Why all the hate on Tim? Steve hand picked him after years of observation (so as not to repeat the Sculley mistake). Steve entrusted the company to him when he was sick in 2011 and by all measures Tim Cook has done well.
Future innovation? That remains to be seen of course. But bear in mind, not everything Steve touched turned to gold. There were missteps and misfires with him too.
Timboy looks pastie and wrinkly. He'd better get gobbling the pork and butter if he expects to be round to collect that money. The veggie wagon is a stinky pile to live on. Time Tim thought outside the Steve box.
(don't be confused by the bible bit. This aint a religious experience.) Fascinating read for the adventurers amongst up. We do want Timmy around for a long while. Now how can we convince Larry to go vegan.
I guess I would give your post some validity if I knew that A) you were a health professional; that you had given TC A thorough examination; and C) you weren't making some wild observation based on one photo.
Why all the hate on Tim? Steve hand picked him after years of observation (so as not to repeat the Sculley mistake). Steve entrusted the company to him when he was sick in 2011 and by all measures Tim Cook has done well.
Future innovation? That remains to be seen of course. But bear in mind, not everything Steve touched turned to gold. There were missteps and misfires with him too.
I look at a buddy of mine in the Bay Area who works for Apple. He's in his early 30's and can't afford to be able to buy a house for himself, so he continues to rent. Admittedly he has a good life, better than most, but seeing that huge amounts of what Tim Cook earns will just be saved, since nobody can spend that much (although I admit I would be willing to try!), surely it would be better for the wider economy if people like Cook were able to save less, and the extra money went to people who work for Apple and would actually put the money to work in the economy?
I don't intend this to be a criticism of Tim Cook in any way. He's clearly achieved a lot, but something seems wrong with the system at the moment, in my opinion.
Cost of living in Silicon Valley
The cost of living in Silicon Valley is significantly higher than other metropolitan areas, even NYC. The cost of basic necessities is 62% higher than elsewhere, across the board.
Average cost for housing, (about $775,000 to $1mil depending on location for a modest single-family home) costs almost 3X the national average. Apartment rentals are also insane - 76 percent more than the US average.
Tech workers in Silicon Valley earn roughly $92,300 a year, compared to counterparts in New York City requiring $74,800 to match the same standard of living. Tech workers in cities like Dallas or Philadelphia, require just half of those in Silicon Valley for a comparable standard of living.
California taxes resident workers more heavily too - those annual salaries in excess of $46,776 paying 9.3 percent in state income taxes alone.
YOU may not be able to spend that much, but given the cost of living in the Valley, and other lifestyle considerations, TC is fairly modestly compensated for the work he does.
Admittedly he has a good life, better than most, but seeing that huge amounts of what Tim Cook earns will just be saved, since nobody can spend that much (although I admit I would be willing to try!), surely it would be better for the wider economy if people like Cook were able to save less, and the extra money went to people who work for Apple and would actually put the money to work in the economy?
There are quite a few assumptions built into that suggestion.
Tim is known as big donor to his school (Auburn IIRC). If he donates a lot of $, that may well do more good than taking it away from him & dividing it up amongst others.
Also, maybe making a lot of $ is what drove Tim to work so hard for so long. If his compensation was capped at a certain amount $1,000,000 per year (or whatever # you pick,) once he reaches that point, where's the incentive to work any harder. It's undeniable that much of the value of Apple today is built in from the management of their supply chain, which was Tim's domain. I'm sure that his job is much different than yours or mine & that he works a lot more than 40 hours/week. If his compensation was lowered, maybe he would just say "I've got enough $, why continue to work" in which case, Apple would have lost the special talents he brought to the position. which would have negatively impacted everyone.
Plus the whole argument about if spending is really better for 'us' as a whole than savings is not cut & dried. There is definitely value to both.
I don't care how well Apple is doing, it's still too much money.
Unadulterated American greed is what got us in this financial mess in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
It's nice seeing a CEO's salary commensurate with his/her performance. A nice reprieve from all the useless dickheads working in the financial industry.
Unadulterated American greed is what got us in this financial mess in the first place.
Spectacular stupidity and a catastrophic lack of regulation is what got us into this financial mess in the first place.
Greed is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as structures are in place to stop said greed causing damage to innocent bystanders. That's what was missing.
Driving incredibly fast is not inherently a bad thing, but if you do it in built up areas, there is a good chance innocent bystanders will get help, hence we have speed limits........
I guess I would give your post some validity if I knew that A) you were a health professional; that you had given TC A thorough examination; and C) you weren't making some wild observation based on one photo.
You sound like a troll.
He is quite right. The whole anti-saturated-fat and cholesterol campaign the medical fraternity has been running for years is not based on any scientific evidence and the latest evidence regarding cholesterol is that there is no evidence it does the harm that it has been accused of.
He is quite right. The whole anti-saturated-fat and cholesterol campaign the medical fraternity has been running for years is not based on any scientific evidence and the latest evidence regarding cholesterol is that there is no evidence it does the harm that it has been accused of.
Really? Then I guess you know more than the AMA and the American Heart Association - both of which think there's a strong link.
I find it kind of funny how the previous ceo was paid only $1.00 but the current ceo is going to get $400 million. If I remember right most of the success & profits are still all from products Steve was responsible for. Talk about taking credit for another guys work.
I find it kind of funny how the previous ceo was paid only $1.00 but the current ceo is going to get $400 million. If I remember right most of the success & profits are still all from products Steve was responsible for. Talk about taking credit for another guys work.
1) This is about what Cook was awarded in a one-time stock package, which Jobs also received. As noted in the article his salary was around $1.8 million for 2011.
2) Cook was instrumental in making Apple the success it is. It's easier to argue that Apple would be much the lesser without Cook. Why you think Cook doesn't deserve a performance-based incentive is beyond me but he's certainly been a valuable member of Apple and I'm quite happy to see him at the helm now that Jobs has passed.
In fact, Apple's own 2012 proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission states that Cook's compensation should be viewed "over the 10-year vesting period and not solely as compensation for 2011."
Then why does this article even exist? (and also as noted in the CNN/Money magazine article)
Quote:
If the total stock compensation is included, Cook's earnings in 2011 were well beyond second-place finisher Larry Ellison of Oracle Corp., who made $77.6 million last year. In third place was former Apple retail chief Ron Johnson, who made $53.3 million in his new role at U.S. retailer JC
Penney/
Then based on the same reasoning as the article, in 10 years, Larry Ellison, Ron Johnson and Philippe Dauman will have made far more than Cook (based on current salaries). $776 million, $533 million & $431 million respectively.
Comments
Future innovation? That remains to be seen of course. But bear in mind, not everything Steve touched turned to gold. There were missteps and misfires with him too.
Concern trolls gotta be concerned I guess.
Timboy looks pastie and wrinkly. He'd better get gobbling the pork and butter if he expects to be round to collect that money. The veggie wagon is a stinky pile to live on. Time Tim thought outside the Steve box.
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
(don't be confused by the bible bit. This aint a religious experience.) Fascinating read for the adventurers amongst up. We do want Timmy around for a long while. Now how can we convince Larry to go vegan.
I guess I would give your post some validity if I knew that A) you were a health professional;
You sound like a troll.
Why all the hate on Tim? Steve hand picked him after years of observation (so as not to repeat the Sculley mistake). Steve entrusted the company to him when he was sick in 2011 and by all measures Tim Cook has done well.
Future innovation? That remains to be seen of course. But bear in mind, not everything Steve touched turned to gold. There were missteps and misfires with him too.
Concern trolls gotta be concerned I guess.
What hate on Tim?
Steve entrusted the company to him when he was sick in 2011?
AND in 2004 when he was sick the first time. Most people don't remember that.
What hate on Tim?
Diminishment of his accomplishments and work at Apple and claiming that decisions made since Steve's passing were "terrible" and "Tim's fault".
It's nice seeing a CEO's salary commensurate with his/her performance...
per year Tim Cook is making perhaps 2 million... while the others are making 10 times that...
but apple is bigger than those other companies (in market cap)
so I would say that he is NOT
Better to have job you love (and perform in a stellar manner) than one you hate
only if you include the stock bonus after 10 years, will he earn effectively what they make.
(but the others also get stock options too)
I know what you mean.
I look at a buddy of mine in the Bay Area who works for Apple. He's in his early 30's and can't afford to be able to buy a house for himself, so he continues to rent. Admittedly he has a good life, better than most, but seeing that huge amounts of what Tim Cook earns will just be saved, since nobody can spend that much (although I admit I would be willing to try!), surely it would be better for the wider economy if people like Cook were able to save less, and the extra money went to people who work for Apple and would actually put the money to work in the economy?
I don't intend this to be a criticism of Tim Cook in any way. He's clearly achieved a lot, but something seems wrong with the system at the moment, in my opinion.
Cost of living in Silicon Valley
The cost of living in Silicon Valley is significantly higher than other metropolitan areas, even NYC. The cost of basic necessities is 62% higher than elsewhere, across the board.
Average cost for housing, (about $775,000 to $1mil depending on location for a modest single-family home) costs almost 3X the national average. Apartment rentals are also insane - 76 percent more than the US average.
Tech workers in Silicon Valley earn roughly $92,300 a year, compared to counterparts in New York City requiring $74,800 to match the same standard of living. Tech workers in cities like Dallas or Philadelphia, require just half of those in Silicon Valley for a comparable standard of living.
California taxes resident workers more heavily too - those annual salaries in excess of $46,776 paying 9.3 percent in state income taxes alone.
YOU may not be able to spend that much, but given the cost of living in the Valley, and other lifestyle considerations, TC is fairly modestly compensated for the work he does.
Admittedly he has a good life, better than most, but seeing that huge amounts of what Tim Cook earns will just be saved, since nobody can spend that much (although I admit I would be willing to try!), surely it would be better for the wider economy if people like Cook were able to save less, and the extra money went to people who work for Apple and would actually put the money to work in the economy?
There are quite a few assumptions built into that suggestion.
Tim is known as big donor to his school (Auburn IIRC). If he donates a lot of $, that may well do more good than taking it away from him & dividing it up amongst others.
Also, maybe making a lot of $ is what drove Tim to work so hard for so long. If his compensation was capped at a certain amount $1,000,000 per year (or whatever # you pick,) once he reaches that point, where's the incentive to work any harder. It's undeniable that much of the value of Apple today is built in from the management of their supply chain, which was Tim's domain. I'm sure that his job is much different than yours or mine & that he works a lot more than 40 hours/week. If his compensation was lowered, maybe he would just say "I've got enough $, why continue to work" in which case, Apple would have lost the special talents he brought to the position. which would have negatively impacted everyone.
Plus the whole argument about if spending is really better for 'us' as a whole than savings is not cut & dried. There is definitely value to both.
Unadulterated American greed is what got us in this financial mess in the first place.
It's nice seeing a CEO's salary commensurate with his/her performance. A nice reprieve from all the useless dickheads working in the financial industry.
Unadulterated American greed is what got us in this financial mess in the first place.
Spectacular stupidity and a catastrophic lack of regulation is what got us into this financial mess in the first place.
Greed is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as structures are in place to stop said greed causing damage to innocent bystanders. That's what was missing.
Driving incredibly fast is not inherently a bad thing, but if you do it in built up areas, there is a good chance innocent bystanders will get help, hence we have speed limits........
I guess I would give your post some validity if I knew that A) you were a health professional;
You sound like a troll.
He is quite right. The whole anti-saturated-fat and cholesterol campaign the medical fraternity has been running for years is not based on any scientific evidence and the latest evidence regarding cholesterol is that there is no evidence it does the harm that it has been accused of.
He is quite right. The whole anti-saturated-fat and cholesterol campaign the medical fraternity has been running for years is not based on any scientific evidence and the latest evidence regarding cholesterol is that there is no evidence it does the harm that it has been accused of.
Really? Then I guess you know more than the AMA and the American Heart Association - both of which think there's a strong link.
So what's your evidence?
Diminishment of his accomplishments and work at Apple and claiming that decisions made since Steve's passing were "terrible" and "Tim's fault".
Ok, generally, perhaps, and mostly by people who really don't 'get' Apple 2012.
I thought he meant this thread. Not a lot of hate... Yet.
Edit. (insert sarcasm here).
The skin never lies.
That has to be the creepiest thing I've heard in a long while.....
I find it kind of funny how the previous ceo was paid only $1.00 but the current ceo is going to get $400 million. If I remember right most of the success & profits are still all from products Steve was responsible for. Talk about taking credit for another guys work.
1) This is about what Cook was awarded in a one-time stock package, which Jobs also received. As noted in the article his salary was around $1.8 million for 2011.
2) Cook was instrumental in making Apple the success it is. It's easier to argue that Apple would be much the lesser without Cook. Why you think Cook doesn't deserve a performance-based incentive is beyond me but he's certainly been a valuable member of Apple and I'm quite happy to see him at the helm now that Jobs has passed.
He'd better get gobbling the pork and butter if he expects to be round to collect that money
Yeah, lots of pork and butter are sure ways to extend the life of a 51 year
old male.
and that would definitely make him round as you wrote.
In fact, Apple's own 2012 proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission states that Cook's compensation should be viewed "over the 10-year vesting period and not solely as compensation for 2011."
Then why does this article even exist? (and also as noted in the CNN/Money magazine article)
If the total stock compensation is included, Cook's earnings in 2011 were well beyond second-place finisher Larry Ellison of Oracle Corp., who made $77.6 million last year. In third place was former Apple retail chief Ron Johnson, who made $53.3 million in his new role at U.S. retailer JC
Penney/
Then based on the same reasoning as the article, in 10 years, Larry Ellison, Ron Johnson and Philippe Dauman will have made far more than Cook (based on current salaries). $776 million, $533 million & $431 million respectively.