Because they are a human being, and because wealth is not equal to happiness. It seems to correlate with happiness, but probably because wealthier people have less stress, and that's certainly not true for a CEO.

I think everyone deserves sympathy, because everyone is a human being. Larry Page's life as a CEO is surely stressful and he deserves sympathy for it. But I bet there are plenty of "poor single mother"s and "40-something factory worker"s with very stressful lives too, in many cases even more stressful than any billionaire CEO's. That can't be denied.

But think about the sort of pressure that would be on Larry's shoulders. If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.

For a poor single mother or 40 something factory worker, their stress is more localised to their own family's well-being.

I think the problem here is that people try to compare or value stress on a scale of entitlement. I don't think it's that simple. I agree everyone deserves sympathy, because at the end of the day, we all experience stress on some level. One person's experience of stress is never more valid than another's.

"If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families."

Do you really think CEO's care about the help? Watch what happens if Google gets broken up, or takes a nose dive like so many companies. That Playland campus will just be a story we reminisce about. Larry Page, nor any of the others won't be crying in their wine.

They will take their safe money and do something else. Bill Gates had the hubris to think he could solve the worlds problems with his wealth. I always felt it was our wealth? He practically "strong armed" every pc user.

"Oh he's being negative! Let's get him with our finger." I don't think I'm being negative, just a realist. I have seen too many CEO's decimate companies when the wind starts to blow in another direction. They always fatten their stake.

I think people are selfish by nature. When they become wealthy, and the one in charge; they just get worse. I really can't think of an exception?

>But think about the sort of pressure that would be on Larry's shoulders. If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.

And yet, a vast majority of CEOs don't give a fuck about all this, and can destroy companies happily, and fly to another on their golden parachutes.

> If he quits, or makes the wrong decision, that potentially affects thousands of his employees, and their families.

He is remarkable in every way possible, but I doubt this is true. World won't end, if he quits. Google and everyone in there will be just fine. Look at Jobs (and many other "irreplaceable" people), for example.

Personal anecdote: I've experienced worrying about finishing project so that my two employees would still have a job next month and so that people who invested their personal savings in the project would get at least most of it back. I have also experienced worrying about getting next check as a freelancer supporting a family.

The latter was far worse – even though I knew we had a family safety-net.

I think it's reasonable to have more sympathy to problems of people struggling for well-being of their own family than "it's lonely at the top" kinds of problems.

"I have fired people. It is brutal. I have been fired. It's worse. So managers, please: Never solicit sympathy for the pain of firing people." – Reginald Braithwaite.

But nobody is forcing him to do it. If it doesn't make him happy, he can change it, unlike many people.

Because sympathy invokes inclusion and empathy. And reciprocity is human nature.

This assumes said CEO is mindful and doesn't suffer from a mental disorder, like narcissism.