Jobs: 'I make fifty cents for just showing up'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    Oh thats right, because they are all in the toilet thanks to the unions.



    No offense, but are you retarded?
  • Reply 22 of 43
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    There are more Jobsian quotes from the shareholders meeting at
  • Reply 23 of 43
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    No offense, but are you retarded?



    Does it ever occur to you not to troll?
  • Reply 24 of 43
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Does it ever occur to you not to troll?



    It seems that according to you, any post that doesn't include "Apple is infallible" is a troll.



    Johnny made an stupid remark, without even attempting to back it up. Who's the troll? What about the post I made above the one you quoted. Was that a "troll" too?



    Mind your own business.
  • Reply 25 of 43
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    It seems that according to you, any post that doesn't include "Apple is infallible" is a troll.



    Johnny made an stupid remark, without even attempting to back it up.



    Mind your own business.



    It's a public forum so "mind your own business" is not the best argument.



    You mention that Johnny didn't back up his comment, but neither did you. If you would have given facts and opinions as to why you believe he is wrong then I would not have not considered your post trolling.



    It's not about agreeing with everyone, it's about an attempt at intelligent discourse. There are many posters here I respect, though usually don't agree with. In fact, it is their well thought out opinions that lead me to new avenues of research I may have otherwise not thought of.
  • Reply 26 of 43
    tomkarltomkarl Posts: 239member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is brilliant!



    Brilliant yes, but the man reaps much, much more than the $1 in salary. A quote based upon a technicality doesn't do much for me. I actually find it annoying



    Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves every single dollar he gets, however, stating that it's only $1 is not an entirely accurate representation of the facts.
  • Reply 27 of 43
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tomkarl View Post


    Brilliant yes, but the man reaps much, much more than the $1 in salary. A quote based upon a technicality doesn't do much for me. I actually find it annoying



    Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves every single dollar he gets, however, stating that it's only $1 is not an entirely accurate representation of the facts.



    Jobs is famous for his $1 salary so I don't think anyone is actually unaware of his stock options. However, what I found brilliant was the comment he made. It was funny.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    The great thing about no standing salary is that means Jobs makes nothing (well OK $1.00) unless he helps the company perform better. In which case, if he can consistently help the stock raise from the $35 or so a year and a half ago to $107, and do that again for this next year and a half, then by all means, give the man a whole barrel of options.



    I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.



    -------------------

    www.ITFinanceGuy.com
  • Reply 29 of 43
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Jobs is famous for his $1 salary so I don't think anyone is actually unaware of his stock options. However, what I found brilliant was the comment he made. It was funny.



    For his first couple of years back he actually only took $1 and no stock options, it wasn't until '99 I think that he actually accepted them.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 30 of 43
    tomkarltomkarl Posts: 239member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ITFinanceGuy View Post


    I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.



    -------------------

    www.ITFinanceGuy.com



    Stand corrected, I agree with you that it is over a period of time.



    How awful it would be to eek out a living on 640M over five years.
  • Reply 31 of 43
    eruithildureruithildur Posts: 165member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tomkarl View Post


    Stand corrected, I agree with you that it is over a period of time.



    How awful it would be to eek out a living on 640M over five years.



    I don't know if I could actually live on it or not... I mean, at one exotic car (take the Gallardo as an average with a price plus options and aftermarket at over $300k) a day that eats $110 million before taxes!!! For five years that is $550 million of purchases before tax... Assuming there are no taxes that leaves him with a measly $18 million a year for living expenses, house, servants, etc.

    Geez. All those poor unpurchased cars...
  • Reply 32 of 43
    maccentricmaccentric Posts: 263member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    This is only because you don't want to see Apple put in an embarrassing position. Why not?



    If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?



    It's all relative.



    Ok, granted these proposals are not totally off the wall, what I take umbrage with is the fact that someone literally could make a proposal for almost anything, no matter how stupid and cost the company more money in distributing the idea than they even own in shares. Also, for instance, posters in another thread were saying things along the lines of "at least Trillium invested in Apple, and want to see the company do better." I hardly see a $20,000 stake as anything significant enough to even talk about.



    If Apple were dumping radioactive waste, I would encourage any governmental criminal and civil actions against them, and would probably sell my stock. I doubt there would be shareholder actions via the annual meetings. As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.



    I wonder if Trillium will buy a few shares of Apple's competitors, and craft proposals requiring them to meet or exceed Apple's initiatives regarding the environment. If they are really serious about the environment, I don't see why they wouldn't.
  • Reply 33 of 43
    maccentricmaccentric Posts: 263member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ITFinanceGuy View Post


    The great thing about no standing salary is that means Jobs makes nothing (well OK $1.00) unless he helps the company perform better. In which case, if he can consistently help the stock raise from the $35 or so a year and a half ago to $107, and do that again for this next year and a half, then by all means, give the man a whole barrel of options.



    I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.



    -------------------

    www.ITFinanceGuy.com





    This is exactly how the bulk of CEO pay should be structured. A small salary, then generous stock. This would eliminate instances like that of CEO Hank McKinnel of Pfizer who got a pay package of nearly 200 million while the stock declined 40% during his tenure, Carly Fiorina at HP, etc.
  • Reply 34 of 43
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,004member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacCentric View Post


    As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.




    I like Apple as much as the last guy who has bought only Apple computers for the last 20 years. And I believe that they are a relatively decent company. But if you think they would have these initiatives to announce if there were no Greenpeaces or Trilliums or any of the other muck rakers who have raked muck over the years then you are deluding yourselves.



    In our society companies exist to make money, not to do good. The bigger they are, generally, the more diffuse their spread of shareholders thus the more spread out their responsibility to make money to return to those shareholders. It would be irresponsible (in our economic environment) for a company to "do the right thing" just because some management types tended green. THERE HAS TO BE A FINANCIAL UPSIDE. Otherwise they are being irresponsible if it costs the company to do good.



    Some would say that this is cynical, but I see it as realistic. Fanbois will say "my company is perfect and I would suck the air from their truck's tailpipes and find it sweet. I would drink their wastewater and find it refreshing. I love the environment but Greenpeace should be ashamed/disbanded/outlawed/hunted like baby seals..."



    The way I see it is there are 3 reasons a company might put green policies in place.



    1--They actually save money. Energy conservation, smaller packaging and greener materials if there is some regulatory fees for using, producing or disposing of some harmful waste.



    2--For advertising/public relations. If consumers are deciding with their pocketbooks to buy, say, Energy-Star products or not to buy products from companies that have a bad environmental name then there might be a financial upside. It might be even more subtle. Companies like Apple benefit from having an aura of cool or hip. They sell products with a higher ASP and even if you know that their products are worth it, if the company's name gets associated with negative things it can affect sales.



    3--Shareholders demand it. Plain and simple.



    It is obvious that environmental groups do not have the capital to buy enough stock to demand change so they work on the first two. 1) They support environmental laws and regulations that are intended to make environmentally harmful options more costly. 2) They do what ever they can to draw attention to company's environmental negatives. This is what I have seen posters go crazy over in this and other Apple forums. But the fact is it works. You might not like the fact that Apple was made to look like the worst offender when they were not--but it was Apple that presented the best target. They always get a lot of publicity and they have a halo they are benefiting from that they don't want tarnished.

    Now that Apple is announcing industry leading initiatives, it will be much easier to put pressure on the other big computer corps out there to change to match Apple.



    With the environmental stuff more or less settled for now, some groups will find this the best opportunity to try to make some headlines about executive compensation. Is Apple the worst offender here? Hardly. Others have posted more egregious examples of CEOs running the company into the ground and taking handsome pay for it. But it is all about publicity and public interest and opportunity. Is it fair? surely not. But it is how our system seems to work and the negatives, I believe, are far outweighed by the possible positives.
  • Reply 35 of 43
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EruIthildur View Post


    I don't know if I could actually live on it or not... I mean, at one exotic car (take the Gallardo as an average with a price plus options and aftermarket at over $300k) a day that eats $110 million before taxes!!! For five years that is $550 million of purchases before tax... Assuming there are no taxes that leaves him with a measly $18 million a year for living expenses, house, servants, etc.

    Geez. All those poor unpurchased cars...



    Heh. Given I have an attention span of a 3-year old, I wouldn't buy a Lamborghini. I'd rent one in Germany or something and cruise on the Autobahn for like $100k for a few days or whatever. Now that's money well spent...!!
  • Reply 36 of 43
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    I like Apple as much as the last guy who has bought only Apple computers for the last 20 years. And I believe that they are a relatively decent company. But if you think they would have these initiatives to announce if there were no Greenpeaces or Trilliums or any of the other muck rakers who have raked muck over the years then you are deluding yourselves.



    [...and Cut -Sebastian]



    Last I checked, Apple has been cutting down on Toxic Junk years before Greenpeace mounted a smear campaign to get donations out of Mac users. According to Daniel, they even had the nerve to try and take credit for everything in Steve's open letter, directly to Steve Jobs.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoughlyDrafted


    Jobs' Challenges Greenpeace Incompetence.

    Those comments didn't stop Greenpeace representatives from using the meeting as an opportunity to advertise the groups anti-Apple campaign. Among the activists sent by Greenpeace was Iza Kruszewska, one of the key architects of the corporation's Apple-oriented fundraising program.



    Kruszewska was wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt styled after the former iPod ads, presenting Apple's products as dangerously toxic and encouraging user donations to Greenpeace to somehow solve that issue.



    After attempting to take credit for Apple's announcements, Kruszewska questioned Jobs about Apple's potential do more to advance Greenpeace's political goals in announcing principles, but Jobs insisted that such “flowery” announcements were not really doing anything for the environment.



    Jobs suggested that Greenpeace hire staff with engineering backgrounds who could understand the issues involved, and insisted that Apple does more to push innovative manufacturing techniques than other PC makers.



    When Apple talks to its manufacturers, he said, they report that no other companies are pushing for similar, real changes. He questioned the real efforts HP and Dell were making to back up their announcements.



    Jobs also blasted the criteria behind Greenpeace's highly publicized Greener Guide to Electronics, which ranks a random assortment of manufactures according to commitments listed on their websites.



    Jobs said Greenpeace needed to develop rankings that reflected what companies actually do, not just what they promise to do at some point in the future.



    Full Article



    Sebastian
  • Reply 37 of 43
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacCentric View Post


    Ok, granted these proposals are not totally off the wall, what I take umbrage with is the fact that someone literally could make a proposal for almost anything, no matter how stupid and cost the company more money in distributing the idea than they even own in shares. Also, for instance, posters in another thread were saying things along the lines of "at least Trillium invested in Apple, and want to see the company do better." I hardly see a $20,000 stake as anything significant enough to even talk about.



    If Apple were dumping radioactive waste, I would encourage any governmental criminal and civil actions against them, and would probably sell my stock. I doubt there would be shareholder actions via the annual meetings. As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.



    I wonder if Trillium will buy a few shares of Apple's competitors, and craft proposals requiring them to meet or exceed Apple's initiatives regarding the environment. If they are really serious about the environment, I don't see why they wouldn't.



    Investmrnt houses such as Trillium do this as their way of investing. You should go to their site yourself.



    A partial list of their clients is below:



    http://www.trilliuminvest.com/pages/...clientlist.asp



    I'm not sure wher those numbers came from. When this issue first arose, I remember reading that Trillium had about a $5 million investment.



    I really don't know why this bothers you. If it passes, it means that the majority of shares were voted that way. If it doesn't, then it's gone.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    shaminoshamino Posts: 527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    We were talking about environmental issues.



    This is a problem for not only this entire industry, but almost every other industry as well, including almost every individual who lives anywhere.



    For that reason, it isn't a matter of not buying a companies stock.



    You do have a responsibility to attempt to get the world back in shape.



    Environmentalists are far more interested in grabbing political power by trying to scare the public with junk science, half-truths, and active censorship of anybody that disagrees with their agenda. And the agenda is the dismantling of corporations, not "saving the earth" or whatever the buzzword du-jour is.



    There are very very few groups left that actually care about conserving our natural resources for future generations.



    The proof of all this is that they never stop protesting corporations, even when those corporations do everything they're told to do. Look at Apple - they are doing more for the environment than any of their competitors, but the environmentalists are still targeting them. Why? Because you get more headlines by attacking Apple. The environment has nothing at all to do with it.
  • Reply 39 of 43
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shamino View Post


    Environmentalists are far more interested in grabbing political power by trying to scare the public with junk science, half-truths, and active censorship of anybody that disagrees with their agenda. And the agenda is the dismantling of corporations, not "saving the earth" or whatever the buzzword du-jour is.



    There are very very few groups left that actually care about conserving our natural resources for future generations.



    The proof of all this is that they never stop protesting corporations, even when those corporations do everything they're told to do. Look at Apple - they are doing more for the environment than any of their competitors, but the environmentalists are still targeting them. Why? Because you get more headlines by attacking Apple. The environment has nothing at all to do with it.



    Everyone must contribute. corporations only do something that they see as not adding to their bottom line if they are forced to do it.



    When government won't step in to force the issue, as with our current administration, then private groups must take over.



    Politics! Oh lord.



    There is only one area in which I agree with Karl Marx, everything is economics.



    Political power comes from the ability to control the economic situation of others, thereby enhancing your own, or others who you prefer, economic situation. You've heard the expression "Money is power".



    And power is politics.



    Do you want to buy a new house, and find that it was built on the site of a hazardous waste dump? I certainly don't.



    If companies aren't forced to dunp waste properly, that's what happens.



    How do you think government is finally forced into action?
  • Reply 40 of 43
    japplejapple Posts: 91member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Political power comes from the ability to control the economic situation of others, thereby enhancing your own, or others who you prefer, economic situation. You've heard the expression "Money is power"...



    Personally, I think political power comes from two sources: Money and Votes.



    Money:

    ie Trial Lawyers -- pay huge sums to ensure that the legal system remains one endless litigation - of money wins and money loses. (That is to say if you have money you will be sued whether it's deserved or not, and if you have more money you'll much more likely to win whether it's deserved or not).

    ie Tax Cuts for the High Income earners -- pay huge sums to ensure they can retain more of their already large income.



    Votes

    ie Elderly vs Working class -- the AARP will make it so that social security never gets fixed and likely gets worse, increasing it's already hefty burden on the working class whose taxes goes to the ever growing retired class.

    ie Teachers unions -- will continue to ensure education money is spent poorly by expanding the number of administrators and idiotic teachers at the expense of the good teachers who don't want/need bureaucracy or idiotic teaching peers, simply a better salary.

    ie Anti-Abortion / Pro-Choice -- regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's obvious that each party is hopelessly tied to one side or the other for votes.



    My this came out longer than I wanted
Sign In or Register to comment.