When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers.
It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assume that investors who are still invested in Intel were holding out for the prospect that Intel would recover its former glory, but maybe it is mostly investors interested in near term dividend yields, or institutional investors that are sensitive to metrics other than something that is difficult to quantify like narratives or some notion of employee quality.
It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assume that investors who are still invested in Intel were holding out for the prospect that Intel would recover its former glory, but maybe it is mostly investors interested in near term dividend yields, or institutional investors that are sensitive to metrics other than something that is difficult to quantify like narratives or some notion of employee quality.