Somewhat random (but non-trolling!) question: Why is it considered good for Google to give its employees lavish benefits while it's considered extravagant for Wall Street companies to give lavish benefits? I personally feel this is a valid way of viewing things (I may be biased), but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Because Google has never been bailed out by taxpayers. The idea that Wall Street was able to socialize its losses and claim all its gains for itself, and then go right back to paying out extremely high amounts, is what rankled people a lot more than "those benefits are lavish, per se".
Larry and Sergey get free parking for their private jets at a NASA facility. Google has its feet as under the government table as Goldman Sachs. In the UK, they evade tax by hiding profits offshore. They just have better PR.
"How did the two billionaires get such a coveted parking place? Officials at NASA Ames Research Center said the space agency signed an agreement signed last month that allowed it to place instruments and scientists on planes owned by principals of H211, which in addition to the Boeing 767-200 includes two Gulfstream Vs, to collect scientific data on some flights. In exchange, NASA will receive about $1.3 million in annual fees for being host to the plane at Moffett, said Steven Zornetzer, associate director for institutions and research at NASA Ames Research Center."
If that were guy A's money, that would make sense. But it is not guy A's money.
If guy A takes money from guys C - ZZZZZZ in order to give that to guy B, without setting many restrictions or even punishing guy B, and guy B spends in on crack and hookers... we blame guy B? Sure, guy B was a scumbag, but guy A was the one who took and misappropriated the capital in the first place. Not to mention the actions of guy B that led up to his needing money were actively encouraged by guy A.
Not to strain this metaphor to the breaking point, but guy A is, in theory, a representative of guys C-ZZZZZZ, and they have recourse when they're angry at his actions.
More importantly, guy A IS being held accountable; there's a lot of anger at the government as well over the bank bailouts (and the attendant lack of conditional guarantees). even in the situation you're describing, of COURSE one would blame guy B (along with guy A). Coincidentally enough...that's exactly what's happening.
Much of the objection has been that those benefits have been tied to high degrees of risk taking, which has demonstrably harmed the system. People who royally screw up and do extremely questionable things getting millions and millions of dollars. The same isn't true of Google's benefits in any way.
Though I've answered it in earnest, your question really does strike me as trolling - it implies pretty heavily that the only reason anyone could ever complain about Wall Street's incentive structure is for irrational emotional reasons, like they are jealous communist types.
Order of magnitude compensation difference (non exec salaries at google, acquihire signing bonuses aside, top out at what, 150-200k?), the fact that they sell services instead of maybe-kind-of-only being a middleman, blah blah blah.
Perception of how the money is made. Generalizing a bit, but most people feel that Google earned the money honestly while Wall Street got their money dishonestly.
It's pretty simple really. People don't like the fact that Wall Street is paying out very high bonuses so soon after many of the companies were bailed out with taxpayer money.
You're comparing a $20 month life insurance plan incredulously to bonuses sometimes in the hundreds of thousands PR millions of dollars sometimes inspire of bad or selfish decisions?
I'd be willing to bet money that after you add up the salary, bonuses, and benefits, the amount of money Google spends on the average Googler isn't all that much different from the average investment banker.
