Nvidia’s run has been so remarkable that the market now believes the company is worth more than $100 million per employee....

"…For Nvidia, after this latest run-up took it north of the $3T milestone, the company is being valued at more than $100M for each of its 29,600 employees (per its filing that counted up to the end of Jan 2024).

That’s more than 5x any of its big tech peers, and hundreds of times higher than more labor-intensive companies like Walmart and Amazon. It is worth noting that Nvidia has very likely done some hiring since the end of January — I think the company might be in growth mode — but even if the HR department has been working non-stop, Nvidia will still be a major outlier on this simple measure.

We are running out of ways to describe Nvidia’s recent run… but a nine-figure valuation per employee is a new one."

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyzOP
      0·
      7 months ago

      Well, they technically will see SOME cents of this because I’m pretty sure Nvidia gives employees stocks too.

      But yeah, I also posted this because it’s a clear illustration of how most salaries will never reflect the value your labour brings to an organization.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        7 months ago

        Or more accurately, it’s a clear illustration of how overvalued they are right now.

        But as the saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

  • coffeetest@beehaw.org
    0·
    7 months ago

    The great thing about the stock market compared to other investments like crypto is that stocks are based on the inherent value of the business they represent. Stocks are based on financial fundamentals. You can believe in those investments because they are based on something real and not simply rampant speculation. For example.

    Tesla. Worth more than most of the rest of the car market combined because… reasons?

    Paypal. Lost 80% of its value starting in July 2021 over a year and never recovered because of terrible problems? Huge losses? Nope, because it “only” grew at 8-9%.

    2008 US housing rated as “AAA” investment i.e. “good as cash” based on actual trash.

      • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee
        0·
        7 months ago

        I mean… It would be true if there were no derivatives. When you start betting money on whether the line goes up or down, the stock price cases being reflective of the stock’s value.

        • coffeetest@beehaw.org
          1·
          6 months ago

          In my understanding, derivatives amplify the problems and risks. Underlying that are the money people who push on these systems as hard as they can and exploit every angle. Along the lines of pushing the boundaries, the practice of brokers “loaning” shares seems like another place that’s bound to cause issues at its limits. I really wish the govt would step in and impose much stricter regulation. I’d like to trust that buying stock is investing in a company rather than feeling like the stock market is a school of small fish swimming with sharks who cheat as much as they believe they can get away with. If the focus was on dividends vs growth, I think we’d be better off. Maybe I am wrong but that’s how I see it.

          I think of it like network security. Anything you do not explicitly disallow will be used, tried, and used in ways you probably didn’t think of. It isn’t a matter of expecting people to do the right (or legal) thing, most will but it’s a surety that some will not. That’s normal and why security is a process and systems have to adapt over time in response.