Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You know, people have been saying things like "the youth have been getting worse.." ... "the thing that's ruining society today is...." since the time of Plato. Seriously, we have quotes of people (Plato included) saying the same thing.

It rings a bit hollow thousands of years later. Our country is in the toilet.. but it isn't because of people like me.


I'll simplify it for you by taking out extraneous words to make the problems more obvious.

It should be "they". I'm not quite sure how you don't see that. There's another error but that would be nitpicking.


Oh my GOD you are SOOO Superior!!!! Apple executives should immediately cut you a multimillion dollar check for your superiority!!

Frankly Sir, I'm done with you. You have little of no interest in the subject at hand and are simply using this forum to push your far out left wing agenda.

No one owes you anything you jealous little man. If you want what Apple's CEO and BOD awarded these men, quit complaining and whining and get off of your lazy butt and achieve something...

Over and Out
 
While I expected this thread to be rife with the musings of apologists for the elite, I must admit I was a bit surprised by their vociferous defense of the very people who exploit them! ;P

It reminded me of a quote from Star Wars:

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Ah yes, the exploitation! The Apple execs are exploiting you, even to the point of having you post on a forum devoted to Apple! That is impressive.
 
It should be "they". I'm not quite sure how you don't see that. There's another error but that would be nitpicking.

You're 100% correct. I totally skimmed over that, as well as the extra "is" at the end of the sentence -- is that what you meant by the nitpicking? I'd say that's pretty major. It's amazing how your eyes can trick your brain into "seeing" what you think should be there.

So, tail between legs on this point :)
 
Last edited:
No. I freely admitted that I am financially comfortable. Can you not conceive that someone might speak out on behalf of all human beings and not just be concerned with himself?

By all means, you should speak out all you want. But compared to the poor people of the world, YOU are the rich Apple executive. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is instead of complaining about other people not giving enough?
 
The Scandinavian model works well in such countries because they are very homogeneous societies compared to others. As a result, the wealth is shared amongst people of the same ilk. One doesn't have to worry about the money mainly being given to a single ethnic/racial/whatever group. The money is going to a group that every citizen could easily slip into.

Second, I'm sure a lot has to do with governmental efficiency. Maybe it is different in Norway or Sweden, but I just can't trust the U.S. government to spend/distribute my tax money in an efficiently, useful, & manner. I speak for myself, but it may apply to many others, but "wealthy people" (I use this term loosely) do not disagree with donating money to charity (I do so regularly & proudly), they just don't want to place their money into a high inefficient and nebulous system. I would be thrilled if instead of paying taxes, we could donate the same amount of money to an honest cause.

First, reducing it to homogeneous populations and such is oversimplifying things. After all, others with equally homogenous populations have tried and failed. Personally, i'd like to ascribe more of it to a strong workers movement, in turn fueling an unprecedented left-wing (social democrat) dominance of the politics.

In a way i think that is were america got lost. Rather than actively pursuing a collectivist mindset, individualism became everything. Each man for his own. Thus, rather than a state working towards supporting collectivist movements, you ended up with one trying to fight the bad sides of individualism.

Unfortunately though, Scandinavia is becoming more individualist as we speak.
 
The important takeaway here is that these are not stock options, which are basically play compensation that causes a lot of opportunity for malfeasance, they are Restricted Stock Units and they carry with them some risk if the managers of the company don't actually look out for the long term prospects of Apple, which in turn employs 24,000 people and generates a lot of tax revenues that pay for a lot of social infrastructure in America.

I would rather they receive this type of incentive than be paid huge salaries and receive bonuses regardless of the quality of their performance. Now, imagine if we paid assembly line workers like that. Well, for one thing unions would never allow it... because some workers would be compensated very poorly and others very well. That's not how manufacturing works, though. If you make a widget that isn't up to spec, it doesn't get used... but you're being paid to perform a relatively repetitive task for so many hours in the day. You get paid more if you work more, but other than getting paid overtime, how can you measure the strategic impact of a single worker whose actions do not significantly affect the lives of 24,000 other employees and millions of customers?

Does the average worker spend 100 hours of their week, evenings, nights, weekends, on calls with various levels of management? I can see why people think that senior executives just sit around and bs or play golf.... but I've never worked for such a company, and if you do, you won't for long. The companies that stick around and remain healthy and capable of continuing to keep you and me employed are the ones where the senior executives are busting their butts seven days a week.

But setting aside the handful of cartoonish buffoons like Angelo Mozilo and Richard S. Fuld, both of whom, it should be noted, ran their respective companies into the toilet and engaged in horrendously risky behavior... and are now the laughing stock of corporate America... I know it doesn't sound "fair" that some people are compensated vastly more than others, but some people work vastly more and affect vastly more and own a much larger piece of risk than the average worker.

Even in my job, there are decisions and recommendations I make that can affect entire programs, and scores of employees, and I don't know a lot of people who want that responsibility on their head... you can't put a gun to everyone's head and MAKE them want that. I'm not even an executive, and I don't get paid huge sums of money. I get RSU's here and there, but I'm also not nearly as involved or as busy or as devoid of a life as the people I report up to.... I'm ok with that.

that is true...but for the apparent very good job they have been doing the past X years...they want to keep them there. i dont see anything wrong with it but apparently other people do
 
No, obviously Apple's profits shouldn't be given away. But they should be rerouted in other ways rather than given to top execs.

I'm left wing... last time I checked, I was as sane as anyone, though.

And bpaluzzi.. your inability to spot grammatical and semantic errors is in no way the same thing as their nonexistence.

----------



Explain it to me then. Slowly, like I'm five. Explain to me exactly how it works, preferably with evidence to back up your claims.

Of course, you won't, because you actually have no idea... only your own suppositions of how the world works.. or ought to work, according to your beliefs.

Why don't you just go watch your msnbc and worship rachel madcow
 
Ah yes, the exploitation! The Apple execs are exploiting you, even to the point of having you post on a forum devoted to Apple! That is impressive.

If you are making $50K or $100K and the CEO makes $11M (the average for Fortune 500 CEOs for 2010), then, yes, you are being exploited.

Don't know what this has to do with Apple exploiting me :confused: - I never said that.
 
If you are making $50K or $100K and the CEO makes $11M (the average for Fortune 500 CEOs for 2010), then, yes, you are being exploited.

Don't know what this has to do with Apple exploiting me :confused: - I never said that.

Seriously, someone paying you $100K is exploiting you if someone else makes a lot more?

I've never seen the Marxist argument taken to such absurdity.
 
Seriously, someone paying you $100K is exploiting you if someone else makes a lot more?

I've never seen the Marxist argument taken to such absurdity.

Remember you are talking to a left wing whack job
 
Actually, if it was up to the consumers - you know, those making these profits happen in first place - i think they'd rather see their money go towards decent pay and working conditions for the chinese labour, than towards fattening of already fat cats. But hey, thats just what i think.

But, it is the consumer that decides how Apple treats their sweat shop workers. The term "sweat shop" is firmly lodged in popular vernacular. In fact, if you do not understand that goods made in China are produced by under-aged, under-paid workers, then your opinion is an insult to common human knowledge and you're best keeping it to yourself.

Now, given that premise, when you buy an Apple iPod, you are giving your vote to Apple's upper level managements' employment philosophy. You are saying "I understand this product is made by maltreated human beings, with feelings and families, but I chose to ignore this. It's not that I don't care about these workers, but my desire to have an iPhone is more important than these workers".

People are voting for Apple's practices with their wallet. Don't fool yourself; no one is forcing you to buy an Apple product. So, people with all these shiny gadgets in their sig, you are the ones responsible for Apple's practices. If you are bothered by it (I am not, btw), then quit being a hypocrite and stop buying Apple products.
 
Seriously, someone paying you $100K is exploiting you if someone else makes a lot more?

I've never seen the Marxist argument taken to such absurdity.

I see. Because $100K is a LOT of money. Someone should be happy with it, right? But you argue that ten times that much is NOT enough for a high-level executive. One hundred times that much is still not enough. For Apple, at least, the number seems to be SIX HUNDRED TIMES that worker's salary.

Now THAT's absurd.
 

Those were rewards for innovative performance. I have no problem with that. In fact, they should have received larger amounts IMO.

The current situation is to retain in an attempt to maintain margins. Steve would have let them go and found new talent if they required 40 million just to stay put.

2012 will be the last year of product introductions with Steve's direct input. 2014 will be the big test year for Apple. I think they can do it. But it will never be the same.

I have a number to dump my APPL shares, and I am a continent away from there. :apple:
 
I see. Because $100K is a LOT of money. Someone should be happy with it, right? But you argue that ten times that much is NOT enough for a high-level executive. One hundred times that much is still not enough. For Apple, at least, the number seems to be SIX HUNDRED TIMES that worker's salary.

Now THAT's absurd.

Actually, I'm not arguing that.

I'll spell out it for you: Apple makes cool products that people like. People like you voluntarily give them a lot of money. They pay their people what they choose to attract and keep talent. These are all voluntary transactions as a result of creating value. Why would your or my opinion of whether it's enough have any relevance whatsoever?

You probably make 100 times more than someone else in the world who works harder than you. You can start the redistribution immediately, you don't even have to wait for Congress.

And do you really want to stand by your $100K example of exploitation? It's OK, you can realize how silly that sounds and change your mind.
 
Those were rewards for innovative performance. I have no problem with that. In fact, they should have received larger amounts IMO.

The current situation is to retain in an attempt to maintain margins. Steve would have let them go and found new talent if they required 40 million just to stay put.

2012 will be the last year of product introductions with Steve's direct input. 2014 will be the big test year for Apple. I think they can do it. But it will never be the same.

I have a number to dump my APPL shares, and I am a continent away from there. :apple:

No, those are all of the sec filings. There have been stock grants forever. Steve would not have let them go, their talent and Apple knowledge could not be replaced very easily, therefore the stock grants help keep them in place. 2012 will be the last year for Steve's products, highly doubtful. Why would you sell your stock? It is one of the best performing stocks of the last 10 years. I have some to, bought in 2002 and 2003. The stock will hit $500 by next summer.

:apple:
 
A lot of people, including me, tend to look down on jealous people who are preoccupied at what other people have, instead of working towards personal success.

The problem is, even more so in America. for the most part it's all about Money. Nothing about class, or taste or anything else, it all revolves around money.

You can the worst individual scum your can imagine, but if you have the cash, then that's all that matters to many and that's so sad.

All the money in the world can not buy one ounce of class, and you can be the classiest person on the planet and not have a dime.
 
Steve didn't have a salary. Do they?
The company awarded Steve 5,426,447 restricted shares in March 2006. They're worth about $2.2 billion at current stock prices. He was paid handsomely.

A $1 annual salary is meaningless when your company pays you in other more tax efficient ways.
 
Last edited:
People seem to forget that these grants are par for the course for the execs every other year. They've earned their keep.
 
The 30-something genius who runs Groupon (can't remember his name off hand) just got his stock to be worth $1B or so. For hawking discount coupons.

And the VC who invested got $2.4B for a good guess and some board meetings (and I'm sure for his contacts and sage advice).

Seems like $40-60MM is a relative pittance these days.
 
Actually, I'm not arguing that.

I'll spell out it for you: Apple makes cool products that people like. People like you voluntarily give them a lot of money. They pay their people what they choose to attract and keep talent. These are all voluntary transactions as a result of creating value. Why would your or my opinion of whether it's enough have any relevance whatsoever?

Because it is ostensibly OUR system (e.g. - government) that allows the corporations to operate. Corporations are not autonomous entities that fully compensate society for the benefits they receive. When they pollute the air or water it is not "their" air and water, it is ALL OF OURS. When they take natural resources (oil, lumber, etc) from the earth while leaving devastation in their wake, they are taking from an environment that belongs to all of us. When they use our infrastructure (roads, air traffic control system, etc) to deliver their goods, they make use of our common man-made resources. What they do with their profits, or how much they profit, is very relevant.

If it has no "relevance whatsoever", then you should be okay with standard wages for workers being cut in half, and corporate exec pay being doubled. If that becomes the new "market reality", then you will just have to accept the new pay rate, because "that's what the market will bear." Actually, I suspect you would still be defending them while you stand in line for food stamps.
And do you really want to stand by your $100K example of exploitation? It's OK, you can realize how silly that sounds and change your mind.

Actually, no. You could easily up it to another number, like $200K. Don't think that this is about someone making a couple hundred grand, driving a couple of Bimmers, and living in a nice suburban house. This debate is about the really rich. The ones who control the world.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.