You aren’t, no; I apologize if it was construed that way.
And you’re not the one to decide that, nor will you ever be.
Why not? I own some of Apple. And other companies. In fact given dividends about 20% of my income is from profit and hopefully growing . I earn as both a capitalist and a skilled worker. Managerial classes steal from both.
Are you saying that GTAT were correct in their request for managerial bonuses, btw and all high level bankers were also owed their bonuses? ( Some of which have come out of my taxes).
I'm sorry. I don't care who they are, or what they do, no one deserves that much money. Angela Ahrendts, $75 million; Tim Cook, $372 million in stock options?
This just takes money out of circulation for those that really do most of the work. Remember folks, there is only so much money to go around%u2026unless the government just prints it%u2026without anything to back it up with.
More for them, less for us. All got through higher prices for all of us.
I'm sorry. I don't care who they are, or what they do, no one deserves that much money. Angela Ahrendts, $75 million; Tim Cook, $372 million in stock options?
1) So you think the Van Gogh painting should be priced at the value of the materials, not the result, the painter or the rarity of the work? Have you ever seen an auction? value is placed on things based on what others are willing to pay for it. That's it! Cook and Ahrendts are being compensated by Apple at a rate that will (hopefully) make them stay at Apple because they have proved to have a value to companies that exceeds their salary.
2) So what is this magic ceiling that the world should go by?
Yeah, it looks odd but I don't think we have the complete picture. My point is that there is something fundamentally wrong (sick) about paying people that much money. Apple is a money machine and the people that run the company deserve respect and honors as well as a decent wage but a million dollars per month, or more, is not right whichever way you look at it. The reality may be that in order to get and retain the best people huge amounts of money is required, but that doesn't make it right at all. Idealism would have that say, 500 k is plenty for anyone and the privilege of working for such an awesome company and the recognition for a job well done, would suffice. Call me crazy but once you earn upward of 500 k a year doesn't the job itself carry more weight? You're still in the über class, after all.
Remember that Tim Cook declined the dividend for his RSU stocks. Dividend that he was entitled to. That's a saving of about $75 million for Apple, over the time the stocks are fully vested. That's about $9 million a year that Apple is saving by not having to pay Cook a dividend for his RSU stocks. So Tim worked for $200,000 in 2014. Does that make you feel better about the $9.2 million he got last year?
1) So you think the Van Gogh painting should be priced at the value of the materials, not the result, the painter or the rarity of the work? Have you ever seen an auction? value is placed on things based on what others are willing to pay for it. That's it! Cook and Ahrendts are being compensated by Apple at a rate that will (hopefully) make them stay at Apple because they have proved to have a value to companies that exceeds their salary.
That's right. What someone gets paid is not a moral judgment on how good of a person they are, or how much they contribute to society, it's just the balance of supply and demand. Supply of people like them vs demand for people like them, and there are more big companies than people who are actually capable of running big companies. So they get paid a lot, no need to get upset about it.
If companies were prevented from getting above a certain size, there would be a lot more people who could run them, and CEO compensation would go down. But then we would miss out on economies of scale, and all be worse off.
Regardless of the value a person may add each year there comes a point where either you are done with money or you have some kind of problem that is being supported by it. Perhaps that problem is drugs or hookers or buying fake friends, but that problem can equally be money.
...
My point is
If these people haven't the financial wits of a 29yr old wheelchair bound man with cerebral palsy forced to live under his parents house for 10 years and pretty much smoked, played video games and watched anime then what the **** are they doing running 100 billion dollar companies.
They can't even look after themselves when showered in enough money every 2 years to let them retire and live as the 1% for all eternity.
I mean no disrespect, but sorry, show me why you are actually worth it.. for example, that you do pay your own way and all that annual income feeds directly into charities and things that help others and mean something to you.
So you think that Michael Jordan should have retired, after several season with the Bulls, because he already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? Or that Tiger Woods should have retired from touring with the PGA, after several years because he already won enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? (Granted he did have a problem with hookers. ). What about Steve Jobs? Should he have retired after leaving Apple, instead of starting Pixar and NeXT and then returning to run Apple, because he had enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life.
If you've already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of your life, what would it take to keep you from retiring because you have a talent that some one is willing to pay for? And you rather not let that talent go to waste by playing video games the rest of your life. Probably way north of a million dollars a year. And that's why many talented CEO are paid so much. Most of them are in the 1% and will be for the rest of their lifes, regardless if they are working or retired.
In 2014, AAPL went up by about 40%. I'm willing to bet that if all the regulars here (on AI) that owns AAPL added up how much money they made with their AAPL shares (even if it's just on paper) in 2014, that it will come close or over what Tim Cook made in 2014. It'll only take about about 100,000 shares to equal Tim Cook's salary in gains for 2014. That's not a lot of shares considering the 7 to 1 split. The dividend alone is over $1million. So you can't say that Tim Cook didn't deserve his $9.2 million salary. Well, you can, but you can't justify it with real numbers.
And as a plus, remember that in the US, the top 1% income earners pays about 38% of the Federal income taxes collected. (The top 10% pays about 68% of the Federal income taxes collected.) These rich people pay a lot more in taxes on a yearly salary, while still working, than from capital gains tax after retiring.
So you think that Michael Jordan should have retired, after several season with the Bulls, because he already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? Or that Tiger Woods should have retired from touring with the PGA, after several years because he already won enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? (Granted he did have a problem with hookers. :) ). What about Steve Jobs? Should he have retired after leaving Apple, instead of starting Pixar and NeXT and then returning to run Apple, because he had enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life.
If you've already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of your life, what would it take to keep you from retiring because you have a talent that some one is willing to pay for? And you rather not let that talent go to waste by playing video games the rest of your life. Probably way north of a million dollars a year. And that's why many talented CEO are paid so much. Most of them are in the 1% and will be for the rest of their lifes, regardless if they are working or retired.
In 2014, AAPL went up by about 40%. I'm willing to bet that if all the regulars here (on AI) that owns AAPL added up how much money they made with their AAPL shares (even if it's just on paper) in 2014, that it will come close or over what Tim Cook made in 2014. It'll only take about about 100,000 shares to equal Tim Cook's salary in gains for 2014. That's not a lot of shares considering the 7 to 1 split. The dividend alone is over $1million. So you can't say that Tim Cook didn't deserve his $9.2 million salary. Well, you can, but you can't justify it with real numbers.
And as a plus, remember that in the US, the top 1% income earners pays about 38% of the Federal income taxes collected. (The top 10% pays about 68% of the Federal income taxes collected.) These rich people pay a lot more in taxes on a yearly salary, while still working, than from capital gains tax after retiring.
trouble reading bro?
Is Michael Jordan the CEO or exec team of an independent company, beside his own personal business?
At which point did I say anyone should retire because they earnt a lifetime supply of money.. All I said was that they don't need more money.
Steve jobs is a poor example, he did get stock options but what was his annual wage? $1. Steve Jobs actually understood what I wrote, he didn't need more cash, the reason he turned up was "to make great things with a team of excellent people". This is my point, once money is solved you don't need it.
IF what you need to bother turning up is 100 years worth of money every year then your focus is fucked up.
You also didn't read again further on through the comments when I discuss corporate law.
As for taxes, you still failed to read and don't understand tax. If you have millions invested and earn interest from it then you pay tax, they would still pay it.
And worse in your poor reading is the last paragraph where I say, show me the reason to keep earning. And what was that? Something more powerfully effective than tax, philanthropy.. change the world with it.
Go back and think about what I wrote.
All those execs already have more money than a lifetime and no doubt it is invested earning them all the wage they need forever.
They could be reporting on how they are directing their thank you from Apple into changing lives since theirs are already free.
That you see would improve the image of Apple and by doing so actually doing their jobs as instruments of the corporation.
1) So you think the Van Gogh painting should be priced at the value of the materials, not the result, the painter or the rarity of the work? Have you ever seen an auction? value is placed on things based on what others are willing to pay for it. That's it! Cook and Ahrendts are being compensated by Apple at a rate that will (hopefully) make them stay at Apple because they have proved to have a value to companies that exceeds their salary.
2) So what is this magic ceiling that the world should go by?
Who knows. What the ratio of CEO pay to average pay in that industry was in 1945-1975 perhaps. Unless you think that the present managers of capitalism are worth ten times that much.
I don't buy that the salaries of workers in IT get to be constrained within levels regardless of how good they are but the executive classes are to be unrestrained.
The executive classes are not any better than they were years ago - worse in fact. So why the pay rises ( rises at the expense of both workers and owners).
Fortunately for humanity, you’re in no position to dictate such madness.
You haven't answered the GTAT question. Do they deserve their bonuses or not? If they don't we may have an example of a general principle - that the managerial classes overpay themselves at the expense of investors ( in that case)
Is Michael Jordan the CEO or exec team of an independent company, beside his own personal business?
At which point did I say anyone should retire because they earnt a lifetime supply of money.. All I said was that they don't need more money.
Steve jobs is a poor example, he did get stock options but what was his annual wage? $1. Steve Jobs actually understood what I wrote, he didn't need more cash, the reason he turned up was "to make great things with a team of excellent people". This is my point, once money is solved you don't need it.
IF what you need to bother turning up is 100 years worth of money every year then your focus is fucked up.
You also didn't read again further on through the comments when I discuss corporate law.
As for taxes, you still failed to read and don't understand tax. If you have millions invested and earn interest from it then you pay tax, they would still pay it.
And worse in your poor reading is the last paragraph where I say, show me the reason to keep earning. And what was that? Something more powerfully effective than tax, philanthropy.. change the world with it.
Go back and think about what I wrote.
All those execs already have more money than a lifetime and no doubt it is invested earning them all the wage they need forever.
They could be reporting on how they are directing their thank you from Apple into changing lives since theirs are already free.
That you see would improve the image of Apple and by doing so actually doing their jobs as instruments of the corporation.
What, you don't think the Chicago Bull is a corporation? You don't think Nike is a corporation? It doesn't matter that he's not the CEO. And I'm willing to bet that both the Bulls and Nike got their monies worth. He was worth every dime of what you would consider " an obscene salary" and bonus package. Michael Jordan helped the Bulls win 6 championships in 8 years. Air Jordans are over $200 a pair sneakers and they still sell out.
It's true that Steve Jobs didn't care to make any more money but he did want Apple to show its appreciation for the job he was doing by granting him huge stock options and later RSU. Did Steve decline the $45 million Gulf Stream jet? Along with another $45 million for the tax on it? All that back dating of Steve Jobs stock options was the result of Steve wanting (almost demanding) Apple to show how much he was appreciated. For sure Jobs didn't care about the actual money, but don't for a second think that Jobs only cost Apple $1 a year. His estate got over $2 Billion worth of AAPL, shares that Apple paid to Steve Jobs. Shares that Steve Jobs earned. Shares that no AAPL share holders are complaining about. And Jobs did appreciate the jesture of receiving those RSU of AAPL. Even if he didn't care to sell any of it, except to pay the taxes on it when they became vested. To the tune of $295 million dollars to Uncle Sam.
Rich people don't earn interest on their investment. (At least the smart ones.) Unless they keeping it in a savings account in a bank. (Putting money in a bank account is not investing.) They earn dividend by investing in stocks. Dividend from stock investment is not taxed like interest. Dividend on long term stocks (qualified dividend) is treated like long term capital gains. Even the richest of the rich will only pay a 20% tax rate on it in 2014. (Due to go up if President Obama has his way) That's half the tax rate of a yearly salary of over $1million. It's the reason why most rich people have an effective tax rate in the mid teens. Most of their money they make is taxed as long term capital gains.
What makes you think Tim Cook (or many of these highly paid CEO) won't be like Bill Gates, or Rockafeller or Carnigie when he retires from the corporate life? You think Bill Gate could have started his charity foundation (with the $50 billion he earned from MS) if all he wanted was to be paid $1 a year as CEO (and co-founder) of MS, after he earned enough to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life. Warren Buffet is giving away his nearly $50 billion dollar to The Bill Gates Foundation. (I guess he's too lazy to start and run his own foundation.) You think Warrenn should have called it quits after earning his first billion dollars and started working for free for his shareholders? After all, he didn't need to make any more money. And yet, nearly $50 Billion the money he made will go to charity and won't be taxed. Most rich people are no Steve Jobs, if they want to change the World for the better, it'll take money. Lots of money.
Who knows. What the ratio of CEO pay to average pay in that industry was in 1945-1975 perhaps. Unless you think that the present managers of capitalism are worth ten times that much.
'I' don't think they are worth 10x that much, but I'm not the ones trying to entice these executives to 'my' company nor trying to prevent my executives from leaving 'my' company.
I see the disparity and I think it's obscene when so many workers are making what I consider to be less than a living wage*, but I don't think it's unfair.
I don't buy that the salaries of workers in IT get to be constrained within levels regardless of how good they are but the executive classes are to be unrestrained.
I'm not aware of any such policy for the industry. I'm aware of the plethora of basic jobs have pay tiers but we're talking about positions typically with an innumerable number of prospective employees so I don't see why that's an issue.
The executive classes are not any better than they were years ago - worse in fact. So why the pay rises ( rises at the expense of both workers and owners).
Again, supply and demand. Whether you agree with their talent or not, certain executives, athletes and actors are sought after more than others because of their past success and popularity. You certainly don't have to like that Michael Jordan is worth x-amount because he threw a ball in a hoop it's a reality.
Personally, I'd focus more on colleges using athletes without compensation rather than on how much the most phenomenal athletes gets paid to destroy their bodies (and potentially, mind) for a paycheck.
* I put that value at a minimum of around $22/hr today, which is something I adhere to when I'm hiring anyone.
'I' don't think they are worth 10x that much, but I'm not the ones trying to entice these executives to 'my' company nor trying to prevent my executives from leaving 'my' company.
I see the disparity and I think it's obscene when so many workers are making what I consider to be less than a living wage*, but I don't think it's unfair.
I'm not aware of any such policy for the industry. I'm aware of the plethora of basic jobs have pay tiers but we're talking about positions typically with an innumerable number of prospective employees so I don't see why that's an issue.
Again, supply and demand. Whether you agree with their talent or not, certain executives, athletes and actors are sought after more than others because of their past success and popularity. You certainly don't have to like that Michael Jordan is worth x-amount because he threw a ball in a hoop it's a reality.
Personally, I'd focus more on colleges using athletes without compensation rather than on how much the most phenomenal athletes gets paid to destroy their bodies (and potentially, mind) for a paycheck.
* I put that value at a minimum of around $22/hr today, which is something I adhere to when I'm hiring anyone.
You are not getting my argument. It is neither an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist or any kind of egalitarian argument. It an attack on the specific pay structures decided by executives for executives. Jordan ( and if you read back on my previous posts I gave an example of Messi) are clearly worth their salaries. They are also not managers. Effectively both are skilled workers in sport.
If Barcelona worked liked modern corporations Messi would max out at a decent salary while the manager of Barcelona's retail shops would earn millions.
If you think this is always justified then GTAT are worth their bonuses. However their very claim to bonuses after destroying a company and shareholder value is an example of how pay, unlike in sport, amongst the executive classes in not related to talent. Often the opposite.
Silicon Valley tends to work on levels for software engineers. The standard is Level 1-2 is junior. 3 is senior. 4 to 5 is tech lead to consultant.
Some make that more rigorous but there are levels of pay within that.
Even though Chris Latner is primarily a writer of code he has to become a senior director to make the bucks. Similarly Johnny I've is a VP but the number of people under him is tiny ( probably not much more than a line manager).
The specific problem I have here is ahrendts. I don't see exactly what she is even going to do that's measurable. Taking a very badly run company and making it profitable as CEO is a totally different challenge to taking over as VP of retail in a company where that division is doing fine and would have continued to open new stores anyway. She can't - as she did at Burbarry - change Apples culture to be more tech and online focussed. She's probably not going to change much at all. So why hire her rather than promote someone internal?.
Jobs was excellent at most hiring decisions. Not so sure with Cook.
That's a TL;DR for me. Any highlights in particular?
The money they are paid while sounding huge and outragous is a small percentage of the profits the company makes. However the picture that the WSJ paints of her in the article makes me want to vomit. She is decribed as a shallow and as detached from the 99% as anyone could be. If I were her I would be very upset with the writer. If she isn't all the money in the world is not going to do her or anyone else any good.
Probably establish the Apple Stores as a respected luxury goods retail chain .... And the Apple brand, too ... the brand, the brand, the brand ....
The brand is already that. I would think its a long play for high level "wearables" but I am so unconvinced that would work. Also she isnt in control of the brand.
Let's see. If she can sell the $5k watch in the stores I might have a different opinion.
I really wish Apple had a good enough competitor to cause some price pressure. It'd be good for everyone.
Re. wages, the average wage in the USA is somewhere around $47,000. The average life expectancy is around 80, meaning 62 years of working life. That's a $3 million wage over the course of a lifetime of work. There is no way that any individual can justify earning 20 times an average lifetime wage in a single year. No way. Taxation will right some of it, but not nearly enough.
Comments
You aren’t, no; I apologize if it was construed that way.
And you’re not the one to decide that, nor will you ever be.
Why not? I own some of Apple. And other companies. In fact given dividends about 20% of my income is from profit and hopefully growing . I earn as both a capitalist and a skilled worker. Managerial classes steal from both.
Are you saying that GTAT were correct in their request for managerial bonuses, btw and all high level bankers were also owed their bonuses? ( Some of which have come out of my taxes).
This just takes money out of circulation for those that really do most of the work. Remember folks, there is only so much money to go around%u2026unless the government just prints it%u2026without anything to back it up with.
More for them, less for us. All got through higher prices for all of us.
1) So you think the Van Gogh painting should be priced at the value of the materials, not the result, the painter or the rarity of the work? Have you ever seen an auction? value is placed on things based on what others are willing to pay for it. That's it! Cook and Ahrendts are being compensated by Apple at a rate that will (hopefully) make them stay at Apple because they have proved to have a value to companies that exceeds their salary.
2) So what is this magic ceiling that the world should go by?
Yeah, it looks odd but I don't think we have the complete picture. My point is that there is something fundamentally wrong (sick) about paying people that much money. Apple is a money machine and the people that run the company deserve respect and honors as well as a decent wage but a million dollars per month, or more, is not right whichever way you look at it. The reality may be that in order to get and retain the best people huge amounts of money is required, but that doesn't make it right at all. Idealism would have that say, 500 k is plenty for anyone and the privilege of working for such an awesome company and the recognition for a job well done, would suffice. Call me crazy but once you earn upward of 500 k a year doesn't the job itself carry more weight? You're still in the über class, after all.
Remember that Tim Cook declined the dividend for his RSU stocks. Dividend that he was entitled to. That's a saving of about $75 million for Apple, over the time the stocks are fully vested. That's about $9 million a year that Apple is saving by not having to pay Cook a dividend for his RSU stocks. So Tim worked for $200,000 in 2014. Does that make you feel better about the $9.2 million he got last year?
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/24/apple-paying-dividends-to-employees-with-restricted-stock-units-ceo-tim-cook-declines-to-participate/
Fortunately for humanity, you’re in no position to dictate such madness.
1) So you think the Van Gogh painting should be priced at the value of the materials, not the result, the painter or the rarity of the work? Have you ever seen an auction? value is placed on things based on what others are willing to pay for it. That's it! Cook and Ahrendts are being compensated by Apple at a rate that will (hopefully) make them stay at Apple because they have proved to have a value to companies that exceeds their salary.
That's right. What someone gets paid is not a moral judgment on how good of a person they are, or how much they contribute to society, it's just the balance of supply and demand. Supply of people like them vs demand for people like them, and there are more big companies than people who are actually capable of running big companies. So they get paid a lot, no need to get upset about it.
If companies were prevented from getting above a certain size, there would be a lot more people who could run them, and CEO compensation would go down. But then we would miss out on economies of scale, and all be worse off.
Regardless of the value a person may add each year there comes a point where either you are done with money or you have some kind of problem that is being supported by it. Perhaps that problem is drugs or hookers or buying fake friends, but that problem can equally be money.
My point is
If these people haven't the financial wits of a 29yr old wheelchair bound man with cerebral palsy forced to live under his parents house for 10 years and pretty much smoked, played video games and watched anime then what the **** are they doing running 100 billion dollar companies.
They can't even look after themselves when showered in enough money every 2 years to let them retire and live as the 1% for all eternity.
I mean no disrespect, but sorry, show me why you are actually worth it.. for example, that you do pay your own way and all that annual income feeds directly into charities and things that help others and mean something to you.
So you think that Michael Jordan should have retired, after several season with the Bulls, because he already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? Or that Tiger Woods should have retired from touring with the PGA, after several years because he already won enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life? (Granted he did have a problem with hookers.
). What about Steve Jobs? Should he have retired after leaving Apple, instead of starting Pixar and NeXT and then returning to run Apple, because he had enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life.
If you've already made enough money to retire in the 1% for the rest of your life, what would it take to keep you from retiring because you have a talent that some one is willing to pay for? And you rather not let that talent go to waste by playing video games the rest of your life. Probably way north of a million dollars a year. And that's why many talented CEO are paid so much. Most of them are in the 1% and will be for the rest of their lifes, regardless if they are working or retired.
In 2014, AAPL went up by about 40%. I'm willing to bet that if all the regulars here (on AI) that owns AAPL added up how much money they made with their AAPL shares (even if it's just on paper) in 2014, that it will come close or over what Tim Cook made in 2014. It'll only take about about 100,000 shares to equal Tim Cook's salary in gains for 2014. That's not a lot of shares considering the 7 to 1 split. The dividend alone is over $1million. So you can't say that Tim Cook didn't deserve his $9.2 million salary. Well, you can, but you can't justify it with real numbers.
And as a plus, remember that in the US, the top 1% income earners pays about 38% of the Federal income taxes collected. (The top 10% pays about 68% of the Federal income taxes collected.) These rich people pay a lot more in taxes on a yearly salary, while still working, than from capital gains tax after retiring.
trouble reading bro?
Is Michael Jordan the CEO or exec team of an independent company, beside his own personal business?
At which point did I say anyone should retire because they earnt a lifetime supply of money.. All I said was that they don't need more money.
Steve jobs is a poor example, he did get stock options but what was his annual wage? $1. Steve Jobs actually understood what I wrote, he didn't need more cash, the reason he turned up was "to make great things with a team of excellent people". This is my point, once money is solved you don't need it.
IF what you need to bother turning up is 100 years worth of money every year then your focus is fucked up.
You also didn't read again further on through the comments when I discuss corporate law.
As for taxes, you still failed to read and don't understand tax. If you have millions invested and earn interest from it then you pay tax, they would still pay it.
And worse in your poor reading is the last paragraph where I say, show me the reason to keep earning. And what was that? Something more powerfully effective than tax, philanthropy.. change the world with it.
Go back and think about what I wrote.
All those execs already have more money than a lifetime and no doubt it is invested earning them all the wage they need forever.
They could be reporting on how they are directing their thank you from Apple into changing lives since theirs are already free.
That you see would improve the image of Apple and by doing so actually doing their jobs as instruments of the corporation.
Who knows. What the ratio of CEO pay to average pay in that industry was in 1945-1975 perhaps. Unless you think that the present managers of capitalism are worth ten times that much.
I don't buy that the salaries of workers in IT get to be constrained within levels regardless of how good they are but the executive classes are to be unrestrained.
The executive classes are not any better than they were years ago - worse in fact. So why the pay rises ( rises at the expense of both workers and owners).
You haven't answered the GTAT question. Do they deserve their bonuses or not? If they don't we may have an example of a general principle - that the managerial classes overpay themselves at the expense of investors ( in that case)
trouble reading bro?
Is Michael Jordan the CEO or exec team of an independent company, beside his own personal business?
At which point did I say anyone should retire because they earnt a lifetime supply of money.. All I said was that they don't need more money.
Steve jobs is a poor example, he did get stock options but what was his annual wage? $1. Steve Jobs actually understood what I wrote, he didn't need more cash, the reason he turned up was "to make great things with a team of excellent people". This is my point, once money is solved you don't need it.
IF what you need to bother turning up is 100 years worth of money every year then your focus is fucked up.
You also didn't read again further on through the comments when I discuss corporate law.
As for taxes, you still failed to read and don't understand tax. If you have millions invested and earn interest from it then you pay tax, they would still pay it.
And worse in your poor reading is the last paragraph where I say, show me the reason to keep earning. And what was that? Something more powerfully effective than tax, philanthropy.. change the world with it.
Go back and think about what I wrote.
All those execs already have more money than a lifetime and no doubt it is invested earning them all the wage they need forever.
They could be reporting on how they are directing their thank you from Apple into changing lives since theirs are already free.
That you see would improve the image of Apple and by doing so actually doing their jobs as instruments of the corporation.
What, you don't think the Chicago Bull is a corporation? You don't think Nike is a corporation? It doesn't matter that he's not the CEO. And I'm willing to bet that both the Bulls and Nike got their monies worth. He was worth every dime of what you would consider " an obscene salary" and bonus package. Michael Jordan helped the Bulls win 6 championships in 8 years. Air Jordans are over $200 a pair sneakers and they still sell out.
It's true that Steve Jobs didn't care to make any more money but he did want Apple to show its appreciation for the job he was doing by granting him huge stock options and later RSU. Did Steve decline the $45 million Gulf Stream jet? Along with another $45 million for the tax on it? All that back dating of Steve Jobs stock options was the result of Steve wanting (almost demanding) Apple to show how much he was appreciated. For sure Jobs didn't care about the actual money, but don't for a second think that Jobs only cost Apple $1 a year. His estate got over $2 Billion worth of AAPL, shares that Apple paid to Steve Jobs. Shares that Steve Jobs earned. Shares that no AAPL share holders are complaining about. And Jobs did appreciate the jesture of receiving those RSU of AAPL. Even if he didn't care to sell any of it, except to pay the taxes on it when they became vested. To the tune of $295 million dollars to Uncle Sam.
Rich people don't earn interest on their investment. (At least the smart ones.) Unless they keeping it in a savings account in a bank. (Putting money in a bank account is not investing.) They earn dividend by investing in stocks. Dividend from stock investment is not taxed like interest. Dividend on long term stocks (qualified dividend) is treated like long term capital gains. Even the richest of the rich will only pay a 20% tax rate on it in 2014. (Due to go up if President Obama has his way) That's half the tax rate of a yearly salary of over $1million. It's the reason why most rich people have an effective tax rate in the mid teens. Most of their money they make is taxed as long term capital gains.
What makes you think Tim Cook (or many of these highly paid CEO) won't be like Bill Gates, or Rockafeller or Carnigie when he retires from the corporate life? You think Bill Gate could have started his charity foundation (with the $50 billion he earned from MS) if all he wanted was to be paid $1 a year as CEO (and co-founder) of MS, after he earned enough to retire in the 1% for the rest of his life. Warren Buffet is giving away his nearly $50 billion dollar to The Bill Gates Foundation. (I guess he's too lazy to start and run his own foundation.) You think Warrenn should have called it quits after earning his first billion dollars and started working for free for his shareholders? After all, he didn't need to make any more money. And yet, nearly $50 Billion the money he made will go to charity and won't be taxed. Most rich people are no Steve Jobs, if they want to change the World for the better, it'll take money. Lots of money.
'I' don't think they are worth 10x that much, but I'm not the ones trying to entice these executives to 'my' company nor trying to prevent my executives from leaving 'my' company.
I see the disparity and I think it's obscene when so many workers are making what I consider to be less than a living wage*, but I don't think it's unfair.
I'm not aware of any such policy for the industry. I'm aware of the plethora of basic jobs have pay tiers but we're talking about positions typically with an innumerable number of prospective employees so I don't see why that's an issue.
Again, supply and demand. Whether you agree with their talent or not, certain executives, athletes and actors are sought after more than others because of their past success and popularity. You certainly don't have to like that Michael Jordan is worth x-amount because he threw a ball in a hoop it's a reality.
Personally, I'd focus more on colleges using athletes without compensation rather than on how much the most phenomenal athletes gets paid to destroy their bodies (and potentially, mind) for a paycheck.
* I put that value at a minimum of around $22/hr today, which is something I adhere to when I'm hiring anyone.
You are not getting my argument. It is neither an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist or any kind of egalitarian argument. It an attack on the specific pay structures decided by executives for executives. Jordan ( and if you read back on my previous posts I gave an example of Messi) are clearly worth their salaries. They are also not managers. Effectively both are skilled workers in sport.
If Barcelona worked liked modern corporations Messi would max out at a decent salary while the manager of Barcelona's retail shops would earn millions.
If you think this is always justified then GTAT are worth their bonuses. However their very claim to bonuses after destroying a company and shareholder value is an example of how pay, unlike in sport, amongst the executive classes in not related to talent. Often the opposite.
Some make that more rigorous but there are levels of pay within that.
Even though Chris Latner is primarily a writer of code he has to become a senior director to make the bucks. Similarly Johnny I've is a VP but the number of people under him is tiny ( probably not much more than a line manager).
The specific problem I have here is ahrendts. I don't see exactly what she is even going to do that's measurable. Taking a very badly run company and making it profitable as CEO is a totally different challenge to taking over as VP of retail in a company where that division is doing fine and would have continued to open new stores anyway. She can't - as she did at Burbarry - change Apples culture to be more tech and online focussed. She's probably not going to change much at all. So why hire her rather than promote someone internal?.
Jobs was excellent at most hiring decisions. Not so sure with Cook.
Line managers supposedly have 100+ colleagues. Jony has a team of ? 25
He did ? 5,500 interviews!
(just a few OT tidbits - carry on)
<...>
The specific problem I have here is ahrendts. I don't see exactly what she is even going to do that's measurable. <...>
Probably establish the Apple Stores as a respected luxury goods retail chain .... And the Apple brand, too ... the brand, the brand, the brand ....
The brand is already that. I would think its a long play for high level "wearables" but I am so unconvinced that would work. Also she isnt in control of the brand.
Let's see. If she can sell the $5k watch in the stores I might have a different opinion.
I really wish Apple had a good enough competitor to cause some price pressure. It'd be good for everyone.
Re. wages, the average wage in the USA is somewhere around $47,000. The average life expectancy is around 80, meaning 62 years of working life. That's a $3 million wage over the course of a lifetime of work. There is no way that any individual can justify earning 20 times an average lifetime wage in a single year. No way. Taxation will right some of it, but not nearly enough.