Satya Nadella earned $18.3 million in 2015 on the back of strong performance

And you have a point yet... 95% of CEOs its a one shot deal and returning to your previous position is not a choice. Most other businesses will not hire ex CEOs other than as board members (or an advisor maybe). So as there is not  lot of job security being a CEO and it may  be your last job unless your have enough money to start your own business.?.... How much would it take for you to give up your VP /senior mgmt position that will have value for most of your working career? I would say a LOT.    

Companies are more than willing to hire a former CEO to work for them in a the lower position they were successful doing prior to becoming CEO, so its not a risk at all.  Do you really think Jony Ive would have a hard time getting hired as a lead design officer for another company if he replaced Tim Cook at Apple but later removed?  

The only problem I have with your argument is whom you place the onus on. It's hard for one person in our country to get to the scale of the drivers of the American capitistic society...but corporations can. The US society is trained to focus on individuals in a corporation vs the corporation itself. This is why people have a problem with CEOs getting large pays compared to the other employees. But the truth is that the ownership is the one getting paid. The CEO is only an employee compensated for taking the abuse rightly deserved for the ownership...but in the large corporations the ownership is a legion - for they are many. But noticed that no one protest Wall Street when they go on strike. Even worst now that a lot of employees have stock options...they are now the capitalist indirectly dictating the rudeness on the pay scale. So we will continue to focus on the CEO, for he is compensated to take the abuse and to remove our eyes off of Legion. That's why the CEOs deserves whatever pay Legion feels he's worth...his pay has nothing to do with the operation unlike the pay of the operation employees, and as such should not be compared.

Nope, it did not pass me by. We just don't agree on what "justice" means What you don't know is that I agree with you that tax evasion, for example, is a big problem. and should be banned. If the discussion revolved around that, then we would be talking on the same side ;) The discussion is, however, on something else. Your definition of "deserve" is kind of skewed. Because if I make products that people want, and my company makes $10 billion/year from that, how do I not deserve that money? I don't because other people are on the street and hungry. It is sad that it is happening but how does that have anything to do with the fact I provided the market something they wanted and i got $10 billion for it? What is your solution? To take that money that my company legitimately made and give it to others? How is that not theft? The money the company got was 100% legitimate. And if I want to pay my CEO $1 billion from the COMPANY'S OWN MONEY that it generated by bringing a service that people liked, how is that a problem? Do I go to your home and tell you that you have enough food and that you should give it to other people? You would call the cops on me and tell me it's none of my business because it's YOUR food. For the football player. People are coming to stadiums and paying big money to see these people. They generate big big cash, billions. So when they make money, it's coming from those same people who are probably complaining that they shouldn't make that much. They did not steal the money, they earnerd it, it's THEIRS!!! Taking their money and giving it to people is theft because that football player generated that money legitimately. There are hundreds of millions of people watching the superbowl, including all the people below the povery line you are talking about. A pop star makes that money because.......guess what....... people paid for their music, for their concerts, etc. Again, same people who are probably complaining they shouldn't be making that much. What is your solution again? Take it from them. Meanwhile, all the people below the poverty line are listening to these artists' music and watching their youtube videos, and buying freaking Pepsi because their favorite artists like it, and that's why they make so much money. And I dislike Donald Trump as much as you. But guess what? He sold real estate, and people paid for it. It has nothing to do whatsoever with other people or society or morals or anything. He brought value, people gave him money because of it, why would he not keep it. If he stole money, again, then that's another topic. Now, if you told me the President of the US, a secretary of state, or another government worker is paid too much. Then I guess tha'ts something you can ague, as it's tax dollars and it's taken out of people from money that they earned, and it can be spent a way or another, which we all have our opinions and disagreements over. When a doctor saves a life, that's one of the best thing that can happen in the world and is a modern day miracle in many cases. Do you think that he generates millions and millions of dollars in the system like artists and football players do? I don't think so, and that is the reason he's not being paid more. So the doctor can't be paid with money he did not generate. If operations cost $1 million per person. Trust me, they would be paid more. It has nothing to do with what's moral or not. If the hospital paid him/her more, they would go bankrupt, or at least drop severly in profits, which I guess you would think is ok if it's to award somebody who did something great, but then i don't know how you could say "I'm all for capitalism and the free market"... All this aside, there are doctors being paid millions every year, maybe because they have a unique skill or something, which is what the market rewards. Anyway, my point is. These people made money legitimately, by bringing something to the market, that people paid for because it had value to them. If you think they shouldn't be allowed to keep it and that it should be taken away from them (on top of taxes, which already take a sizeable amount) because other people are below the poverty line, then we have a fundamental difference in point of views of what is fair and what constitutes "justice".

+1 Posted via the Windows Central App for Android

Damn man, i totaly read your comment till the end, even though i knew all the while what you were trying to point. I agree with you a hundred percent

;) 

Actually, this CEO didn't make or provide anything. The people underneath him did. They came up with the ideas, the design, the marketing, the deals with vendors on materials, the contractors, the labor, the salary. I bet those underneath him earned about 50,000-200,000. He just said... "Yeah, go do that."   :-)

Apparently lives hold the least value in your system. An Apple and Google exec should earn more than a doctor? I can live without one of those and its not my health. Yes I'm a socialist and I don't understand this concept of capitalism you speak of. I guess that's an exceptionally American idea. Posted from my Note 5

Socialism:  Everyone suffers, equally.

Tax evasion isnt the problem taxation is

You got it right man.

Thanks for sharing. Now I don't have to write anything. Enough said

You've just said that a CEO and a football player have the same responsibility :) About doctors... personally I'm with you, but big picture says that we are all going to die, so they are just wasting time...

You sir, deserve respect.

There are two types of people who are socialists/communists/social justice warriors. The very rich, they already have their wealth so the rules don't affect them. They'll leave if it gets too hot and the 1% already has plans to leave if they have to. The other type is the poor. Rather than building a life for themselves, they covet the property of others by force through the federal government in exchange for their vote. This has been going on since the dawn of time and no system of government will ever change that. In all communist countries, the poor actually get poorer and the rich always get richer. The idiots of the world think the poor are poor because of the rich. They are the useful idiots that keep the rich in power because they are stupid enough to believe politicians & think the government actually gives a shit about them. Whenever I see people cry about the success of others, I assume (and rightly so) that they are lazy idiots.

Czar, you are very wrong. The bulk of the trades union movement campaigns for social justice and we're all working folks who are often neither very wealthy nor very poor. Did you not notice us all marching? You don't do news, I take it?

You're uninformed my friend. What you should realise is that the middle class is shrinking. Rapidly, soon the only capitalists you'll see will be the very rich. Why do you associate caring for the poor and under privileged with jealousy? Socialism is actually the average humans political view in the world. Maybe not in the USA. Free healthcare, free education, food grants and access to shelter are important ideals my friend. Posted from my Note 5

Salute!!!

It's not specifically how much CEOs make, but how great a difference between their pay and that of the rest of the employees. The disparity has grown considerably over the yearS.

Well, if you want to become rich, design something that the world wants/needs. That's what most of these guys have done. Bill Gates is earned his ~$80 Billion by creating products and services that shaped this world in unimaginable ways.

That still doesn't matter. It's a decision the company makes because it thinks it is what will work for it. The employees can go find another job, or start their own business if they wanna make more.

People have a right to comment on it whether it directly effects them or not.
I watch companies make stupid decisions all of the time, and its my right to point them out.

Who said you couldn't comment?
And that's the point, what you think are stupid decisions are not stupid decisions. It's just you not understanding how money works

I fully understand how money works within a capitalist economic system. You have simply fallen for the fallacy that people only make economic decisions based on financial reasoning and not emotional, speculation, perception, cronyism, etc.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say people made economic decisions only based on financial reasoning? Capitalism includes all of those other reasons too

I am commenting on the way companies pay their CEOs.  The average CEO makes more in one day than the average employee makes in a year.  I think its bad for most companies, and bad for the US ecomony.  All that you have added is "That still doesn't matter...how money works"  If you can't comment beyond the obvious, then why comment?

Well, you must have a big blind spot in your field of vision if that's all you read. I said it doesn't matter because how a company uses its own money is a decision that the company itself has to make. People outside of the company have no say in how they spend it, because it's not their money.

Exactly! Not enough people realize that they have tremendous risks riding on their backs and that they're one of the main public figures for their company. Some people say that they shouldn't get paid thousands of times more than their lowest wage earners but they, unlike the lowest earners, are doing work that is progressing and advancing their company, they aren't just doing menial labor. The C-Level guys have special skills that allow them to earn such high pay.

"Tremendous risks riding on their backs..". Ever heard of a golden parachute?

I don't really understand how a person can physically do that much work. If he has truly expended $18.3m of effort he should be dead many many times over. I think this makes it hard for us mortals to understand. I strongly suspect that there are many people who put in far more effort and risk far more than Sat and are paid far smaller sums for it.
How much would Sat expect to be paid to be shot at in Afghanistan? Perhaps he would see that as the easy option for slackers? Perhaps he would see such cushy jobs as their own reward? I'm not convinced.

As much as it would be "fair" that money goes to whoever works the most, that's not how it works. It goes to whoever brings more value to the marketplace
Kim Kardashian can sit and take a picture with a product, and make in 10 seconds what another person makes in 3 years. Why? Because the exposure that product will get because of her will bring lots of money when people buy it. Doesn't matter if she worked hard or not, money goes to people for other reasons
If you fire an average worker who works hard, you will have tens of thousands others to replace them. If you fire somebody with a unique skill, it would be very hard to replace them, that's why they're paid more, whether they work hard or not

That was my point, Azizelh. Good to see it is noticed. I'm not convinced this is a good way to proceed as a society. Certainly there are a fair few down sides to this approach.

Well, the thing is, it's not about what should or shouldn't happen. That's how money itself works. It's like saying girls,should like nice guys. It would be fair, but it's not how it works.
And also, all of the companies whose products you're using and like, when it comes to your fridge, your microwave, your phone,your computer, your coffee machine, your toothpaste, toothbrush, etc... Are a result of this. Innovation would die if money didn't go to people who bring value to the marketplace

You talk as if these things are based on the laws of physics, Aziz. Remember, society determines how society should operate. And we are that society. We must consciously decide how things should work and become involved in defining our society, rather than thinking of the mechanisms like some divine dictate handed down to us carved into stone. I note that significant innovation comes out of war as well, but I wouldn't choose it as plan A. I believe there are better ways to achieve the same goals.

Can you please elaborate on those better ways? I don't know one... And I'm not being sarcastic or anything   And, while there is no divine dictating the mechanisms of how money moves... Yes, there are specific reasons money moves between people, due to the definition of what money is in itself

That is a very broad debate that is not well suited to this forum (or my mobile phone keyboard a almost 3 on the morning) and would require a long time to conclude. There is a lot of reading material available, I'm sure you can find some of it. My point is that we should explore alternatives and get creative rather than accepting the Establishment's narrative blindly. It is good that your curiosity has been encouraged, a job well done I think.

Well, it is easy to say "go read some books", which I actually do a lot of actually, and my reasoning has actually been reinforced every time I do so. Contrary to what you said, my curiosity has not been encouraged, because your replies are based on "how you feel things should be", and "how there must be another way",and not facts. I, on the other side, gave examples of why money, actually, goes to someone who brings value to the marketplace, rather than because of hard work. And money in every successful and developing society has been working this way for thousands of years, maybe you'll be the first person to be creative and change that ;) Example: I make something, and you like it. If you think it's worth the price I ask, you buy it from me. Does it matter how much effort it took me to make it? Maybe it took me ten seconds. All that matters is that I made something you liked and thought was worth asking price. On the other hand, somebody works a lot and makes something you don't want, or you think is not worth what they're asking. Would you buy it just because of the hard work? No. It doesn't matter, and that's not what makes money go to that person. He did not bring value to you. I got paid more doing way less work. This is what's happening on a large scale. And you're part of it

Yep Aziz, far easier than typing out those books on a phone in a forum. Forum chat does not replace the library, would that it could. We'd never need another university.
The info is widely available if you want it. It should not be necessary for me to lead you by the nose. If you want a starting place I suggest you try the TUC or contact your own trade union. It is not so tough.
Of course I'm talking about what I think re. possibilities. Until we have tried another way I can't give you the 'facts' as we have yet to try those new ideas (that's what it means to be a new idea of course). I am suggesting that as a global society we democratically consider, think & experiment with more progressive ideas rather than sticking with a status quo few levels of society have ever been able to have a say about. A progressive approach has to be better than conceptual stagnation, floundering from one financial crisis to the next with no plan to ever improve things due to fear and powerful vested interests. All I'm suggesting is that we try to improve on the society we have been handed. Is that really asking for the moon on a stick? I don't think so. Don't fear change Aziz, it can be a good thing. I can see what's happening on a large scale, and I'm suggesting we all become not just part of it, but active drivers for change. We cannot improve if we just conceptually stand still.

Well, I guess when you have no arguments in a conversation, it is easier to say go read, and "I don't know what the solution is, but i'm sure we'll find one if we all think hard enough", and most importantly, do all of this with a condescending tone. What an immature way to have a conversation "Don't fear change, Aziz. It's a good thing". Who the hell talks like that? Are you 14? Good luck to you

You cannot eliminate the world's poor by getting rid of the world's wealthy. 

You sure can get rid of disparity though. Posted from my Note 5

Yes, you can make everyone equally miserable and stop most progress.  But at least you won't have disparity.

Uh sure. Except not all of them are equally competent or do a good job. And inspite of that, they earn hefty payout packages. The fact is, executive pay has been getting absolutely out of hand. It's not just detrimental to society but to the businesses themselves. This pay culture has created myopic view where CEOs really tend to service themselves as opposed to the businesses they're running. And technically, it's not "private money" since it is a publically traded enterprise. Shareholders have to front up the bill for this paycheck, whether the executive is worth the pay or not. I would know since I am one of those shareholders. There is a reason Warren Buffett takes a nominal pay for himself and votes down any executive pay increase propositions at other companies.

Well, that's why you have a board of directors. But it's still a private matter. When I say private, I mean non-governmental. I still fail to see how it is relevant to anybody outside of the company itself and its shareholders. Like you said, a shareholder can disagree and say somebody is paid too much. Because he owns part of the company and any decision that is made can affect him. But that's a company problem and policy. When people that have nothing to do with the company complain, then it just doesn't make any sense to me. Like I said above, it's like someone you don't know coming to your house and telling you how much to spend on this and that, and what to buy. You would think they're crazy. Your family can complain (shareholders), and it would make sense, but has nothing to do with anybody outside of family (company). Saying a company should be their CEO this or that much, is as reasonable as those same people telling the company who to hire, or how their marketing should be done. You can have your opinion about it, but you still have no legitimate say on the matter, as only the company decides.

Aziz, if it was wise to apply household management techniques to the corporate world, and vice versa, we'd either all be running companies paying us huge salaries or (in reality) huge disaster would be on the horizon... hold on a mo, you might just have something there...

Yes, but the trouble is that it becomes a "bro-fest" between directors and executives. Directors appoint executive that increase their pay and executives appoint directors that increase theirs. It's a vicious cycle where the money is fronted up by shareholders and creditors for the benefit of the company. Of course, it is wrong to color them all wrong and say executives shouldn't be paid x amount of dollars. I'm not going to get into that and obviously, a handful of them are certainly competent enough to earn what they deserve. My criticism is aimed at CEOs who clearly aren't and yet get massive payout packages. Think major banks during the 2008 crisis. Blind systematic greed, fully supported by these executives, got us in this mess and most of them got millions in payout/benefits. How is that fair? If the argument is that "it doesn't affect anyone else" then thats not really right because it clearly does. Millions were affected during the crisis, thousands lost their jobs and trillions of dollars had to be poured in to fix the economy. That makes you accountable to the public on a much larger scale than you're willing to concede. There is a fine line here but many big companies have crossed it already.

Most tech companies pay their employees well though. Outside of tech, the disparity between what CEOs and workers earn is growing. Usually, when people get worked up over CEO pay it's shitty companies like Walmart where the workers are all wage slaves living off of food stamps, which means taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart, or financial CEOs who make criminal amounts of money while destroying the economy. I doubt anyone is going to get worked up over Nadella getting paid.

Well said...
Amazing that not one wall street CEO got busted for the 08 crash..

Good point Kreb. Can't speak as to the US tech industry, but in countries where it depends far more than it should on your 'old school tie' to determine where you are allocated in society (a class system) these issues are even more difficult to swallow.
My CEO is a knight & full time aristo.

I agree with you. In fact, much of the new wealth in the US comes from the financial sector, not the commercial or services sectors.

I'm pretty sure those thousands of workers Microsoft fired this year alone will have a very different view on it...

Me either, this is the norm.

Majority of people who complain about pay inequality are either college students or just lazy people who think they should get paid more for simply coming to work.

Blimey, really? That's surprising. I'd love to see your research data on that, Erzhik. Could you post a link please? I'm assuming from your statement regarding effort that you've actually put in the work and not just made that one up...

Ignorance is a wonderful thing, isn't it? #Trump2016 #WallStreetAren'tCriminalsMexicansAre #LetTheMexicansGoHome #Can'tPayForEducationMeansYouAren'tPatriotEnough #WorkMoreGetPaidTheSame #BillionairesandMillionairesforWellDeservedTaxBreaks #YouHelpMeYouHelpYou #HigherEducationIsForLazyPeople

My £9.23 per hour seems small now

could dream!

He deserves it. I also like it's not a flat pay. His contract says his pay is determined by how well the company does. That's good stuff.

I think there employees should be paid slightly more. I mean why did all the top execs exceed a 100 percent bonus?

Because they did well.

So did I. Where's my millions? In the post I expect...

El chapo

@Andy Calling, hah! I know just feeling, my last place of work made a tonne of money at the olympics. Yet neither me or my colleague got a thank you or any bloody bonus. Despite the countless weekends and hours we sunk in not by request bit necessity as we were in the front line - the only point of contact for the clients. Freelance doesn't pay the bills as comfortably but least I don't have to be fielding calls on "holidays" let alone on Christmas.

Without staff a CEO is pointless though. I'm betting that they didn't receive a huge bonus on their salaries for the work they contributed. There is also the fact that I'd a company goes into liquidation it isn't the CEO that get shafted on their pay. It also wasn't the CEO that was one of 18000 people that lost their jobs in the past year.

You can't eliminate the world's poor by getting rid of the world's wealthy. If Nadella donated the entirety of his salary to those 18,000 people he would have been able to give them about $1,017 each.  What good would that have done over time, really?

A lot of good my friend. Was that a serious question?
Is $1000 chump change to you? The bonus is probably chump change to Mr Nadella at this point. Posted from my Note 5

Not chump change.  But I am not unrealistic either.  Most "poor" people would blow through $1k and find themselves in their same, unchanged, situation within a week or two.  That's why I asked what good it would do over time. Many of these people would have been earning $3,000-$5,000 per month.  $1k isn't going to get their jobs back, it would "buy" them an extra week of lifestyle at most. That's why I asked what good it would do over time.  

I bet he'll double that next year. More people he lay off more bonus money for his pocket

Because many CEOs are compensated heavily with company stock, there is a direct correlation with huge layoffs and the value of the stock they are given.

How much do football players make for playing a few games a year?

You didn't just try to justify something using football players' salaries as an example of a just pay system did you? Blimey.

Which "football" are you talking about?

The usual sort. I think if it was a colloquial version like American football or Aussie Rules football it would have been marked as such by the OP.

There's only one football, mate. That played in Europe and the rest of the World. What you play in 'murica is called "HandEgg" ;P

"hand egg!" I love it! Posted via the Windows Central App for Android

$84 million last year, but only$18 million this year....i feel sorry for him.

Yep wasn't expecting it to be so low after last year's amount. I think he was the highest paid CEO in 2014

I'm sure his kids can't eat after that :-( Posted from my Note 5

Christ, that's depressing

I thought he must be making more than $50 million.... how much Apple and Google CEO make?

Tim Cook makes like $10 million, so significantly less. Google's CEOs are owners/founders so it's completely different.

After an x million amount, the difference is minimal. They're mostly a result of stock options anyways, sort of as an incentive for them to push the company to greater heights so a direct comparison isn't always appropriate.

Google employees are paid in Alphagetties.

He could always give me some. I'm open to it, Mr. Nadella. Think about it.

How much did Cook make?

Nadella's honeymoon period will be over soon.

Yea, that happened when he got the axe out.

And Taylor swift will make $365 million in 2015!

So Nadella should dye his hair blond, wear summer dresses and sing corny songs about douchy looking guys?

And start singing bad blood.

stock award of $80 million in 2014??

I think sports is the only field that the performer get what he/she deserved.

Unless its female sports.

They get paid accordingly Posted via the Windows Central App for Android

Ohhh yeahhh. Because driving a car really fast is worth getting paid $200 million or throwing a football. Fact is, they get paid because you're willing to pay someone to do that. Sports create little in terms of actual monetary value so that's a completely different discussion.

Well, you just answered the whole debate. They get paid because people are willing to pay huge amounts to see them play, they buy stuff they advertise, etc. How is that a problem?

Ask Sepp Blatter...

Yeah, Sepp Blatter is a great athlete that made money legitimately from the sources I mentionned. Thank you for adding to the conversation with a very well thought-out argument

The problem is that value isn't the same as price. Just because someone is willing to pay x for y, doesn't automatically make y worth that amount. You can disagree, but we might just have a fundamental disagreement on that one. The problem is artificial inflation. One person starts asking x amount of dollars and the other follows suit. This is like saying Tesla is worth what it's market cap says. Sure, you could believe that but it's certainly not creating any real value worth anywhere close to that amount. That is the problem.

"operating income and earnings per share declined..."
I get he is in a rebuilding phase, but to get bonuses when income is down is crazy

If he's looking to get rid of some of it I'll gladly help with that. :P

18 mil doesn't sound like much.

Nice things in life. Completely exorbitant though.

No comments because I don't care. While money is important, I know that money can't buy happiness.

Well if it can buy me a HoloLens, a Ferrari and a vacation around the world,....I've just bought happiness successfully

You are crazy if you really think that money can't buy happiness,or you come from a rich family

Born in wealth.
Better to cry in a Buggati than on a bike. Posted from my Note 5

Good for him. I mean if he can make windows phone a hit, then he deserves it. Posted via the Windows Central on Blackberry passport SE

Buggy salary calculation. Still in beta.

18 Million USD is Quite low considering Satya Nadella made 80 Million Dollars last year.

That's a lot of money for one person.

I believe that he deserves this.

One dollar for every bug.

And he deserved every penny. He has transformed Microsoft in just 18 months. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android

He's doing a good job hopefully he'll continue to do so. Ms are disrupting the market on what a mobile device should do and making non propriety apps, Ms are finally using their skill to be ahead of the tech curve but they really need to communicate this to the buying public.

I started to post a rant on taxes but instead ill say, let us now return to our tech filled, windows mobile, beta build, spec loving, insider selves... Thanks

He still sniffing white power ( powder lines) from the table...

He's doing a bang up job so far. Windows 10, Windows 10 Mobile, the Lumia 950 and 950XL... Okay, nevermind.

So, every one in his family will get a Surface Book + a 950XL for a Christmas present. How I wish!

In the 60's a CEO made about 50x more then the lowest paid employee of said company since then it has skyrocketed to 500x more than the lowest paid employee sometimes even more then that. CEO pay continues to rise when employee pay declines. You see cuts in employee benefits & pay every year and at those same companies they will give big bonuses to the CEO and claim they are losing money.