the wage inequality is staggering. although i think they key is not to pay the executives less but to pay the workers more. apple can certainly afford it...only they prioritize their profits into cash holdings and returning capital to investors.
I agree about executives: I have no issue with how much Apple pays any executive. The right decision in such a large enterprise can be worth billions to them. I don't really see inequality as a worker-wage issue that can be solved by individual companies, though. It's a societal issue. Forgetting about Liberals and Conservatives, it's simply inefficient to have too large a fraction of people be poor. You end up wasting their abilities, and those of their kids (who worry more about eating and staying alive than studying), and you spend a lot on police and prisons. And of course, companies need customers who have money. A small number of rich people can't consume everything! Much better to just make sure everyone has a livable minimum, and a shot at doing better than that. It doesn't really cost that much. The US generally spends about 1% of GDP on helping the poor (not counting Medicaid), which is much less than most "advanced" nations.
the wage inequality is staggering. although i think they key is not to pay the executives less but to pay the workers more. apple can certainly afford it...only they prioritize their profits into cash holdings and returning capital to investors.
False arguments of "wage inequality" are a canard pushed by Communists and union labor scum. Wages are a matter of private negotiations and contract agreement.
As a matter of fact, the Federal minimum wage is a restraint of trade and coercive imposition on free markets and should be made illegal.
At a certain level, these numbers are more like a game then they are measurably tied to the value of a person's contribution. It is kind of odd to say that somebody makes that much money in a year because they "earned" or even necessarily deserve it. It's more complicated than that. There are absolutely brilliant people all over the world who work extremely hard and make much less. There are even very close parallels: Tim Cook's salary and bonuses last year amounted to $9.2M, and Steve Jobs took a salary of one dollar for a number of years at Apple. (Of course there were other forms of compensation that were very significant.) And on the other side of things, what about Steve Ballmer?! It would be hard to argue that every penny of his salary was well spent.
There's a job to be done, and when the stakes are very high, as they are in this case, employers try to get the absolute best person they can, and in that context even huge amounts of money can seem relatively trivial. But it's also always a gamble.
Maybe Ahrendts is brilliant and will spearhead a huge growth phase in China. I hope so. My introduction to her was an interview in which she demonstrated a poor grasp of English grammar (despite the fact that it's her first language), which didn't inspire my confidence, but of course we all have different strengths and weaknesses.
At a certain level, these numbers are more like a game then they are measurably tied to the value of a person's contribution. It is kind of odd to say that somebody makes that much money in a year because they "earned" or even necessarily deserve it. It's more complicated than that. There are absolutely brilliant people all over the world who work extremely hard and make much less. There are even very close parallels: Tim Cook's salary and bonuses last year amounted to $9.2M, and Steve Jobs took a salary of one dollar for a number of years at Apple. (Of course there were other forms of compensation that were very significant.) And on the other side of things, what about Steve Ballmer?! It would be hard to argue that every penny of his salary was well spent.
There's a job to be done, and when the stakes are very high, as they are in this case, employers try to get the absolute best person they can, and in that context even huge amounts of money can seem relatively trivial. But it's also always a gamble.
Maybe Ahrendts is brilliant and will spearhead a huge growth phase in China. I hope so. My introduction to her was an interview in which she demonstrated a poor grasp of English grammar (despite the fact that it's her first language), which didn't inspire my confidence, but of course we all have different strengths and weaknesses.
I've personally met quite a few high-earners with a loose grasp of the English language and many more who are poor spellers.
No. I'm on my way to making great money and have the potential to make much more. More than I'll ever need or my kids will need. I don't want that taken away from me or anyone else for that matter. I came from nothing. I used to be homeless when I was young. I worked hard in every way possible and now I'm reaping the rewards of my determination, perseverance and hard work. Everyone should have that for them and they do. Some just choose a different path. Mind you, I'm going to give most of my money away to for things I care about but that's my choice not someone else's.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because of hard work and perseverance and the poor are poor because they are lazy. Certainly a lack of industriousness can impede success. It does not follow that all poverty is attributable to this. There are entrenched systems of power that reproduce preferred classes of people. The right to your own money translates into a right to pass it to your children who did not earn it and turns your values upside down by creating a layer of wealthy individuals who exhibit none of the qualities you list. And yet they retain the political power that wealth provides and use that power in ways that directly affect our lives.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because of hard work and perseverance and the poor are poor because they are lazy. Certainly a lack of industriousness can impede success. It does not follow that all poverty is attributable to this. There are entrenched systems of power that reproduce preferred classes of people. The right to your own money translates into a right to pass it to your children who did not earn it and turns your values upside down by creating a layer of wealthy individuals who exhibit none of the qualities you list. And yet they retain the political power that wealth provides and use that power in ways that directly affect our lives.
I don't support punitive taxation or income redistribution or any of that populist nonsense, but I do support term limits for politicians across the board.
Oh, I know right? I know you've never had a typo on a forum that has no relevance to an important thesis or contract. I'll try to do better next time proof-reading my words on my iPhone that I'm typing from quickly. Sorry that I can't be as great as you are.
You actually made no typo in your original post. Fox News correspondent kent909 quoted your post then changed the word from beginning to begging.
The story is completely incorrectly reported (not AI's fault; Bloomberg's).
The amount of take-home that Ahrendts will actually make this year is $912,000. That's her $412K salary, plus a $500K signing bonus.
The entire rest of this alleged "income" is theoretical, based on the CURRENT value of stock options which are not yet cashable, are based on continued employment and performance, and may end up being worthless (not likely) or worth MORE (much more likely) by the time they vest. Assuming she hits the conditions and goals they are dependent on.
The stock options, incidentally, are compensation for the Burberry stock options she gave up by leaving there. So this is a net gain of (theoretically) zero.
It's always shocking to me that business reporters like Bloomberg get this so completely wrong. Yes, she'll make a lot of money IF all the conditions are met, as will Tim and the other execs. But it's ridiculous -- and flat-out false -- to claim that she made $83 million in a year, implying that she'll make that much again next year.
No, next year her income will "drop" to $412K (plus a likely performance bonus, but still under a million) and there will be some stock dumper pumping a story that she's about to be canned because Cook cut her "salary" ...
I do not subscribe to the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because of hard work and perseverance and the poor are poor because they are lazy. Certainly a lack of industriousness can impede success. It does not follow that all poverty is attributable to this. There are entrenched systems of power that reproduce preferred classes of people. The right to your own money translates into a right to pass it to your children who did not earn it and turns your values upside down by creating a layer of wealthy individuals who exhibit none of the qualities you list. And yet they retain the political power that wealth provides and use that power in ways that directly affect our lives.
So I make $10 Billion in my lifetime. I die. What do you propose happens to the money I earned? It doesn't even have to be $10B. Whatever the amount is, what should happen to all the money?
The story is completely incorrectly reported (not AI's fault; Bloomberg's).
The amount of take-home that Ahrendts will actually make this year is $912,000. That's her $412K salary, plus a $500K signing bonus.
The entire rest of this alleged "income" is theoretical, based on the CURRENT value of stock options which are not yet cashable, are based on continued employment and performance, and may end up being worthless (not likely) or worth MORE (much more likely) by the time they vest. Assuming she hits the conditions and goals they are dependent on.
The stock options, incidentally, are compensation for the Burberry stock options she gave up by leaving there. So this is a net gain of (theoretically) zero.
It's always shocking to me that business reporters like Bloomberg get this so completely wrong. Yes, she'll make a lot of money IF all the conditions are met, as will Tim and the other execs. But it's ridiculous -- and flat-out false -- to claim that she made $83 million in a year, implying that she'll make that much again next year.
No, next year her income will "drop" to $412K (plus a likely performance bonus, but still under a million) and there will be some stock dumper pumping a story that she's about to be canned because Cook cut her "salary" ...
Thanks Bloomberg! Contributing to poor reporting at every opportunity.
So I make $10 Billion in my lifetime. I die. What do you propose happens to the money I earned? It doesn't even have to be $10B. Whatever the amount is, what should happen to all the money?
You make the money, you keep the money in whatever form you like: Inheritance for family, a foundation, contributions to whatever charitable organization, etc.
It's really no ones business but the person who held the money.
You make the money, you keep the money in whatever form you like: Inheritance for family, a foundation, contributions to whatever charitable organization, etc.
It's really no ones business but the person who held the money.
I agree with you butjoogabah sounded like he was saying that it's bad that I pass the money down to my kids and makes it unfair for everyone else. So, I'd like to know what he want's me to do with the money.
The screen above the Genius Bar has been replaced with artwork. Now when I go the Apple Store I need to ask where I am in the queue. Used to be I could just look at the screen.
To anyone who disagrees with this kind of pay. Just remember, these executives are WAY WAY smarter than you. There is a reason they are where they are and a reason you are where you are. Good for people who make this much money. I'm sure she worked her ass off to get there.
America is not (supposed to be) a socialist nation.
Comments
the wage inequality is staggering. although i think they key is not to pay the executives less but to pay the workers more. apple can certainly afford it...only they prioritize their profits into cash holdings and returning capital to investors.
I agree about executives: I have no issue with how much Apple pays any executive. The right decision in such a large enterprise can be worth billions to them. I don't really see inequality as a worker-wage issue that can be solved by individual companies, though. It's a societal issue. Forgetting about Liberals and Conservatives, it's simply inefficient to have too large a fraction of people be poor. You end up wasting their abilities, and those of their kids (who worry more about eating and staying alive than studying), and you spend a lot on police and prisons. And of course, companies need customers who have money. A small number of rich people can't consume everything! Much better to just make sure everyone has a livable minimum, and a shot at doing better than that. It doesn't really cost that much. The US generally spends about 1% of GDP on helping the poor (not counting Medicaid), which is much less than most "advanced" nations.
nonsense -- she's not responsible for manufacturing inventory with her bare hands. there are none to deliver.
but you didnt.
False arguments of "wage inequality" are a canard pushed by Communists and union labor scum. Wages are a matter of private negotiations and contract agreement.
As a matter of fact, the Federal minimum wage is a restraint of trade and coercive imposition on free markets and should be made illegal.
There's a job to be done, and when the stakes are very high, as they are in this case, employers try to get the absolute best person they can, and in that context even huge amounts of money can seem relatively trivial. But it's also always a gamble.
Maybe Ahrendts is brilliant and will spearhead a huge growth phase in China. I hope so. My introduction to her was an interview in which she demonstrated a poor grasp of English grammar (despite the fact that it's her first language), which didn't inspire my confidence, but of course we all have different strengths and weaknesses.
I've personally met quite a few high-earners with a loose grasp of the English language and many more who are poor spellers.
No. I'm on my way to making great money and have the potential to make much more. More than I'll ever need or my kids will need. I don't want that taken away from me or anyone else for that matter. I came from nothing. I used to be homeless when I was young. I worked hard in every way possible and now I'm reaping the rewards of my determination, perseverance and hard work. Everyone should have that for them and they do. Some just choose a different path. Mind you, I'm going to give most of my money away to for things I care about but that's my choice not someone else's.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because of hard work and perseverance and the poor are poor because they are lazy. Certainly a lack of industriousness can impede success. It does not follow that all poverty is attributable to this. There are entrenched systems of power that reproduce preferred classes of people. The right to your own money translates into a right to pass it to your children who did not earn it and turns your values upside down by creating a layer of wealthy individuals who exhibit none of the qualities you list. And yet they retain the political power that wealth provides and use that power in ways that directly affect our lives.
I don't support punitive taxation or income redistribution or any of that populist nonsense, but I do support term limits for politicians across the board.
In France income inequality got really bad at one point. They evened it out with the guillotine.
You actually made no typo in your original post. Fox News correspondent kent909 quoted your post then changed the word from beginning to begging.
Which led to France becoming the grimy, corrupt latrine it is today.
I'd agree with both comments here.
The amount of take-home that Ahrendts will actually make this year is $912,000. That's her $412K salary, plus a $500K signing bonus.
The entire rest of this alleged "income" is theoretical, based on the CURRENT value of stock options which are not yet cashable, are based on continued employment and performance, and may end up being worthless (not likely) or worth MORE (much more likely) by the time they vest. Assuming she hits the conditions and goals they are dependent on.
The stock options, incidentally, are compensation for the Burberry stock options she gave up by leaving there. So this is a net gain of (theoretically) zero.
It's always shocking to me that business reporters like Bloomberg get this so completely wrong. Yes, she'll make a lot of money IF all the conditions are met, as will Tim and the other execs. But it's ridiculous -- and flat-out false -- to claim that she made $83 million in a year, implying that she'll make that much again next year.
No, next year her income will "drop" to $412K (plus a likely performance bonus, but still under a million) and there will be some stock dumper pumping a story that she's about to be canned because Cook cut her "salary" ...
I do not subscribe to the notion that the wealthy are wealthy because of hard work and perseverance and the poor are poor because they are lazy. Certainly a lack of industriousness can impede success. It does not follow that all poverty is attributable to this. There are entrenched systems of power that reproduce preferred classes of people. The right to your own money translates into a right to pass it to your children who did not earn it and turns your values upside down by creating a layer of wealthy individuals who exhibit none of the qualities you list. And yet they retain the political power that wealth provides and use that power in ways that directly affect our lives.
So I make $10 Billion in my lifetime. I die. What do you propose happens to the money I earned? It doesn't even have to be $10B. Whatever the amount is, what should happen to all the money?
Thanks Bloomberg! Contributing to poor reporting at every opportunity.
You make the money, you keep the money in whatever form you like: Inheritance for family, a foundation, contributions to whatever charitable organization, etc.
It's really no ones business but the person who held the money.
Contrary to common belief most executive jobs are doable for less than 83mil.
Supply and demand.
You make the money, you keep the money in whatever form you like: Inheritance for family, a foundation, contributions to whatever charitable organization, etc.
It's really no ones business but the person who held the money.
I agree with you but joogabah sounded like he was saying that it's bad that I pass the money down to my kids and makes it unfair for everyone else. So, I'd like to know what he want's me to do with the money.
Here is one change in the Apple Store I noticed:
The screen above the Genius Bar has been replaced with artwork. Now when I go the Apple Store I need to ask where I am in the queue. Used to be I could just look at the screen.
America is not (supposed to be) a socialist nation.