I didn't say they should be making the same, the spread is just too wide right now, much higher than in other developed countries
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 CEO Tim Cook Earned $98.7M in Stock and Salary in 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As with people, not every country develops the same way. It is what it is. After all, this still is the Land of Opportunity whether people like it or not.
Point is, Mr. Reich has never produced anything of value IMO. Nothing to do with money. Key point of my post was "guide it as successful as Elon has". That statement is all about worth and not money.
I haven't gone through all the comments in here, but from what I've read of Tim Cook, he says that he wants to give most of his wealth away.
Whether or not he is worth $100 million or not, the fact that he wants to give it away to charity instead of spending it all on him makes me say, "Give it to him." I would rather give $100 million to someone like Cook giving 90% away to charity than give someone else $1 million and throw it all away on whatever they do.
The real value, to me, is what he does with the money, not what intrinsic dollar amount a $3 trillion company thinks he is worth. And in my eyes, Cook seems worth it.
Whether or not he is worth $100 million or not, the fact that he wants to give it away to charity instead of spending it all on him makes me say, "Give it to him." I would rather give $100 million to someone like Cook giving 90% away to charity than give someone else $1 million and throw it all away on whatever they do.
The real value, to me, is what he does with the money, not what intrinsic dollar amount a $3 trillion company thinks he is worth. And in my eyes, Cook seems worth it.
I actually think some of these CEOs/big business executives can actually do more with the money too when they donate it. I know Bill Gates isn't the most popular rich lister at the moment but it's hard to argue on the effectiveness of his take on philanthropy which extends beyond just donating dollars to a cause and can produce some tangible and meaningful outcomes.
It would also be nice if everyone acknowledged that it isn't just CEOs; it's all executive pay. They're just the worst offenders.
We should return to the 'maximum ratio' that Japan used to have (and that a few US corps had like Ben & Jerry's) where the CEO (and other execs) couldn't be paid more than 20 times what the lowest-paid worker made.
The problem here is that giving credit this way to the CEO (who may have done nothing but maintained the status quo) is equivalent to crediting the President who maintains the status quo and the economy or stock market runs up. In both cases they may have had little to do with it.
Sometimes it takes real skill to make it look like you’ve done nothing at all to effect change. Regardless though, and I do take your point, the market and shareholders ultimately will decide… and assuming Tim keeps the institutional shareholders happy with the growth and prospects, they probably won’t be pushing for his retirement.
Maybe we should pay everybody $0 and let compensation be based strictly off performance, aka bonuses.
It still takes a lot of skill to maintain the status quo, keep customers happy, get new products out in trying times and increase the valuation of your company substantially. That's why Tim CEO gets paid the big bucks.
He better sell a chunk of stock anyway. In the bear market the Dow will correct to around 30,000 and if there is armed conflict between nations then around 24,000-25,000.
You have to feel sorry for anyone who's delusional enough to think they "earned" this kind of salary - as well as the idiots who feel the need to defend it. The sad reality is that he's just lucky that he was in the right place at the right time, had a privileged background, etc. You have to be a morally bankrupt person to even think this is okay.
In your perfect world, what is the upper limit that people should be allowed to earn? And are you signing up to be the compensation police?
I guess my point is - so?
He didn’t kill, he didn’t rob, from what I hear, he has been running a tight ship at Apple for 10 years, and his salary is a reflection of the value he has helped created for Apple.
It’s an honest living as any and I really don’t see the need to begrudge him this. People make it sound like you could have placed any Tom, Dick or Harry at the helm and Apple would have continued to prosper nonetheless, when in reality, I feel that Apple has exhibited a lot of restraint in not blindly copying what the rest of the industry has been doing (can you believe some people here still advocate for Apple acquiring Netflix?).
And I say this as a teacher who grew up in a fairly poor family, who is earning enough to make ends meet, and who loves his Apple products enough and use them extensively for both work and leisure to be able to appreciate the progress that Apple has made under Tim Cook’s tenure.
If this is the salary it takes to attract the calibre of talent needed to keep Apple running at peak form, then keep at it. I am seriously not bitter that he is earning like thousands of times the money that I do.
What I can say is - good for him.
I guess it would be easy to regulate max compensation, but also easy to circumvent. So, ideally, I'd like people to stop being greedy and set an example themselves. It is possible to be a CEO and a decent human being.
Hi. Don't get me wrong, Tim Cook is a talented person. My point is there are hundreds of thousands of equally talented people out there. The delusional part (for Tim himself apparently) is thinking he's special and no one else could have achieved more. I'm not jealous of Tim, but I don't think he's a good guy - purely based on his actions, obviously I don't know him. I also grew up in a poor household and it gives you a perspective of how much money/stuff you really need.
Tim seems like a decent human being and nor, imo, is he greedy. He is accepting compensation from Apple for a job that he did -- that was well done.
One way to look at it is that this type of sentiment really doesn't matter. Tim Cook got a paycheck from based on this performance. People who believe it is excessive have tools (shareholder votes) to do something about it.
And the idiots that criticize it?
Yes, part of life is luck, but Tim is also an Apple lifer who puts in the time and did amazing things under Jobs making things happen. So bully for Tim if he was in the right place at the right time.
I don't begrudge anybody who has had more than me at the start of life.
The same sentiment can be applied to those who don't think it was okay. Tim Cook should be an inspiration to show that hard, smart work is a pathway to success.
Obviously, you're not an idiot. But if you think he's 200x smarter than everyone else, or worked 100x harder, then keep the blinkers on and put it all down to a fair play.
I never mentioned how smart Tim is. I did say “smart, hard work.” Tim got $99m authorized because because of the revenue and the other subjective and objective measurements of apples brand. The board thinks he’s worth it.
Everything is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. That goes for real estate, cars, boat, airplanes, job classifications, movie stars, art work, buildings, and all other needs for human talent from part-time janitors to CEO’s. If you are trying to sell a car for, say, $10,000 and no one is willing to pay that for it, that means it is worth more to you than anyone else. Someone, in Tim’s case the Apple Board of Directors, is clearly willing to pay him this amount for both what they believe his services are worth as well as reward for his accomplishments meeting goals. The value other entities like you and me place on Tim and his compensation are noted, but irrelevant.
It's a valid observation. Prices are pieces of information that present a range of interdependent factors in a simple way. If you think $900 is a little expensive for an iPhone compared with similar alternatives but you value it's features and the company behind it, it makes sense for you to buy it. Would you pay $900,000 for it, though? Maybe sometimes the market is wrong.
Japan used to have a thing called a 'maximum ratio' (a few US companies like Ben & Jerry's had it, too). It was a rule that said no executives could have a salary higher than 20 times what the lowest-paid worker made.
I see nothing wrong with some form of that, adapted for today.
Sure…. I would think rules like those won’t easily be adopted, but if some form of compensation limiting is put in place it should be equitable rules across the board.