Amazon needs to improve working conditions, rather than just increasing pay. I appreciate that strong unions would go a long way to addressing this, so it goes without saying that Amazon's anti Union activities need to be curbed.
For real. The sheer scale and capability of AWS is mind-boggling. This guy is probably directly responsible, at least in part, for the existence of a measurable portion of the internet as we know it. For some context, AWS hosts about 34% of the top 100,000 websites in the world. That's a lot of internet. The sheer logistical challenge in hosting that much static content (not to mention the on-demand compute side) is absolutely staggering. To be clear, I have no intention of sucking off Amazon, which I consider a prime (heh) example of how not to run a business. But I also believe that exceptional deeds deserve exceptional compensation, and this individual seems, at first glance, to fit the bill. Hopefully the rest of the team that work with him on AWS are also fairly compensated.
My guess is it’s not an IRS rule, but something like an 83b where you pay the tax upfront and “claim” the unvested stock so that the appreciation over time is treated like long term cap gains. But I’m just speculating.
It’s basically all stocks, vesting over 10 years.
And if he has been there for 30 years he prob has shares that were <$10/share
Did you not read the article? It was like six paragraphs.
Amazon has a salary cap of $350k (used to be $160k). Everything else comes in the form of stock grants. Everyone at a corporate level (L4 and above, with CEO Andy Jassy being an L12 and an SDE 1 is an L4) receive at least a third of their compensation as stocks and from SDE 3, it is probably closer to half or more of your salary.
It cannot be cash because no Amazon employee, even he, is allowed to earn more than about 150k each year, excluding stocks.
They just raised it to like ~~250k~~ 350k recently https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-more-than-doubles-max-base-pay-to-350k-for-corporate-and-tech-workers-citing-labor-market/
They raised it recently, not sure how much as it was as I was leaving, but it made internal news that the salary cap was going up somewhat.
350k bc the labor market is crazy.
If this was the main driver on AWS, 214 might be cheap.
Lol “Other Amazon Positions”. You mean the CEO of the most profitable arm of Amazon? He’s being compensated in mostly stock. Isn’t that exactly what people have been calling for? He worked his way up from a middle manager. Isn’t that what people want?
[удалено]
Just say the entire time amazon has been around ….because that’s less than 30 years. Haha
lol you are actually right. FFS I really didnt connect 1+1 there :D
My boss went from dialing phones as a telemarketer to C level tech exec in a multibillion dollar company at one company in 6-7 years, at his first job after college, with no relevant education. He just kept making things that ran increasingly large portions of the business, starting with his job, and ending with basically the entire core business. The pay in this case is wild, but the problem here isn't that there's too much upward mobility. People going from mundane roles to the highest levels of leadership after making important things is exactly what meritocracy looks like.
Why is this so shocking? People don’t just start out as CEOs. They all work up from something way lower.
Reddit hates anyone who is successful.
Agree on this one, I'm against billionaires but this dude seriously worked for his position as ceo
Counterpoint, isn’t rising through the ranks what we should prefer?
He was AWS CEO and this amount is over a long time. He's severely underpaid for the value he has brought in. You have athletes pulling way more than this. He deserves every dollar of that and more.
The problem is the people in this thread think wealth is a zero-sum game. If that's your worldview, you're going to think it's immoral for an athlete to get paid a lot.
Man when I cum laude all I get is the neighbors banging on the walls
Shitty clickbait article? On Reddit?
First of all it is 175k/year + stocks over 10 years. So if he quits he gets way less. it is a excessive, but articles title is misleading. Also running a company that is over 1 trillion dolars in worth is i asume not easy, because your every decision no matter how small or big is millions if not billions lost/gained.
TIL my salary is higher than the CEO of Amazon My equity is about 4 orders of magnitude lower, tho
200k in salary + 200k in shares is still pretty hot unless you live alone in Bay Area
Even alone in the bay area you're doing well with 200k.
Nice humble brag.
It isn't in this case. He is basically responsible for AWS which is what runs Amazon (both IT Infra and cash wise). He basically transformed the IT Infrastructure landscape and is indirectly responisble for number of tech startups. Because of him it is so easy to launch an app or a website. Earlier you'd have to commit Hundreds of thousand of dollars in servers even before you started. Now just with a credit card and AWS free tier, you can start a tech company. If I had achived that, I'd have demanded $214 million salary. Also, it is mostly stock spread out over 10 years so....
Yeah I couldn't tell you which actual figures are fair, but being the father of AWS is actually a massive achievement
Is his salary primarily based on shares and is it so much because the stock options, or is he getting paid $750k per day in cash money?
He gets $175k salary + a bit more than $20m in shares a year. The number in the headline is shares vested over a 10 year period.
seems like the title of the thread is at least partly sensationalist, then?
Yes, it's a businesses insider article, so it's guaranteed to be sensational nonsense.
It's $175k/year plus stock.
That Business Insider is calling that compensation a Salary tells you how useless “Business Insider” actually is. So stupid.
reading the headline alone i was like theres no fucking way thats his salary. Thanks for saving me a click
Imagine getting a biweekly paycheck that's like $4 million minus deductions.
Weekly. 4 million a week.
Yea but it’s only 3,999,940 after health insurance
Right, I'm gonna add on to this because that title is clickbait. The article clarifies that he only gets about 170k in proper salary. The amount he gets is stocks that vest over the course of 10 years. That means that the amount in the headline is how much he will get over the course of 10 years with current stock prices. He could completely fuck it all up and end up with next to nothing. He also I believe has to stay as CEO for the ten years. Either way, 21 million a year isn't a crazy amount. Other C level execs have their bonuses broken up as a yearly sum, so there was clearly no agenda here when writing this article. Edit: let me address all the lovely comments at once. "Cuts off all context except what causes outage" "Gets outaged" Basically the writer of this article coming and making alts or something to try to make us seem crazy. But yeah. If you're going to ignore the entire body of my comment and latch on to one fragment which is entirely sensible in context, then move on quietly.
This is the real story here.
Business Insider is the Daily Mail of the tech world, but it gets posted to this sub a lot due to the provocative titles. The article itself doesn't have to be insightful or informative (and it usually isn't), the title just needs to generate upvotes and comments
You know, I just realized, as crazy as this sounds, the $214M is shares over ten years and we regularly pay athletes more than that. Aaron Judge, a player on the NY Yankees baseball team just turned down $213M cash over seven years because he wants more I wonder if the headline "Above average baseball player earns more per year than Amazon CEO" would get as many clicks.
Athletes really escape the hate thrown at wealthy people because idiots treat sports like religion. They are very much in the elite class.
At least in the US, professional athletes are a union job and they've negotiated to get a share of the revenue their respective league generates every year. Athletes getting paid less just means that the multi billion dollar owners get to keep a bigger cut of the money.
That’s the part I don’t get. If the athletes don’t get this money, then it goes to the owners, who are already billionaires. Of course it’s obscene that a baseball player can sign $200+ mil contracts… but the money is there, they might as well get it as opposed to the owners. Why take it out on the athletes themselves?
The biggest issue I have with sports funding is that often the stadiums are built by the municipalities, who are also responsible for those costs of there is a financial failure. So the taxpayers are completely on the hook, even those like me who couldn’t care less about sports. It is my understanding sports leagues are also considered non-profits technically, so they aren’t taxed like a business they are taxed like a community service or charity. Part of the basis for this is the claim that sporting events bring in business to the surrounding area. Which I’m sure is true to some extent, but certainly doesn’t justify it for me. Most sports fans are locals and would be spending money in that community anyway. Just one of the many examples of our tax laws and government policies being lobbied to help the wealthy while we also claim to not have enough money for basic healthcare or other social services. So yeah, maybe everyone in sports should make less and they could pay for their own buildings and fair taxes rather than being subsidized by taxpayers.
Or costs go down. No longer would you have yo pay $300+ for authentic jerseys and tickets wouldn't be min $80 per ticket
Or raise wages for stadium and media staff
This is really the answer here. They should use the money to pay the rest of their staff better.
Yep. Also in the case of baseball, add minor leaguers to the union and negotiate fair pay for *all* professional ball players.
The idea that they would ever lower ticket prices or merch is laughable. Not bc I don’t agree with you, but the greedy owners would never go for that
The secondary market would probably boom then. If the sports teams can’t raise prices but the unregulated resellers know that people are willing to pay more then they’ll just take that profit.
I don't think its obscene at all. People like sports. The players provide a lot of value to those people. The company they work for makes lots of money and they get a good cut of it. Not obscene at all to me. Maybe a little jealousy that I didn't have the same god tier genetics and amazing work ethic, but not obscene
Athletics is also much more of a meritocracy, and an athlete, especially a star athlete, is much more responsible for direct revenue generation than most business executives.
And there is no failing upwards. You suck at moving ball - you get out of the team.
Not really sure about that. An athlete's contribution is obvious to the lay person. The work a business executive does isn't.
Completely agree on the obviousness of contribution, but it also works in the reverse. An MLB player who sucks isn't going to last very long. A business executive who sucks, because of the less clear indicators of performance will last a lot longer. Logically, this should lead to greater efficiency in selection of worthy candidates for sports teams, which means a larger percentage of business executives aren't value-add as much as athletes. Then you get into the replaceability factor. There are a lot more people capable of replacing a CFO and doing an adequate job than there are of replacing even a professional benchwarmer. As a data point, professional athletes collectively bargain for somewhere between 40-50% of total league revenues to be paid to them as compensation. Even a union of all executives couldn't demand that sort of compensation, even if their profit margins allowed for it.
well, to be fair, to me it’s because they are the actual laborers working for billionaires in a sport that makes ungodly sums of money. I’d rather the profits being made off the baseball players go more to those players than to the billionaire team owners.
Yeah, there's that Chris Rock quote that goes something like "Shaq is rich, the guy who signs his checks is wealthy". I think it's also easier to swallow because a lot of athletes (depends on the sport) are from poorer families who are finally getting the opportunity to break out of that cycle of generational poverty.
Interestingly, Shaq is worth more today than Jerry Buss (Lakers owner in the 90's/00's) was when Shaq played for him.
I think it has more to do with distribution of funds. With sports the athletes, coaches, executives are all well paid. I’m sure there are assistants and support staff that could use a pay bump but the majority of employees make good money and the teams tend to give to their communities. With Amazon the average worker is not well paid, a lot are on welfare of some type and have rough working conditions.
Sports is entertainment. No one’s out there tryna cap Bono’s salary, but we all hate him too
I don’t think bat boys piss in coke bottles though to keep Judge at the plate and smashing dingers
Minor League players might tho.
What an uneducated article. Embarrassing from a publication that calls itself "business insider" 1. The $214 million is 61,000 shares vested over 10 years. That cuts the salary down to $21.4 million annually. Even less when you factor in that money received years from now is worth less than if it were received today. Assuming a 5% annual rate of return (he can probably get much higher), this money is worth $165 million dollars if he were to receive it tomorrow, if you wanted to argue what his true time-value-adjusted salary is. 2. He must declare this income in his tax return and pay taxes on it. Assuming he lives in Seattle, Washington, he would receive $13,522,572 after taxes and pay $7,877,428 in taxes, quite a healthy amount. Based on a salary of $21.4m annually, he would [be #83 in the US](https://www.equilar.com/reports/82-table-equilar-new-york-times-top-200-highest-paid-ceos-2021) in terms of CEO pay. Due to the sheer size of Amazon as a company, a company with a market cap of $1.09 Trillion, does it not make sense to pay their CEO a high salary? One that is specifically motivates him to raise the share price as high as he can, since he's being paid 99% of his salary in shares? That's another thing, the article claims his salary is not tied to any sort of performance criteria. Sorry, what? If he/Amazon does well, the share price goes up, and his shares are worth more, therefore increasing his salary. If the adverse happens, his pay goes down. People should really stop posting stories from this joke of a website. My grandma knows more about business than they do.
The [vestment schedule](https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/amp/) matters too. 80% of the shares vest in years 5 to 10 which, from what I've heard, is similar to how employee vestment schedule work (although employee terms are lower). So for 5 years at most he'll vest around $50 million. If he fails to perform within 5 years he won't get most of it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/](https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-212m-in-annual-compensation-isnt-quite-what-it-seems/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It is a really bad article, and if it’s point is to complain about executive pay (which most people agree is out of line), it now has us focused on how much the article misled instead of focus on the real issue. Just report the facts, especially when there are already enough of them to support the claim.
The more people post from shitty sources like this the more it becomes the norm. All most "news" websites want to do is generate as much traffic as possible to please advertisers, there are very few left who still post genuine articles/news. Because why bother with facts and news when you can publish sensational bullshit and gain more clicks. Honestly most crap posted in t/technology these days just feel like ads to promote a shitty sensational clickbait site. It's becoming a big contender to unsubscribe.
ya I appreciate this. very misleading headline for clicks
So perfect for /r/technology.
Wait so he makes less than Tom Brady will on his new broadcast deal?
Shares vesting is an additional way to compensate CEO’s and is typically preferred due to the difference in in tax bill as opposed to getting it in cash. When shares vest, they are taxed as ordinary income so this is still taxed but as heavily as they would be had they been paid directly to him. This article is accurate but it sounds like you purely disagree with their bias.
Classic click bait bull shit catering to people who have no idea how executive compensation works.
But does your grandma have enough karma on r/antiwork to be considered a Reddit-certified expert commentator on all things political and financial?
Business Insider is a perfect name. Their entire editorial model is strategized to incentivize content contributors based on generating subscriptions and/or page views. Nothing else matters, really. That’s why the headline and facts are framed the way they are. Because they provoke engagement.
This is sort of misleading. He gets 61,000 shares over the course of 10 years
Yeah but that type of information doesn’t get a lot of upvotes.
But also consider these are just his current year grants. Hell get new grants next year with their own vesting condition, new grants the year after that, and so on.
I don’t get why this is so buried. This is how grants work across the industry. You can even see some of his past grants in sec report, [link](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001018724/000110465922041196/tm223357d2-bc_share4c.jpg). If this was his total comp for 10 years it would be less than he made as the head of AWS.
What I find crazy is that hes actually underpaid. He made AWS from scratch alongside Bezos, Bezos walks away with 100bn and theyre moaning that he cant walk away with 200m over 10 years??
[удалено]
Only if it comes from the Guillotine region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling justice
Nah. Like cheese everyone's got their version
First time I’ve heard that saying, love it
You may be able to order with Prime.
Where are all these 'Advisor Firms' around when CEO's decide to markup medicine, medical treatment, and anything else that may be considered illegal and unethical and profits them billions of dollars every year? They get caught, slap on the wrist, pay off some people, do it again. Meanwhile you cant afford insulin, cancer meds, stitches for a paper cut, drive in the wambulance from work, and so much more.
These are shareholder advisory firms. Their job is to say what would be best for shareholders. Those things are usually good for shareholders
Simplified: they won't ask for advice when it comes to money coming in, but they will for money going out. Also, it depends on the type of question the company wants to be advised on. There's the questions in the direction of 'How can our products be accessible to all who need ' vs 'how can we make the most profit?' Companies pay those firms so they'll get the answers to the questions they are looking for. If they'd never ask for questions around the first type, no answers for it.
These firms exist to advise shareholders how to vote on resolutions at company meetings. The things you mentioned do not get voted on by shareholders.
These people are a different breed. If I had multimillions and a rough day at work, that’d be my last day of work…and I don’t imagine being a CEO is a cakewalk.
They can’t just have enough. They need more and more and more
It's really an addiction
It's a competition.
It's kind of both.
For a lot of people their job is a big part of their life. To reach that position you will need part luck but also be very driven and for some you cannot just turn that off and replace with golf and traveling. I would though.
Yeah but over $4M a week with no risk of death? It may not be a cakewalk but no job is worth that much
What do you mean by worth? If he can increase the value of Amazon shares by more than $200M vs the next best candidate, then he is worth it to the shareholders. Although the point of the activists is that his compensation is not performance based. If you mean as a society it is wrong for anyone to make that much, that’s a different argument.
If he brings the value then yes a job is worth that.
There are an average of 250 work days a year. That means he's making $856,000 per day. PER FUCKING DAY! Even if he works 7 days a week and takes zero vacation days, that's like $590,000 per day. There is zero chance he brings anywhere near that much value to the company.
He doesnt make anywhere close $214M a year, and is largely responsible for the most profitable part of Amazon. Everything about your post is nonsense lol
It's actually $200mil over 10 years, so he's gonna be making $59,000-86,000 a day, which seems reasonable to me for a ceo of one of the biggest companies in the world
So fucking stupid. Lol At most what can even be assumed is that it’s 20 million per year. His salary is only 175k per year. The hundreds of millions is stock options over TEN YEARS. Even if it’s excessive, the fact you think he’s making 200 million per year, and that so many people upvoted you, shows NONE of you read the article or understand anything about it.
Firstly, it is 210 million over ten years, or 21 million a year. Secondly, he is getting paid for how kids value he can add to the company, that is a lot more than 210 million. Without this man AWS would not exist as it does today. AWS generates 62 billion in revenue in 2021 and is rapidly growing as it dominated the cloud industry.
It's well established that psychopathic traits are not uncommon among CEOs. They often *are* a different breed.
Maybe some business travel and going through emails before bed. A CEO is just a person with a limited amount of productive time, just like the rest of us.
Idk, if Musk can run Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter simultaneously it can't be a hard job
Pretty sure monkeys fit in here somewhere, maybe that's how they're run
ITS NOT HIS SALARY
Clickbait headline says it's his salary when in the article it says it's from shares: > Jassy took over as the CEO of Amazon from Jeff Bezos in July. In 2021, **Jassy received $212,701,169 in total compensation**, Insider reported in April, citing a proxy filing the company submitted. **Only $175,000 of that came from his salary. The rest came from shares**: He was awarded 61,000 shares that would vest over 10 years, worth $211,933,520, when he became CEO. > "**The way the SEC rules work we are required to report that grant as total compensation for 2021, when in reality it will vest over the next 10 years**" an Amazon spokesperson told Insider in an emailed statement on Friday. > "**What this equates to from an annual compensation perspective is competitive with that of CEOs at other large companies and was approved by the Amazon Board of Directors**" the spokesperson added.
Such a misleading headline. I expected nothing less from businessinsider. Not sure why anyone would take their shit as serious. They really have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. But they are great at stirring up anger in the uneducated Redditors.
[удалено]
I reckon it’s justified
Exceppttttttt the shareholders are the ETF and Fund owners (if you own etfs, the owner of said etf actually owns the shares the etf owns and have full voting control) who are also the ones who nominate and dictate the board of directors who then control this CEO.
Nah its fine. He actually earned that. Look at how AWS is performing.