Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Execs Happy With $1 Salaries

Posted by Zonk on from the i-would-be-too-with-those-options dept.

DarkClown writes "ZDNet is on the one hand reporting that Google execs will keep their $1 salaries again this year, and on the other hand is reporting that the executives cashed in more than $160 million worth of stock last month." From the stock article: "Since the search giant went public in August 2004, Brin has sold about 6.5 million shares at a market value of $1.68 billion. Page has sold about 5.8 million shares at a market value of $1.4 billion, according to calculations from Thomson Financial. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, who was brought in to run the company before it went public, has sold more than 2.1 million shares, worth more than $502 million." They could be getting a multi-million dollar salary *and* the stock money. Good faith efforts go a long way in my book.

9 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. OLD NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Every single news story I see here on Slashdot has already been posted to digg.com. I guess the slashdot editors are getting lazy. Mod me down, I don't care.

  2. Someone please link them to... by thesatch · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Someone please give them the link to... http://www.thelaptopfund.com/
    Thanks!

  3. Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This must be like the 5th headline today, that came from digg.com.

    I suggest the slashdot editors and submitters should read digg.com more often.

  4. Good faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Bending the rules so you lose less money doesn't exactly count as good faith.

  5. We need to repeal minimum-wage laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    So the employee's can be shown that they too can be happy with $1 salaries. These execs set a shining example that we should all emulate. Consumerism is a curse, and wages are the crack cocaine of consumerism.

  6. 8th post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    8th post!

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Proprietary claim a pretext to hide something else by bdwoolman · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    This has been said already, but it is really worth highlighting. A lot of this discussion has shown that Diebold's claim is flimsy on technical and legal grounds. It really does not make much sense unless these data reveal some deeper flaw in the method. Usually the state owns data they pay for. "Rights in Data" is a sandard boilerplate clause. Perhaps this data threatens the interests of those who won the elections. People are buying time.

    The whole thing makes me quite sad. I love technology, but deterministic systems are vulnerable to manipulation. A robust audit trail, with a proper chain of custody (as was pointed out) is crucial to decreasing the vulnerability.

    But in the end it is a social contract. And no contract is worth the paper it is printed on if both parties do not intend to honor it. IF there is a strong will to steal an election it will be done. I have worked as an election observer in some former Soviet republics. If you want to know hao to stuff a ballot box I can tell you because I have seen it.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  9. Google's blatant censorship in China. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They certainly have 'fuck you regular Chinese people' money, it seems.

    What's the deal here, and when is the big splashy 'Your Rights Online' article going up about Google basically censoring themselves 'to compete more aggressively in the world's second biggest Internet market.'

    "Do no evil." Whatta bunch of bull.

    I won't even bother submitting the above link. Someone else already has. Slashdot editors???