Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Awards Executives 1,000,000 Shares of Stock to Stay Until 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right - because if Apple (and Jobs who was KNOWN for being a control freak) dictated that hourly wages needed to be higher in order to do business, FoxCon would resist.
Both parties (and us, as consumers) are to blame for such things in the big picture.
My apologies if this point has already been brought up and discussed, it's difficult to wade through several hundred posts... 
There are two aspects to giving somebody stock in a company as compensation. First, the better the stock price, the more money they get. Supposedly, this encourages them to help the company be successful. But then again, the goals of "successful company" and "high stock price" aren't necessarily the same. I think stock price as an incentive is generally a negative thing for a company. Second, regardless of the actual share price, this is still just about money. Apple (i.e., Tim I assume) is creating a group of high-level people that just might stick around only for the money. Not for the love of Apple products, not for the dedication to Steve's and Jonathan's product philosophies, not for concern about Apple employees... If these executives want to leave but are sticking around just for the money, they should leave. Not be retained by "golden handcuffs."
This is, I think, the first step down a dark path. I'm not saying it's immoral or in any way wrong, but I do think it could lead to the end of Apple as a designer of great products. As a consumer of such, I think that would be unfortunate.
There are two aspects to giving somebody stock in a company as compensation. First, the better the stock price, the more money they get. Supposedly, this encourages them to help the company be successful. But then again, the goals of "successful company" and "high stock price" aren't necessarily the same. I think stock price as an incentive is generally a negative thing for a company. Second, regardless of the actual share price, this is still just about money. Apple (i.e., Tim I assume) is creating a group of high-level people that just might stick around only for the money. Not for the love of Apple products, not for the dedication to Steve's and Jonathan's product philosophies, not for concern about Apple employees... If these executives want to leave but are sticking around just for the money, they should leave. Not be retained by "golden handcuffs."
This is, I think, the first step down a dark path. I'm not saying it's immoral or in any way wrong, but I do think it could lead to the end of Apple as a designer of great products. As a consumer of such, I think that would be unfortunate.
You think that? You seriously think that is the most likely consequence of aapl rewarding key execs with restricted stock retention incentives?
I don't work for Apple but I agree. At what percentage over the average wage do we say it is too much? 30% - 50% - 100% - 1000%. These CEO's already get paid huge salaries. This is just further evidence of the systemic problem in this country were rank and file are not even paid a living wage and the top get these extreme bonuses. This is not good for society. Wake up America.
I didn't mean to say apple is doing some so terrible because it is conceivable that because executive compensation is so outsized in the U.S., then other companies might actually try to poach these folks. However, I really find it hard to believe that their general counsel (who got $60 million in stock) could possibly get a similarly lucrative offer from another company, but maybe. But I flatly reject that this general counsel is really worth that kind of money even if boards are willing to give away that money. You can hire an entire team of lawyers from the best lawfirms in the world for that kind of money and that is paying full freight. There is no way one guy (incidentally, looking at his bio, from somewhat humble academic background) could out produce three or four of the top lawyers from top law firms. And for a cushy in-house gig, you would have the pick of litter if you offered a simple $1 million a year salary.
Dude...these are just RSUs...its not cash. If they dont perform well, the value of the restricted stock could plummit, thereby rendering this award practically $0.
All it is is an incentice to stay with Apple..and to perform well. Thats it.
Now if they actually got Cash bonuses of the 500 mill, etc., then that would be a different story.
Already mentioned in this thread, the indexes of social mobility and income mobility disprove your point. Social mobility is much higher in nordic european countries (and in europe in general) than in america.
For obvious reasons, Apple could make a whole set of demands regarding wages, work conditions and benefits. That they choose not to, is not evidence of the contrary.
Do you guys remember 1984? They built Macintosh's in an Apple Factory in California...
Good ol days.....does anyone still have such a machine?
We threw a way a bunch of 80's macs the other week. Still have a few sitting in the storage room, fully operating i might add.
I can have a look see tomorrow, but i'd guess so. One of them is a Macintosh plus, running System 6.
This:
The only two reasons, and I mean only, that executives at firms like Apple make the outrageous sums that they do is because corporations (and a complicit US government) have made it incredibly easy for firms to hold down worker wages (we're looking at nearly 3 decades of stagnant real wages in this country) and outsource value added labor.
The only reason that there are such incredible cash reserves sitting on Apple's balance sheet is that it doesn't have to pay a living wage to the people who manufacture its products.
This is why our current form of capitalism is screwed. It takes a livable wage from perhaps 10,000 Americans who could build iphones, macs, etc and simply transfers the value of those salaries to the top of the organization. This is not the way capitalism was supposed to function nor should we make excuses for it just because we happen to be devotees of a firm's products.
Remember, a 40 million dollar salary or bonus could employ 1,000 US workers at the median income level. What's better for America? One individual with an extra 40 million to stash in the bank or 1000 American families who will spend every cent of that money on goods and services throughout the economy.
You guys need to get real.
The only two reasons, and I mean only, that executives at firms like Apple make the outrageous sums that they do is because corporations (and a complicit US government) have made it incredibly easy for firms to hold down worker wages (we're looking at nearly 3 decades of stagnant real wages in this country) and outsource value added labor.
The only reason that there are such incredible cash reserves sitting on Apple's balance sheet is that it doesn't have to pay a living wage to the people who manufacture its products.
This is why our current form of capitalism is screwed. It takes a livable wage from perhaps 10,000 Americans who could build iphones, macs, etc and simply transfers the value of those salaries to the top of the organization. This is not the way capitalism was supposed to function nor should we make excuses for it just because we happen to be devotees of a firm's products.
Remember, a 40 million dollar salary or bonus could employ 1,000 US workers at the median income level. What's better for America? One individual with an extra 40 million to stash in the bank or 1000 American families who will spend every cent of that money on goods and services throughout the economy.
You guys need to get real.
On the contrary, i'd say that this is exactly how capitalism is supposed to function - and why it needs to be balanced by "something else", to get the maximum out of the system. Not like we can blame it on the "founding fathers" either. They could've never envisioned the reality in which we live today, and if they did im quite sure their thoughts wouldve been quite different.
You think that? You seriously think that is the most likely consequence of aapl rewarding key execs with restricted stock retention incentives?
I think it could lead to many different possible outcomes, from absolutely nothing to world domination. And nowhere did I comment on the likeliness of any one particular outcome.
But to clarify my point, I DO think that a corporate culture that requires a million shares of stock to retain executives has the potential to turn into an unhealthy one. In my experience, people do their best work when they love their work, not when they're simply being rewarded for it, regardless of how rich that reward is. So what will happen? Beats me, I'm not privy to the Apple boardroom, nor do I know anything about the executive culture there. I'm just worried about the issue I've raised above. YMMV. <shrug>The CEO's get paid big salaries because they are more important. Anyone who works low level at a company and thinks they could just fill in for the CEO seamlessly is delusional. The vision these people have for Mac hardware/software is one of a kind and Apple *will* reward them with *stock* if they stick around. This is not a payout of any sort.
Anyone who has a problem with this is just jealous. Get over it, you're not as valuable to *insert your company here* as these guys are to Apple. Hate to break it to you, but you're flat out replaceable. People in this country need to understand that everyone isn't entitled to anything they *think* they deserve and life isn't fair. Boo frickin hoo, no one feels sorry for you.
So,
Jobs leaves 4 years worth of product designs, taking them to 2016.
Cook offers Exec stock pkgs keep them on board til 2016.
2017: The year Apple finishes their rocketship and leaves earth.
Jobs leaves 4 years worth of product designs, taking them to 2016.
Cook offers Exec stock pkgs keep them on board til 2016.
2017: The year Apple finishes their rocketship and leaves earth.
But after a year and a half, Ive and Forstall will realize that technology has taken a different path from what the late turtlenecked overlord planned, and junk the designs.
At least if you own Apple stock, you should hope that the mythical "4 year roadmap" is open to debate.
The rocketship will not be built - it's a stupid waste of resources catering to the ego of someone who will no longer be able to defend it.
I hope that The Cook is one of the first to step up to say that "we're reevaluating that design". It has never made any sense whatsoever.
Your utter lack of intelligence and complete lack of reasoning skills are more amusing. Or really, troubling.
Just because they weren't brought up doesn't mean it's not equally egregious; no one brought up the quintillionaires on the planet Zurah 45 million lightyears from here either, or how they lord it over the seventy-four billion other inhabitants of their planet, but it doesn't mean we'd find it any less distasteful if it was brought up. (Or in this case, real.)
By the way, the people you listed are point-one percenters, not one-percenters. The top 1% makes a minimum of $500,000 a year. Very few people-- myself included-- have much of a problem with that.
Please take a course in logic.. and perhaps invest in a more powerful cerebrum.
I like how people like you who haven't been fans of Apple since after they switched to Intel meaning you could use your precious Windows think that Apple's always been a major player.
Apple was a tiny company until about 2006. It's only been half a decade that they've been anything. Stop acting like they've been making moves since their inception.
Our esteemed Commander-in-Chief evidently has a big problem with that. The endless droning on about millionaires and billionaires (where millionaire status, in terms of the tax discussion, in conferred upon anyone making $200,000+) serves no purpose other than to stir up the jealousy and hatred among those less fortunate.
Certainly class warfare at its finest.