101–110 of 360 posts
So according to this 2018 article by The Verge [1], Foxconn workers producing iGadgets in China earn on average $390.16 per month. Times that by twelve and we find that workers earn $4,681.92 per year on average. If we divide Tim's $750,000,000 bonus/payout this year by that $4,681.92 yearly Foxconn salary, we get 160,190 My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by their scarcity By their perceived scarcity Chances are that anyone other than Tim could have done just as well. Still, this is over 10 years, and Apple shares have increased in value by 1900%. If they were still the same value he’d have gotten 40M, for about 4M per year. Which is much more reasonable. I still think it’s high, but in line with what others get.
So the fact that Apple's share price has increased 1,200% since he took over is just a coincidence?
I just simply cannot agree with anyone who believes that 10 years of work is worth $750 million. Even if the thinking is that doing the correct decitions is worth much more to the company, I will still just simply refuse to accept that this level of compensation is right on the larger context of human society.
At the very upper margins of highly effective systems, there are some incredibly amazing people: talented, intelligent, workaholic, literally decades of accumulated experience across sectors, relationships, and enough status to be able to lead such an organization.
Cook is up at 5 doing emails, and has been probably for the last 40 years.
Some of these guys are basically 'High Tech Monks' - they have not much concept of an identity outside the bubble of their careers - that's how much they've dedicated.
Assuming that Apple 'creates value for the world' - and on the whole this is probably true, the CEO of a company is going to have considerable influence, and just a few points one way or the other and it becomes clear.
While there are a large number of people in the world who could eventually be moulded into a guy like Cook ... there are very, very few people with 'all the right stuff' so that they could feasibly do his job really well.
That said, Apple's revenue comes from immense market power, there are other entities who do incredible work on that level but work in systems without the power to extract wealth and so are paid less.
One interesting example would be the White House and their staff. By any regular market standards they are vastly underpaid for the level of work they do, but because it's civic work, then their comp structure is designed from a different philosophy.
On the whole I think he's probably overcomped, but the average CEO in America actually doesn't make that much given the dedication and risk. The pay seems high because it's tilted towards the huge paying people at the helm of bigger companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of Foxconn’s total workforce? [2] /s Nobody has been making these productivity claims to begin with, but leftists commonly use productivity vs salary to ridicule CEO compensation. CEOs are paid for numerous reasons, for example board wants to trust the person with billions worth of assets which makes it sensible to pay cer…
You are justifying someone being paid $750m. No one needs that much money. No one. Why are you defending this? It's obscene. Really reminds me of this https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/147/150/e2c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the last 5 years Tim Cook has created $1900 b in shareholder value. That's just obviously not the case unless Tim is the only person working at Apple. All employees contributed that and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss how these rewards should be distributed, even if they should be distributed to shareholders at all.
No matter how you look at it, a CEO that earns less than 0.1% of the shareholder value created under his watch can’t reasonably be called overpaid.
The argument isn't that he should be paid less, the real argument is that the general day to day employees should be paid more. The money doesn't come out of the CEOs pocket in a publicly traded org.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When will we learn to stop making these silly calculations about "productivity" and understand that people are paid not by the value of their work, but by their scarcity? Any factory in China can replace most of their 160k employees overnight if they wanted to. How many Tim Cook's do you have lying around?
> by their scarcity By their perceived scarcity Chances are that anyone other than Tim could have done just as well. Still, this is over 10 years, and Apple shares have increased in value by 1900%. If they were still the same value he’d have gotten 40M, for about 4M per year. Which is much more reasonable. I still think it’s high, but in line with what others get.
So according to this 2018 article by The Verge [1], Foxconn workers producing iGadgets in China earn on average $390.16 per month. Times that by twelve and we find that workers earn $4,681.92 per year on average. If we divide Tim's $750,000,000 bonus/payout this year by that $4,681.92 yearly Foxconn salary, we get 160,190 My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of…
When will we learn to stop making these silly calculations about "productivity" and understand that people are paid not by the value of their work, but by their scarcity? Any factory in China can replace most of their 160k employees overnight if they wanted to. How many Tim Cook's do you have lying around?
Probably thousands? Just put a job ad for "Apple CEO" out there, set pay at a generous 10 million/year and I'm pretty sure you won't have issues finding qualified candidates.
I really don't think Apple's valuation would change much if Tim Cook is replaced, so I don't see what justifies such a large bonus.
From the article : "In 2015, Mr Cook said he would give away his entire fortune before he dies, and is known to have donated tens of millions of dollars to charity". Success during one's life , paying it back to make the society a better place once gone. Take a bow, Mr Cook. What more can one ask for in a lifetime :)
Rich people spend money on charities they like. They change society the way they want it to change that does not necessarily make society a better place nor is it necessarily what most people want. If he had to pay all of this on taxes, society could decide how to use that money and it would be just as much, if not more "a better place".
So according to this 2018 article by The Verge [1], Foxconn workers producing iGadgets in China earn on average $390.16 per month. Times that by twelve and we find that workers earn $4,681.92 per year on average. If we divide Tim's $750,000,000 bonus/payout this year by that $4,681.92 yearly Foxconn salary, we get 160,190 My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of…
When will we learn to stop making these silly calculations about "productivity" and understand that people are paid not by the value of their work, but by their scarcity? Any factory in China can replace most of their 160k employees overnight if they wanted to. How many Tim Cook's do you have lying around?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by their scarcity By their perceived scarcity Chances are that anyone other than Tim could have done just as well. Still, this is over 10 years, and Apple shares have increased in value by 1900%. If they were still the same value he’d have gotten 40M, for about 4M per year. Which is much more reasonable. I still think it’s high, but in line with what others get.
Because it should be about productivity. People are highlighting a moral failing of society.