it?s funny to read how this product is too high and this person makes too much when there is no other data points given as to why they feel this way.
In business, there are very real reasons why someone is paid a certain amount and why a product is priced a certain way. Apple?s goal is to maximize profits. If they lose Tim Cook to another company because he?s not being paid as much as other companies value him and this causes Apple to lose money to an extent that exceeds his salary then Apple would have messed up.
It?s also funny to read how people who work harder should get paid more. That janitor who is cleaning out trashcans and bathrooms all day should get paid more than a CEO who sits behind a cushy desk tell people what to do. That?s pretty foolish, too.
So what exactly are his accomplishments. Since you?ve deemed a fixed amount too high you must have a handle on exactly what his accomplishments are. How much are his accomplishments worth?
As I pointed out above, the "very real reason" is because the boards of directors make certain that they and top execs are the primary recipients of corporate profits. They take good care of themselves. It's a matter of corporate governance, not economics. If your "what they are worth" argument were true, then we would not be aware of so many examples of CEOs being paid huge salaries and bonuses for failure. We also would not see such an enormous and steadily-growing disparity in compensation between corporate CEOs of American and other industrialized nations (let alone, between top execs and everyone else). A pure economics argument simply does not cover the actual circumstances or the forces which are at work here. BTW, I'm not picking on Cook and his compensation at Apple. I am making a general point about how the executive compensation system functions in this country.
Stock options and excessive executive pay, especially for non-performance or golden handshakes, poison pills. These are all debated all the time. They can be excessive and often are, when compared across industries or internationally.
It's a tricky debate, given that for many people, Steve Jobs making $1 million would be considered excessive. I've debated liberals who think no one on earth should make more than $250,000.
It's a difficult area to insert more regulations into. Shareholder activism and transparency of compensation of top executives helps.
As I said earlier, this can be debated night and day.
But on Cook's $59 million, IMO, he was worth every penny and then some.
It can't be so difficult if everyone else has managed it, except for the US. Yes, this issue can be debated forever, just like so many that are critical to the welfare of the nation -- jawboned endlessly, and never actually addressed. Consider who benefits from endless debate and no resolution of any given issue. So there's a difference between difficulty and will. Lacking the will to do difficult things -- that's become practically the national motto.
blah yadda etc. his accomplishments STILL don't amount to 59M. that number is BEYOND excessive.
Then you don't understand corporate compensation. This isn't much at all, considering Apple's sales and profits. And understanding that their executives get no golden parachutes, good compensation while they're here, helps keep them there. Don't compare everyone else to your own position.
It can't be so difficult if everyone else has managed it, except for the US. Yes, this issue can be debated forever, just like so many that are critical to the welfare of the nation -- jawboned endlessly, and never actually addressed. Consider who benefits from endless debate and no resolution of any given issue. So there's a difference between difficulty and will. Lacking the will to do difficult things -- that's become practically the national motto.
Of course, the problem in so many other countries where corporate compensation is limited is that there's much more corporate and political corruption.
Of course, the problem in so many other countries where corporate compensation is limited is that there's much more corporate and political corruption.
I'm surprised by your generic response. What countries? How? Does that brush tar all nations that haven't allowed their rules on corporate governance to favor their wealthiest citizens?
I'm surprised by your generic response. What countries? How? Does that brush tar all nations that haven't allowed their rules on corporate governance to favor their wealthiest citizens?
I'm sure we've both read many newspaper articles over the years that show this. I know I have. And I'm not talking about third world countries.
I'm sure we've both read many newspaper articles over the years that show this. I know I have. And I'm not talking about third world countries.
Nor am I, and no I haven't. And I certainly don't accept the proposition that stronger rules on corporate governance result in corruption of any sort. I cannot fathom what possible connection there could be between the two.
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
some items are impossible to predict accurately: for example when launched many analysts were projecting iPad sales (based on generous extrapolation of previous tablet sales) to be from 1 m to 2 m a year. Apple sold millions in a quarter. Also shortages can also be caused simply by manufacturing bottlenecks - the factories simply can't produce what is ordered. That's why Apple is building it's own Retina screen manufacturing facility together with Toshiba.
Perhaps some shortages, manufacturing snafu's can be place on Cook's door but it doesn't take away his extraordinary contribution to Apple (to other readers please refer to my first post on thread). Beating Wal-mart and Dell in supply chain rankings three years in a row is no joke. I suspect if John Sculley's gang was still in charge the iPad might have cost 1000 instead of 499. The five inch Dell Streak 1 is 599. You can thank a lot of this to Cook (and the others at Apple today).
Shortages are bad as one misses out on profit. But excess inventory (unsold items) is worse as it's a financial loss - you have already paid for the production. Ideal is to max out sales without waste.
Nor am I, and no I haven't. And I certainly don't accept the proposition that stronger rules on corporate governance result in corruption of any sort. I cannot fathom what possible connection there could be between the two.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
Good point. One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell, has spilled a lot of ink pointing out the unintentional consequences of easy solutions. Hike taxes on the rich. Limit compensation of CEOs. Price controls. Lengthen unemployment benefits. Lower standards on home loans.
Because you're dealing with human nature, it's hard to predict the outcome of many policies and regulations. One would expect unpleasant consequences for attempts to regulate or limit upper executive compensation.
That's not to say we shouldn't debate it or try to find a way to balance out the drive of boards to take care of their own at the expense of others.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
I am talking about corporate governance, not compensation caps or limits or anything of the sort. We've seen some changes to the SEC rules for compensation committees in recent years, for the purpose of making them more transparent to stockholders and less chummy with the people who get the money. I don't see where that causes corruption, do you? If you do, please be specific about how and why.
what i understand is that celebrities, athletes, CEOs, etc make too much money, and are at least partly to blame for our economic crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Then you don't understand corporate compensation. This isn't much at all, considering Apple's sales and profits. And understanding that their executives get no golden parachutes, good compensation while they're here, helps keep them there. Don't compare everyone else to your own position.
Comments
it?s funny to read how this product is too high and this person makes too much when there is no other data points given as to why they feel this way.
In business, there are very real reasons why someone is paid a certain amount and why a product is priced a certain way. Apple?s goal is to maximize profits. If they lose Tim Cook to another company because he?s not being paid as much as other companies value him and this causes Apple to lose money to an extent that exceeds his salary then Apple would have messed up.
It?s also funny to read how people who work harder should get paid more. That janitor who is cleaning out trashcans and bathrooms all day should get paid more than a CEO who sits behind a cushy desk tell people what to do. That?s pretty foolish, too.
So what exactly are his accomplishments. Since you?ve deemed a fixed amount too high you must have a handle on exactly what his accomplishments are. How much are his accomplishments worth?
As I pointed out above, the "very real reason" is because the boards of directors make certain that they and top execs are the primary recipients of corporate profits. They take good care of themselves. It's a matter of corporate governance, not economics. If your "what they are worth" argument were true, then we would not be aware of so many examples of CEOs being paid huge salaries and bonuses for failure. We also would not see such an enormous and steadily-growing disparity in compensation between corporate CEOs of American and other industrialized nations (let alone, between top execs and everyone else). A pure economics argument simply does not cover the actual circumstances or the forces which are at work here. BTW, I'm not picking on Cook and his compensation at Apple. I am making a general point about how the executive compensation system functions in this country.
It's a tricky debate, given that for many people, Steve Jobs making $1 million would be considered excessive. I've debated liberals who think no one on earth should make more than $250,000.
It's a difficult area to insert more regulations into. Shareholder activism and transparency of compensation of top executives helps.
As I said earlier, this can be debated night and day.
But on Cook's $59 million, IMO, he was worth every penny and then some.
blah yadda etc. his accomplishments STILL don't amount to 59M. that number is BEYOND excessive.
Then you don't understand corporate compensation. This isn't much at all, considering Apple's sales and profits. And understanding that their executives get no golden parachutes, good compensation while they're here, helps keep them there. Don't compare everyone else to your own position.
It can't be so difficult if everyone else has managed it, except for the US. Yes, this issue can be debated forever, just like so many that are critical to the welfare of the nation -- jawboned endlessly, and never actually addressed. Consider who benefits from endless debate and no resolution of any given issue. So there's a difference between difficulty and will. Lacking the will to do difficult things -- that's become practically the national motto.
Of course, the problem in so many other countries where corporate compensation is limited is that there's much more corporate and political corruption.
Of course, the problem in so many other countries where corporate compensation is limited is that there's much more corporate and political corruption.
I'm surprised by your generic response. What countries? How? Does that brush tar all nations that haven't allowed their rules on corporate governance to favor their wealthiest citizens?
I'm surprised by your generic response. What countries? How? Does that brush tar all nations that haven't allowed their rules on corporate governance to favor their wealthiest citizens?
I'm sure we've both read many newspaper articles over the years that show this. I know I have. And I'm not talking about third world countries.
I'm sure we've both read many newspaper articles over the years that show this. I know I have. And I'm not talking about third world countries.
Nor am I, and no I haven't. And I certainly don't accept the proposition that stronger rules on corporate governance result in corruption of any sort. I cannot fathom what possible connection there could be between the two.
Where do you draw the line between reducing inventory levels and not being able to keep up with demand?
some items are impossible to predict accurately: for example when launched many analysts were projecting iPad sales (based on generous extrapolation of previous tablet sales) to be from 1 m to 2 m a year. Apple sold millions in a quarter. Also shortages can also be caused simply by manufacturing bottlenecks - the factories simply can't produce what is ordered. That's why Apple is building it's own Retina screen manufacturing facility together with Toshiba.
Perhaps some shortages, manufacturing snafu's can be place on Cook's door but it doesn't take away his extraordinary contribution to Apple (to other readers please refer to my first post on thread). Beating Wal-mart and Dell in supply chain rankings three years in a row is no joke. I suspect if John Sculley's gang was still in charge the iPad might have cost 1000 instead of 499. The five inch Dell Streak 1 is 599. You can thank a lot of this to Cook (and the others at Apple today).
Shortages are bad as one misses out on profit. But excess inventory (unsold items) is worse as it's a financial loss - you have already paid for the production. Ideal is to max out sales without waste.
Nor am I, and no I haven't. And I certainly don't accept the proposition that stronger rules on corporate governance result in corruption of any sort. I cannot fathom what possible connection there could be between the two.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
Good point. One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell, has spilled a lot of ink pointing out the unintentional consequences of easy solutions. Hike taxes on the rich. Limit compensation of CEOs. Price controls. Lengthen unemployment benefits. Lower standards on home loans.
Because you're dealing with human nature, it's hard to predict the outcome of many policies and regulations. One would expect unpleasant consequences for attempts to regulate or limit upper executive compensation.
That's not to say we shouldn't debate it or try to find a way to balance out the drive of boards to take care of their own at the expense of others.
I'm not talking about corporate governance. I'm talking about corporate COMPENSATION. Wherever we see limits to that, either explicit or implicit, we see corruption.. The LACK of corporate governance also leads to that. And yes, the two exist together oftentimes.
I am talking about corporate governance, not compensation caps or limits or anything of the sort. We've seen some changes to the SEC rules for compensation committees in recent years, for the purpose of making them more transparent to stockholders and less chummy with the people who get the money. I don't see where that causes corruption, do you? If you do, please be specific about how and why.
Then you don't understand corporate compensation. This isn't much at all, considering Apple's sales and profits. And understanding that their executives get no golden parachutes, good compensation while they're here, helps keep them there. Don't compare everyone else to your own position.