or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Mac and Retail bosses cash in on over $55 million in options
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Mac and Retail bosses cash in on over $55 million in options - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Maybe my Apple store is different from most, but I find it crowded, hard to find help, and the staff to be borderline incompetent and downright anti-customer at times.

It varies significantly store-to store. I think it likely comes from the top down, starting with the store manager.

For example, the Chestnut Hill Mall store, within walking distance of my home, sucks big time. The manager lies. He is arrogant and rude.

The flagship store on Boylston Street in Boston, however, is excellent. The Genii are happy to help you, rather than trying to get you out the door with excuses that they could not replicate the problem.

This is retail. Few competent people are willing to work in retail. If you find a good one, consider yourself lucky.
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

This is retail. Few competent people are willing to work in retail. If you find a good one, consider yourself lucky.

This I agree with. Retail doesn't have to be this way but it is sometimes just like that.

On the other hand, anyone with retail experience knows some customers can be unreasonable or arrogant.

It's a somewhat ridiculous line of work. So necessary yet so debasing at times.

And it changes rapidly from day to day or even hour to hour depending on staff and their mood.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Or perhaps reducing the depth of the recession unfettered capitalism has wrought? Interesting sig you have. You could say exactly the same thing about recent governments of any colour.

Capitalism has nothing to do with the recession. it was brought on by banking interests who through the power of the unconstitutional federal reserve manipulated the credit markets to obtain short term profits at the expense of the health of the economy.

The federal reserve was created and empowered by the government, though legally not part of the government. This situation exists entirely as a result of government action. Capitalism only works WITHOUT government meddling in the economy. The instant you start meddling with it using the absolute power of government it goes to hell. Capitalism which relies on government subsidies, market manipulation, etc. is not true capitalism. Its called crony-capitalism or phony-capitalism. This is what you really should be railing against. Unfettered manipulation of the economy by the government to benefit some "business" with influence in the government.

Get rid of the government, the economy would operate in balance, government is the destructive force- not "unfettered capitalism".
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by revilre View Post

Capitalism has nothing to do with the recession. it was brought on by banking interests who through the power of the unconstitutional federal reserve manipulated the credit markets to obtain short term profits at the expense of the health of the economy.

The federal reserve was created and empowered by the government, though legally not part of the government. This situation exists entirely as a result of government action. Capitalism only works WITHOUT government meddling in the economy. The instant you start meddling with it using the absolute power of government it goes to hell. Capitalism which relies on government subsidies, market manipulation, etc. is not true capitalism. Its called crony-capitalism or phony-capitalism. This is what you really should be railing against. Unfettered manipulation of the economy by the government to benefit some "business" with influence in the government.

Get rid of the government, the economy would operate in balance, government is the destructive force- not "unfettered capitalism".

Finally, someone who isn't eating what the media is spoon feeding the plebs.

Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production; you fail on your own merits.

Obushbama: Bail out your Wall St. friends and blame lack of government (i.e. their) power.

Idiots: People who think voting helps, and/or is their duty, especially in our kleptocracy/plutocracy.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi_sat View Post

Oh please. Do you follow business and politics?

Sure. I'm quite well versed in both. (My bonafides: Econ major, Poly-sci minor, Business owner for several years, Habitual voter and Sometime political activist)

But you would realize that none of that is relevant to what I was saying if you had been paying attention. My post (that you quoted) was a response to a post where someone completely misunderstood the first post of the thread. I understand quite well the political movements that would lead him to say the things that he said, but not why they would come out in apparent response to my post.

To follow up on your question, yes, I follow business and politics, but I'm also a geek enough to follow the psychology of political arguments. These one-liner pissing contests that spring up on the Internet do nothing to influence anyone outside of aggravating people. If I wish to engage in political discourse on these forums, I try to hold out for the political forums where everyone knows what they are getting into and where thoughtful responses and give and take might be possible.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #46 of 55
They will almost certainly put the cash into something that produces less capital gain.

Imagine having 99.9% of your wealth tied to a single stock. No rational person would do this, even if that stock is AAPL and has been performing well recently. AAPL will not appreciate like this forever.

They are wise to take their mega-millions while they can.

BTW, I have no idea what Apple's share price will do in the future... and neither do you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

So where will they put the cash? Into something that produces less capital gain? I don't see how your rationale makes any sense.
post #47 of 55
deleted
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by revilre View Post

Capitalism has nothing to do with the recession. it was brought on by banking interests who through the power of the unconstitutional federal reserve manipulated the credit markets to obtain short term profits at the expense of the health of the economy.

as an outsider, has the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve been challenged? and if not, why not, if it is, as you assert, unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, something is only unconstitutional if the leading court of the land declares it so.

Quote:
Get rid of the government, the economy would operate in balance, government is the destructive force- not "unfettered capitalism".

While we're talking in generalities, I would suggest that regulation by government initially came as a response to crises created by "unfettered capitalism". The human condition does not permit an economy to work "in balance". These crises are not necessarily economic, either.

EDIT:

To try and stay on topic, there is a certainly a premium that should be paid for business leaders such as these here responsible for an organisation's success but at what point is the compensation over the top. Hard to tell here on an options basis as the future value would be indeterminate but remuneration is always an interesting discussion.
post #49 of 55
Must Be Nice!
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

To try and stay on topic, there is a certainly a premium that should be paid for business leaders such as these here responsible for an organisation's success but at what point is the compensation over the top. Hard to tell here on an options basis as the future value would be indeterminate but remuneration is always an interesting discussion.

Simple. The owner(s) of the company. They are the ones that ultimately decide what someone's value to the company is.

The only exception to that rule that I find acceptable is If a company is given a government approved monopoly, then the government does have a right to regulate a companies operations. A perfect example would be public utilities. In trade for that monopoly the government is allowed to regulate the price of the product and can generally regulate compensation and other areas of operation as well.

Details do vary by locale so your milage may vary.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

as an outsider, has the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve been challenged? and if not, why not, if it is, as you assert, unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, something is only unconstitutional if the leading court of the land declares it so.

Challenged within a system wholly owned by the banks? What pollyanna word do you live in?
Quote:

While we're talking in generalities, I would suggest that regulation by government initially came as a response to crises created by "unfettered capitalism". The human condition does not permit an economy to work "in balance". These crises are not necessarily economic, either.

Nonsense from my vantage.

Regulation by government (as opposed to regulation of the individual) comes into being when it serves special interests. All these new regulations, just like the ones beforehand, increase costs and protect vested interests.
Quote:

EDIT:

To try and stay on topic, there is a certainly a premium that should be paid for business leaders such as these here responsible for an organisation's success but at what point is the compensation over the top. Hard to tell here on an options basis as the future value would be indeterminate but remuneration is always an interesting discussion.

The compensation is over the top when investors balk and pull out. There's that individual regulation thing. It works when you have control over the fruits of your laborsomething increasingly only allowed by the ultra-rich.
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Simple. The owner(s) of the company. They are the ones that ultimately decide what someone's value to the company is.

"Ownership" of a public company is largely illusory. Shareholders can vote, it is true, but to amass the required number of shares to make a difference is another thing entirely, and it is another thin again when remuneration motions tend at AGMs tend to be non-binding.

These are individuals protecting their own and there is no real power on the part of the members to put a stop to it.
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

Challenged within a system wholly owned by the banks? What pollyanna word do you live in?

That comment strikes me a little conspiracy theorist.

Quote:
Regulation by government (as opposed to regulation of the individual) comes into being when it serves special interests. All these new regulations, just like the ones beforehand, increase costs and protect vested interests.

I would say to you that there are not, on the whole 'special interests' in the tenor you put it. I would say they are 'particular' interests, and they are not merely economic. Social and Environmental agendas, for instance. If we had no government, would the 'private' (and only) sector you submit is superior result in World Heritage areas, for instance? Humans will strip mine to the core if there was money it.

I'm not stupid enough to suggest that vested interest play a significant role in the scheme of things but to suggest that is the genesis of regulation is another thing entirely.

This will have to be an agree to disagree thing, I'm afraid.
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

"Ownership" of a public company is largely illusory. Shareholders can vote, it is true, but to amass the required number of shares to make a difference is another thing entirely, and it is another thin again when remuneration motions tend at AGMs tend to be non-binding.

These are individuals protecting their own and there is no real power on the part of the members to put a stop to it.

I never said anything about voting. Like I said before, voting is for chumps. I said you don't have to be ripped off because you can opt out.

Just like we'll never be rid of government waste, graft, and corruption until we can opt out of that, too.
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

That comment strikes me a little conspiracy theorist.

I guess you can ignore everything I have to say, then. After all, I can't explain how the Federal Reserve came into being otherwise. Can you?

Problem is, if you don't believe you have a say and that you're a debt-slave, what can you do about it? Better take the blue pill djsherly, I don't think you're ready for the real world.
Quote:

I would say to you that there are not, on the whole 'special interests' in the tenor you put it. I would say they are 'particular' interests, and they are not merely economic. Social and Environmental agendas, for instance. If we had no government, would the 'private' (and only) sector you submit is superior result in World Heritage areas, for instance? Humans will strip mine to the core if there was money it.

I'm not stupid enough to suggest that vested interest play a significant role in the scheme of things but to suggest that is the genesis of regulation is another thing entirely.

This will have to be an agree to disagree thing, I'm afraid.

Strip mining occurs now either on public land (where they have no interest in its future value) or where the mining companies are politically connected and untouchable. You don't have to agree with me on this one, merely the facts. UNESCO may sound like a benevolent group, but all they're doing is placing federal land in UN-hands and further outside the control of you or I.

As for special interests, those are the ONLY interests at pay in politics (except for rhetoric). Yes, the Sierra Club and other useful idiots do hire lobbyists and help force bullshit down our throats like E85 tax subsidies for huge SUVs. Just because it's a wrong-headed environmental agenda doesn't mean it isn't a special interest. I guarantee you no subsidy for car companies would have passed a general referendum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Mac and Retail bosses cash in on over $55 million in options