So, he earned $1? Did he pay tax on it? I hope he did. If the billionaire Steve Jobs didn't pay tax on his salary, then who should?
Most people in the US, if you are a resident, income earned below several thousand dollars is not taxed. That is, the tax-free threshold/ "standard deduction" etc. But Steve's other earnings (stock, etc.) should be hopefully taxed accordingly. If not, of course we should try and be more aware of what's going on.
The $1 is just a token gesture, don't get head-faked by it when learning/ debating the real issue of how CEOs and so on are paid and taxed.
I think comparing CEOs to janitors or drive-thru workers is just crazy. Government and big corporations have huge influence and thus have a basic responsibility to the lives and livelyhoods of many people.
Somebody giving you a fried chicken instead of a hamburger is very different from over-leveraging billions of dollars in debt. The consequences of the latter are obviously much bigger.
At least society is now more aware about how government, big business, and the financial industry have such a massive influence over the economy of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
It's called a job. Some people work hourly, some work for a salary. The only difference between the boss and the janitor is the rate. I think you're trying to hard to counter economic realities proven time and time again, to an abstract philosophic construct. Your "workers" screw around on the internet, make mistakes, and lose profits just as well as CEOs do. You'll find people at all strata who are overcompensated.
How does this tie salary to long-term performance?? It's exactly the opposite! Who's to say that a CEO doesn't make a ton of money when the market is going well, only to resign or abandon a company during the down-turn (and get a ridiculously large golden-handshake bonus while doing so) then leave everyone else to pick up the pieces??!! As is usually the case in failed companies, it's the bottom workers and investors that end up paying the price for mis-management at the top.
Executives and CEOs have traditionally been all too eager to take the credit for a well-performing company but offload responsibility when a company performs badly. This is one of the major problems driving the short-sighted materialistic greed that drives many CEOs these days. They are more concerned with their own short-term gain than the long-term viability and performance of a company.
I'm not saying SJ doesn't deserve a very large salary, but this $1 per year is an offensive affront to the many hard-working people that have helped to build Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
I think comparing CEOs to janitors or drive-thru workers is just crazy. Government and big corporations have huge influence and thus have a basic responsibility to the lives and livelyhoods of many people.
Somebody giving you a fried chicken instead of a hamburger is very different from over-leveraging billions of dollars in debt. The consequences of the latter are obviously much bigger.
At least society is now more aware about how government, big business, and the financial industry have such a massive influence over the economy of the world.
Obviously the tasks are different and both "occupations" or as I said "jobs". Both have a negotiated rate. The disparity in salary is understandable as well, a janitor's job is much less important in an economic sense, where a CEO of a giant corporation would naturally have a much larger salary- probably near the top end of the scale.
People who do a bad job, still get payed for their time. So if Willy spends all week cleaning bathroom, but there are still turd stains everywhere - he still gets payed. An employer might want to reconsider his continued employment based on his performance, but they still owe him for the time. Why should CEOs be different? You can fire them, but as a company you've got to meet your contractual obligations.
The whole debate is about emotion and the anger over the amount based on the results, and that's understandable, but the only recourse is to "fire" the bad employees. If they broke the law (note: bad judgement, unforeseen disasters, incompetence are not illegal), they you can prosecute or sue. Anything else is hyperventilating over political flame baiting with a tad of marxoid underpinnings.
1) I don?t think Jobs cares about how much money he has, per say, but I do think he cares about Apple valuation in relation to other tech companies, specifically Microsoft. They are on the heels of a profitable, yet stagnant MS. If Apple maintains their current growth rate it?s possible that Apple could overtake MS to become the tech company with the highest valuation. Considering the multi-decade intertwining rivalry while also working together, as well as the position Apple was in when Jobs returned to the helm this might be a motivator for him. It certainly would be for me in that situation.
2) Edison as a business man first and foremost. He was more about making money than making the best product. He?s scammed and cheated wherever he could to save a buck, even Nikoli Tesla, someone who was more focused on the invention than the profit to be had from it. He does work for your analogy as I see Jobs more like Edison (both are complete cocks) and Tesla more like Woz (not so much business sense, or at lest focus).
1. I don't see any extra or real emphasis on Apple stock valuation from Jobs. His role has been largely to be the pitchman for product role-outs and occasionally talks about business strategy in vague terms. I can only speculate what concerns occupy his daily schedule, but I wouldn't be surprised if his focus was largely on directing product development and evaluating current product performance with more of a retail focus. I'd bet that Steve Jobs know the best way to worry about stock performance is to forget about it and just build things that are "insanely great".
2. You could be right, I don't know enough about Edison. I've heard other's credit him fully, some partially, and some not at all. I don't know Steve Jobs either, but he's the guy driving the boat for Apple, Pixar and Next, Franklin for lightning rods & bifocal glasses, Edison for the electric light & telephone. That was the basis for the comparison. I know Woz is credited heavily with the Apple II, but I suspect Steve Jobs means more to Apple products as a whole. Whether or not he is a "cock" - that's very subjective, 3rd hand opinion.
Work at cost. While hiring improved last money, joblessness numbers still increased, an interesting duality. However, one thing that hasn't changed is the stagnant income amount of average United States workers. According to the AP, however, CEO salaries last year were at the highest amount since 2007. I read this here: CEO salaries at highest level since 2007
Comments
So, he earned $1? Did he pay tax on it? I hope he did. If the billionaire Steve Jobs didn't pay tax on his salary, then who should?
Most people in the US, if you are a resident, income earned below several thousand dollars is not taxed. That is, the tax-free threshold/ "standard deduction" etc. But Steve's other earnings (stock, etc.) should be hopefully taxed accordingly. If not, of course we should try and be more aware of what's going on.
The $1 is just a token gesture, don't get head-faked by it when learning/ debating the real issue of how CEOs and so on are paid and taxed.
Somebody giving you a fried chicken instead of a hamburger is very different from over-leveraging billions of dollars in debt. The consequences of the latter are obviously much bigger.
At least society is now more aware about how government, big business, and the financial industry have such a massive influence over the economy of the world.
It's called a job. Some people work hourly, some work for a salary. The only difference between the boss and the janitor is the rate. I think you're trying to hard to counter economic realities proven time and time again, to an abstract philosophic construct. Your "workers" screw around on the internet, make mistakes, and lose profits just as well as CEOs do. You'll find people at all strata who are overcompensated.
I wonder what he spent that on?
A Bob Dylan song on iTunes Store.
Executives and CEOs have traditionally been all too eager to take the credit for a well-performing company but offload responsibility when a company performs badly. This is one of the major problems driving the short-sighted materialistic greed that drives many CEOs these days. They are more concerned with their own short-term gain than the long-term viability and performance of a company.
I'm not saying SJ doesn't deserve a very large salary, but this $1 per year is an offensive affront to the many hard-working people that have helped to build Apple.
i think you're really right about this. what with all the controversy at the moment about executive salaries/bonuses, you have right here a solid gold way to tie executive income to long-term company performance.
I think comparing CEOs to janitors or drive-thru workers is just crazy. Government and big corporations have huge influence and thus have a basic responsibility to the lives and livelyhoods of many people.
Somebody giving you a fried chicken instead of a hamburger is very different from over-leveraging billions of dollars in debt. The consequences of the latter are obviously much bigger.
At least society is now more aware about how government, big business, and the financial industry have such a massive influence over the economy of the world.
Obviously the tasks are different and both "occupations" or as I said "jobs". Both have a negotiated rate. The disparity in salary is understandable as well, a janitor's job is much less important in an economic sense, where a CEO of a giant corporation would naturally have a much larger salary- probably near the top end of the scale.
People who do a bad job, still get payed for their time. So if Willy spends all week cleaning bathroom, but there are still turd stains everywhere - he still gets payed. An employer might want to reconsider his continued employment based on his performance, but they still owe him for the time. Why should CEOs be different? You can fire them, but as a company you've got to meet your contractual obligations.
The whole debate is about emotion and the anger over the amount based on the results, and that's understandable, but the only recourse is to "fire" the bad employees. If they broke the law (note: bad judgement, unforeseen disasters, incompetence are not illegal), they you can prosecute or sue. Anything else is hyperventilating over political flame baiting with a tad of marxoid underpinnings.
There are a couple points that I?d disagree with.
1) I don?t think Jobs cares about how much money he has, per say, but I do think he cares about Apple valuation in relation to other tech companies, specifically Microsoft. They are on the heels of a profitable, yet stagnant MS. If Apple maintains their current growth rate it?s possible that Apple could overtake MS to become the tech company with the highest valuation. Considering the multi-decade intertwining rivalry while also working together, as well as the position Apple was in when Jobs returned to the helm this might be a motivator for him. It certainly would be for me in that situation.
2) Edison as a business man first and foremost. He was more about making money than making the best product. He?s scammed and cheated wherever he could to save a buck, even Nikoli Tesla, someone who was more focused on the invention than the profit to be had from it. He does work for your analogy as I see Jobs more like Edison (both are complete cocks) and Tesla more like Woz (not so much business sense, or at lest focus).
1. I don't see any extra or real emphasis on Apple stock valuation from Jobs. His role has been largely to be the pitchman for product role-outs and occasionally talks about business strategy in vague terms. I can only speculate what concerns occupy his daily schedule, but I wouldn't be surprised if his focus was largely on directing product development and evaluating current product performance with more of a retail focus. I'd bet that Steve Jobs know the best way to worry about stock performance is to forget about it and just build things that are "insanely great".
2. You could be right, I don't know enough about Edison. I've heard other's credit him fully, some partially, and some not at all. I don't know Steve Jobs either, but he's the guy driving the boat for Apple, Pixar and Next, Franklin for lightning rods & bifocal glasses, Edison for the electric light & telephone. That was the basis for the comparison. I know Woz is credited heavily with the Apple II, but I suspect Steve Jobs means more to Apple products as a whole. Whether or not he is a "cock" - that's very subjective, 3rd hand opinion.