Oh really. The stock holders at Apple sit around and don't do jack sh** but the top stock holders are raking in the cash while sitting at home drinking a martini.
The retail staff should be paid more because they are the public face of the company.
So by your logic, a company should pay its receptionist more than all of its engineers and COO.
Salaries are set by the market. Stock returns are set by the market. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries with managed economies you can move to.
Since you're such and objective non-fanboy could you explain why Apple's retail pay is so bad?
Sure. $11.25 is $22.5K a year. Three quarters of a million in three months translates to about $3M in annual sales. Let's say that Apple's margin is 30%, or $900,000, on those sales. That means this guy at $11.25 is delivering a pay multiplier of 40. Which is an order of magnitude more than many professional service providers such as engineers make.
The NYT article is so flawed it's on the verge of being pathetic. They could have just as easily claimed that since Apple is so profitable they should reduce the prices of their products. Why didn't they? If Apple is allowed to charge what the market will bear, why are they not allowed to pay what the market will bear?
If I were to subscribe to the NYT's line of thought, I would have a more valid argument for lower prices than all of their retail employees have for higher pay-- I've been a loyal buyer far longer than than every one of them has been a loyal employee. Heck, I started using Apple computers before many of them were born!
Also, their claim that Apple doesn't pay enough of their gross margin per retail employee is dubious at best. There is no appropriate percentage for such a concept and if there were, who would determine what this is? I sell products that generate about 15x gross margin per year compared to the average Apple retail employee. I don't get 15x their pay but I doubt the NYT would consider me underpaid. Further, what the NYT fails to explore is what is the real contribution of Apple's retail employee workforce to Apple's overall profitability? No doubt they are an important cog in the wheel but ultimately it's the product that makes the sale -- especially with Apple's product offerings.
You get what you pay for. You want to be #1 in customer service well you have to pay your employees more money for that type of service. That's the bottom line. It'd be one thing if Apple were at the bottom of the customer service rankings....well then you could make the argument that they are as good as any customer service outfit and are paid on par as a result. However, the salary isn't commensurate with the level of service that's being provided. That is a fair discussion to have.
However, the salary isn't commensurate with the level of service that's being provided. That is a fair discussion to have.
As determined by whom and based on what criteria? The only answers that matter are the employees'. See what happened when people here thought they knew what was best for Foxconn workers? They hated their new hours.
It's like the rich people that give tractors to villages in Africa instead of hand plows.
You get what you pay for. You want to be #1 in customer service well you have to pay your employees more money for that type of service. That's the bottom line. It'd be one thing if Apple were at the bottom of the customer service rankings....well then you could make the argument that they are as good as any customer service outfit and are paid on par as a result. However, the salary isn't commensurate with the level of service that's being provided. That is a fair discussion to have.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. First, you say that the only way to have exceptional customer service is to overpay employees. Then, you admit that Apple is at the top of customer service charts - even though they pay market rates.
In reality, there's no real correlation between customer service and employee salaries. Paying employees too much can make them lazy and self-serving. It can also motivate them. In reality, other factors are far more important.
Sure. $11.25 is $22.5K a year. Three quarters of a million in three months translates to about $3M in annual sales. Let's say that Apple's margin is 30%, or $900,000, on those sales. That means this guy at $11.25 is delivering a pay multiplier of 40. Which is an order of magnitude more than many professional service providers such as engineers make.
That's a silly metric. Someone who cuts diamonds makes a multiplier of many times that figure. OTOH, a very skilled, talented artist gets a multiplier of 1.0 (if they work for themselves). I know sales people with multipliers of over 100 and others with multipliers of well under 10.
And that, of course, ignores the fact that there's a lot more to the job than salary. Apple's benefits are exceptional for a retail position and add a great deal of value.
Once again, the only logical way to set salaries is to pay what the market determines is an appropriate salary for a job and then modify it if you're not getting the caliber of people you desire. It's not up to you or the NYT to determine what a 'fair' salary is. The fact that people are lined up for miles to take jobs at Apple suggests that they think the current salary is fair.
5. Media inflates minor outcry into supposed scandal.
6. Media makes minor footnote about Apple's improvement.
7. Public believes Apple's improvement was only because they were forced into it.
8. ???
9. Media and Apple competitors profit.
The answer is for Apple to up the ante and employ teams of staff to permanently monitor all staff welfare/conditions and environmental impact. They have a surplus of money and the means to do so. Perhaps their mantra should be Don't be evil...Ever.
Wait, he's complaining about moving thousands of dollars of tech? I work retail selling technology and i'd KILL to have that kind of product, rather then push laptops that are all ready outdated and tablets I know are inferior!
Sure. $11.25 is $22.5K a year. Three quarters of a million in three months translates to about $3M in annual sales. Let's say that Apple's margin is 30%, or $900,000, on those sales. That means this guy at $11.25 is delivering a pay multiplier of 40. Which is an order of magnitude more than many professional service providers such as engineers make.
Sorry, it's retail. the products sell themselves. All the guy has to do is answer basic questions, swipe a credit card and place the device in a bag.
Once you make an argument for communism, there is no turning back. The NYT could perhaps set the wages for everyone in our society. No doubt they would set theirs rather high.
In a free labor market, can't private companies set their own wages? I mean, if Apple can hire the right people for its retail operations while paying average salaries, what's wrong with that? While the reporting might be factual, the conclusions are biased politically. The assertion being made by NYT is that these retail workers are entitled to more money. If they had left that out of the article and simply printed facts and statistics about the retail pay scales, it would be a more neutral article.
Sorry, it's retail. the products sell themselves. All the guy has to do is answer basic questions, swipe a credit card and place the device in a bag.
Exactly. When I go to an Apple store, I know exactly what I want. I'm just looking to get in & out as quickly as possible, pay for my goods and be done.
It's not like the sales people are selling junk products and have to lie and force their products on customers, like some other stores do. iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs sell themselves.
Now, in order to improve their image, I think they should wear polo shirts instead of t-shirts at a minimum. I think there should be sales people that have a BS degree, plus 3+ years business sales experience to also assist in local small business sales as well and they should be able to improve their pay upwards to $75K a year. In the corporate sales, they want BA/BA or higher, plus 3 to 5 years Corporate Sales experience, which is far more demanding and stressful, but requires far more experience and training.
...
lol. Are you out of your mind? This is retail sales.
The NYT viewpoint is idiotic. Just because Apple has $110 billion stashed away doesn't mean the people that empty the trash cans should get fatter salaries. It's supply and demand. How replaceable is the person? Emptying trash? Extremely replaceable.
Retails sales is not a terribly unique skill set. A 4-year degree for that?
Oh BTW, Best Buy employees have polo shirts and it doesn't do squat for their image.
The answer is for Apple to up the ante and employ teams of staff to permanently monitor all staff welfare/conditions and environmental impact. They have a surplus of money and the means to do so. Perhaps their mantra should be Don't be evil...Ever.
This is a problem for successful companies. Everyone with a social cause believes they get to tell Apple how they should spend their money. Mike Daisey, Greenpeace, NYT... The thinking is: if you have the money, you should spend it on social causes, and if you don't, you're evil forever.
And what about employees who work for a failed company? If Apple employees should benefit from the company so much making money should they be made to have to pay losses if the company eventually flounders?
Yeah, well name a "great" company who currently is the poster boy for humanism. There are none and I'm sick and tired of all this drivel about how corporations are somehow obligated to share the wealth. The world has NEVER EVER worked that way and NEVER WILL. The human condition is all about sex, wealth, and power, and the accumulation there of. And people like yourself go on and on about "fairness" and "equality" ad nauseum until of course it hits you personally in the pocketbook. It's always somebody else, some corporation who's duty it is to redistribute wealth, not your wealth of course. Somebody else's wealth.
Sad commentary about how some view the world. And there have been "great" companies who have promoted "fairness" and "sharing the wealth." Case in point, Henry Ford:
After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82
I am ashamed to be in company with so many cold hearted, mean spirited people on these forums. I thought that Apple fans were different. You sound like a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists. I guess when a brand gets to become so big, it has to absorb even bottom feeders.
I realized long ago that AI is primary a newsfeed for Apple shareholders...most of the comments here are from those folks that have a vested interest in watching Apple profit, not the best interests of it's workers, society or even the products themselves.
By the way, this headline from Business Insider reflects the premise of this story on the broader economic level:
Comments
So by your logic, a company should pay its receptionist more than all of its engineers and COO.
Salaries are set by the market. Stock returns are set by the market. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries with managed economies you can move to.
And since you refuse to tell us anything, you obviously don't know, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Since you're such and objective non-fanboy could you explain why Apple's retail pay is so bad?
Sure. $11.25 is $22.5K a year. Three quarters of a million in three months translates to about $3M in annual sales. Let's say that Apple's margin is 30%, or $900,000, on those sales. That means this guy at $11.25 is delivering a pay multiplier of 40. Which is an order of magnitude more than many professional service providers such as engineers make.
The NYT article is so flawed it's on the verge of being pathetic. They could have just as easily claimed that since Apple is so profitable they should reduce the prices of their products. Why didn't they? If Apple is allowed to charge what the market will bear, why are they not allowed to pay what the market will bear?
If I were to subscribe to the NYT's line of thought, I would have a more valid argument for lower prices than all of their retail employees have for higher pay-- I've been a loyal buyer far longer than than every one of them has been a loyal employee. Heck, I started using Apple computers before many of them were born!
Also, their claim that Apple doesn't pay enough of their gross margin per retail employee is dubious at best. There is no appropriate percentage for such a concept and if there were, who would determine what this is? I sell products that generate about 15x gross margin per year compared to the average Apple retail employee. I don't get 15x their pay but I doubt the NYT would consider me underpaid. Further, what the NYT fails to explore is what is the real contribution of Apple's retail employee workforce to Apple's overall profitability? No doubt they are an important cog in the wheel but ultimately it's the product that makes the sale -- especially with Apple's product offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And since you refuse to tell us anything, you obviously don't know, either.
You make it very hard to bite my tongue but just suffice it to say that many @ NYT drink the Apple kool-aid....myself included.
You get what you pay for. You want to be #1 in customer service well you have to pay your employees more money for that type of service. That's the bottom line. It'd be one thing if Apple were at the bottom of the customer service rankings....well then you could make the argument that they are as good as any customer service outfit and are paid on par as a result. However, the salary isn't commensurate with the level of service that's being provided. That is a fair discussion to have.
As determined by whom and based on what criteria? The only answers that matter are the employees'. See what happened when people here thought they knew what was best for Foxconn workers? They hated their new hours.
It's like the rich people that give tractors to villages in Africa instead of hand plows.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. First, you say that the only way to have exceptional customer service is to overpay employees. Then, you admit that Apple is at the top of customer service charts - even though they pay market rates.
In reality, there's no real correlation between customer service and employee salaries. Paying employees too much can make them lazy and self-serving. It can also motivate them. In reality, other factors are far more important.
That's a silly metric. Someone who cuts diamonds makes a multiplier of many times that figure. OTOH, a very skilled, talented artist gets a multiplier of 1.0 (if they work for themselves). I know sales people with multipliers of over 100 and others with multipliers of well under 10.
And that, of course, ignores the fact that there's a lot more to the job than salary. Apple's benefits are exceptional for a retail position and add a great deal of value.
Once again, the only logical way to set salaries is to pay what the market determines is an appropriate salary for a job and then modify it if you're not getting the caliber of people you desire. It's not up to you or the NYT to determine what a 'fair' salary is. The fact that people are lined up for miles to take jobs at Apple suggests that they think the current salary is fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
I think I know how this one goes:
1. Apple sees problem.
2. Apple improves problem.
3. Media sees problem and sells ads with it.
4. Minor public outcry about problem.
5. Media inflates minor outcry into supposed scandal.
6. Media makes minor footnote about Apple's improvement.
7. Public believes Apple's improvement was only because they were forced into it.
8. ???
9. Media and Apple competitors profit.
The answer is for Apple to up the ante and employ teams of staff to permanently monitor all staff welfare/conditions and environmental impact. They have a surplus of money and the means to do so. Perhaps their mantra should be Don't be evil...Ever.
Wait, he's complaining about moving thousands of dollars of tech? I work retail selling technology and i'd KILL to have that kind of product, rather then push laptops that are all ready outdated and tablets I know are inferior!
When does the NY Times expose come out on newsstand sellers?
#won'tholdmybreath
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxSampleXX
Sure. $11.25 is $22.5K a year. Three quarters of a million in three months translates to about $3M in annual sales. Let's say that Apple's margin is 30%, or $900,000, on those sales. That means this guy at $11.25 is delivering a pay multiplier of 40. Which is an order of magnitude more than many professional service providers such as engineers make.
Sorry, it's retail. the products sell themselves. All the guy has to do is answer basic questions, swipe a credit card and place the device in a bag.
While the reporting might be factual, the conclusions are biased politically. The assertion being made by NYT is that these retail workers are entitled to more money. If they had left that out of the article and simply printed facts and statistics about the retail pay scales, it would be a more neutral article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Sorry, it's retail. the products sell themselves. All the guy has to do is answer basic questions, swipe a credit card and place the device in a bag.
Exactly. When I go to an Apple store, I know exactly what I want. I'm just looking to get in & out as quickly as possible, pay for my goods and be done.
It's not like the sales people are selling junk products and have to lie and force their products on customers, like some other stores do. iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs sell themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a free labor market, can't private companies set their own wages?
Not according to a liberal/commie newspaper like the NYT. They know what's best for everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
...
Now, in order to improve their image, I think they should wear polo shirts instead of t-shirts at a minimum. I think there should be sales people that have a BS degree, plus 3+ years business sales experience to also assist in local small business sales as well and they should be able to improve their pay upwards to $75K a year. In the corporate sales, they want BA/BA or higher, plus 3 to 5 years Corporate Sales experience, which is far more demanding and stressful, but requires far more experience and training.
...
lol. Are you out of your mind? This is retail sales.
The NYT viewpoint is idiotic. Just because Apple has $110 billion stashed away doesn't mean the people that empty the trash cans should get fatter salaries. It's supply and demand. How replaceable is the person? Emptying trash? Extremely replaceable.
Retails sales is not a terribly unique skill set. A 4-year degree for that?
Oh BTW, Best Buy employees have polo shirts and it doesn't do squat for their image.
This is a problem for successful companies. Everyone with a social cause believes they get to tell Apple how they should spend their money. Mike Daisey, Greenpeace, NYT... The thinking is: if you have the money, you should spend it on social causes, and if you don't, you're evil forever.
And what about employees who work for a failed company? If Apple employees should benefit from the company so much making money should they be made to have to pay losses if the company eventually flounders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Yeah, well name a "great" company who currently is the poster boy for humanism. There are none and I'm sick and tired of all this drivel about how corporations are somehow obligated to share the wealth. The world has NEVER EVER worked that way and NEVER WILL. The human condition is all about sex, wealth, and power, and the accumulation there of. And people like yourself go on and on about "fairness" and "equality" ad nauseum until of course it hits you personally in the pocketbook. It's always somebody else, some corporation who's duty it is to redistribute wealth, not your wealth of course. Somebody else's wealth.
Sad commentary about how some view the world. And there have been "great" companies who have promoted "fairness" and "sharing the wealth." Case in point, Henry Ford:
After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage. As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82
I am ashamed to be in company with so many cold hearted, mean spirited people on these forums. I thought that Apple fans were different. You sound like a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists. I guess when a brand gets to become so big, it has to absorb even bottom feeders.
I realized long ago that AI is primary a newsfeed for Apple shareholders...most of the comments here are from those folks that have a vested interest in watching Apple profit, not the best interests of it's workers, society or even the products themselves.
By the way, this headline from Business Insider reflects the premise of this story on the broader economic level:
Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low