It's funny to me that no one complained about Sundar's pay when things were going swimmingly well.
One of the first things that someone that gets laid off tries to do is understand the reasons for the conditions that prompted the lay-off.
One could -- somewhat reasonably -- divide the number of yearly salaries into 226 million and become quite outraged.
Is a single CEO worth that many jobs? That's the true question that creates outrage, not whether or not he was paid well.
If the jobs were never at stake the outrage would not exist.
I explain this without any outrage myself in this matter; a contractual payout has little to do with whatever current employment climate may exist -- but I can understand where the outrage originates.
This question is a sign of not understanding how business works.