In the days when Mayer was at Google, Silicon Valley was one of the few places in America with a relatively meritocratic labor market and its firms (including Google at the time) had risen to prominence by upsetting incumbent industries and not through corporate welfare and cronyism.
A lot has changed. Schmidt weaponized Google's offering and helped sell to DC, turning Google into the Halliburton of information.
I think the typical notion of capitalism is too broad (and encompasses the gamut of disruptive businesses, traditional "crony" capitalism, rent-seeking, and borderline fraud). The WSJ caters mainly to establishment ("crony" and rent-seeking) capitalist readers. HN includes more classically liberal views.
Also, I think few people realize that Mayer's comp package was an exercise in leverage and risk reduction for both parties. Taking the helm of a project that has failed under a handful of seasoned practitioners is certainly not something most people would feel comfortable doing in their own line of work.
A lot has changed. Schmidt weaponized Google's offering and helped sell to DC, turning Google into the Halliburton of information.
I think the typical notion of capitalism is too broad (and encompasses the gamut of disruptive businesses, traditional "crony" capitalism, rent-seeking, and borderline fraud). The WSJ caters mainly to establishment ("crony" and rent-seeking) capitalist readers. HN includes more classically liberal views.
Also, I think few people realize that Mayer's comp package was an exercise in leverage and risk reduction for both parties. Taking the helm of a project that has failed under a handful of seasoned practitioners is certainly not something most people would feel comfortable doing in their own line of work.