Definitely not. All that existed before and continues. It’s kind of what America is and the people designing that are dead, lol. For a change, you need a total revolution. And again, no. They don’t make decisions or have the directly responsibilities of CEOs.
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 Now the Eighth Highest-Paid Executive in the U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course. It all goes hand and hand. But he’s the top guy. Top guys get the big money bc they have most of the responsibility. His pay is also largely tied to stock performance, which has been incredible.
He should be the highest paid person in America bc AAPL is the largest and most profitable company. This isn’t an AAPL thing. All companies pay the CEO a lot bc they know it matters a lot.
Murder isn’t legal and obeying tax codes isn't illegal. Apple as a company pays more tax than any entity in America. They are the #1 taxpayer.
Doesn't matter anyway bc there is no evidence Cook doesn’t pay his taxes or that he uses tax havens. He deserves the pay he gets bc of the value created at AAPL.
The question is does he deserve the pay and the answer is a resounding yes, absolutely.
No
They try to brainwash people, doing a fair job so it seems otherwise those people/salaries would not be today's reality.
The same goes for others at Apple and beyond.
Joni Ive was Apple's top designer, anyone thinking he solely designed every bit of Apple's hardware is also fooling himself.
Anyone thinking Steve Jobs invented the iPhone ....you got my drift, he was a visionary though.
No, he doesn't, do you really think he's solely responsible for Apple's success, wake up, he's not.
They try to brainwash people, doing a fair job so it seems otherwise those people/salaries would not be today's reality.
The same goes for others at Apple and beyond.
Joni Ive was Apple's top designer, anyone thinking he solely designed every bit of Apple's hardware is also fooling himself.
Anyone thinking Steve Jobs invented the iPhone ....you got my drift, he was a visionary though.
I would love to see a smackdown between Tim, Elon and Jeff for charity. Call it Billionaire Death Match.
I’m the highest tax payer in my household. So if I only pay 10% of my tax bill and am still the highest tax payer in my household I guess that’s good enough.
Not sure you're right on the term insider trading
Insider Trading is using secret / business secrets to profit off public stock trading. EG< If Musk took his knowledge of something going on in the back rooms of Tesla and then went out and bought / sold stock based off that non-public information
Using twitter to control the narrative and manipulate the stock price isn't insider trading. it's market manipulation. Insider trading is strictly illegal (Martha Stewart went to jail for this). Market Manipulation is.... grey area.
Tim was responsible for hiring the right people to gather the right data?
Tim has earned it. I have serious problems with his leadership style and some of the hypocrisy he spews. But cannot deny as a bean counter, he's lead Apple to it's most financially succesful days. And when stock holders ultimately only care about that, then thats all that matters
(I still contend he makes a better CFO than CEO because he often cannot see beyond the numbers and there are a lot of consumer hostile decisions he's made or allowed that anyone who has a clue about tech would have stopped in their tracks). The fact Tim Cook does all his work on an iPad (he admitted it once) evidences he REALLY doesn't know what the bulk of users of Apple devices do.
But he sure as hell knows how to sell them, and keep the supply chains going with massive profit.
Also Note: The bulk of Tim Cook's pay isn't salary. While he might only be getting this pay in salary, he is set to receive hundreds of millions in Stock Options. Of that, the value of his wealth has certain requirements. So TIm is financially motivated mostly by stock price since the bulk of his wealth will be directly tied to it's value and hitting certain criteria.
(I still contend he makes a better CFO than CEO because he often cannot see beyond the numbers and there are a lot of consumer hostile decisions he's made or allowed that anyone who has a clue about tech would have stopped in their tracks). The fact Tim Cook does all his work on an iPad (he admitted it once) evidences he REALLY doesn't know what the bulk of users of Apple devices do.
But he sure as hell knows how to sell them, and keep the supply chains going with massive profit.
Also Note: The bulk of Tim Cook's pay isn't salary. While he might only be getting this pay in salary, he is set to receive hundreds of millions in Stock Options. Of that, the value of his wealth has certain requirements. So TIm is financially motivated mostly by stock price since the bulk of his wealth will be directly tied to it's value and hitting certain criteria.
So many comments about Tim's pay but I don't have a problem with him getting paid big dollars based on performance (which most is in stock options).
Why doesn't Apple (ie. Tim) look at the profit of $57.411 BILLION and see how that could be better used?
For example - from what I can find looks like Apple employs around 120,000 people in the US. I can't find good world wide numbers but for grins let's assume Apple globally employs 250,000. VPs to store clerks included.
Take that 57.411 billion and divide it by 2 = $28.71 billion (have to have some good profit to plow back into development and remember Apple has a huge "cash" pile in the billions as well anywhere from $20b to $190b all depending on how you label "cash").
Now divide the $28.71 billion in profit this last year alone by the 250,000 employees and you get $114,822 per employee. That is a HUGE bonus Apple could easily pay out, significantly impact every employee and the communities in which they live. Even if I am off by a factor of 2, you are looking at $54k one time bonus. Still significant.
This is where I have problems with high CEO/executive pay AND profits while employees make a lot less. Share in the PROFITS more significantly. Not only will this address the pay issue, it means more in taxes, more money circulating in local communities... so much more that could be done IF someone would step up and say this is the right thing to do for our company. Do this for your employees and the "non-compete" thing is not an issue. People won't leave. Good people will stay. Good people stay, more good work gets done, your produce more, become more efficient and innovate which all leads to share holders also getting gains.
PS. If my numbers are off, let me know. I did the math a few times to make sure but I normally don't work with billions of dollars lol 🤑
Why doesn't Apple (ie. Tim) look at the profit of $57.411 BILLION and see how that could be better used?
For example - from what I can find looks like Apple employs around 120,000 people in the US. I can't find good world wide numbers but for grins let's assume Apple globally employs 250,000. VPs to store clerks included.
Take that 57.411 billion and divide it by 2 = $28.71 billion (have to have some good profit to plow back into development and remember Apple has a huge "cash" pile in the billions as well anywhere from $20b to $190b all depending on how you label "cash").
Now divide the $28.71 billion in profit this last year alone by the 250,000 employees and you get $114,822 per employee. That is a HUGE bonus Apple could easily pay out, significantly impact every employee and the communities in which they live. Even if I am off by a factor of 2, you are looking at $54k one time bonus. Still significant.
This is where I have problems with high CEO/executive pay AND profits while employees make a lot less. Share in the PROFITS more significantly. Not only will this address the pay issue, it means more in taxes, more money circulating in local communities... so much more that could be done IF someone would step up and say this is the right thing to do for our company. Do this for your employees and the "non-compete" thing is not an issue. People won't leave. Good people will stay. Good people stay, more good work gets done, your produce more, become more efficient and innovate which all leads to share holders also getting gains.
PS. If my numbers are off, let me know. I did the math a few times to make sure but I normally don't work with billions of dollars lol 🤑
I'm a capitalist and realize that Cook is creating jobs and improving the sale of Apple products. And, I do not want to give his money away. But the prices of hardware are absurd and the so-called sales are pathetic. Hey, Tim, drop the prices and sell more volume!
It ought to be illegal to make more than $10M per year. Nobody needs that much money, and besides that, if there were limits put in place the cost of luxury goods such as mega yachts would probably come down quite a bit. And considering that most of these people only use their mega yachts a few times per year, they could pool together with other rich people to share one, which is less wasteful.
Having these obscene amounts of money gives the individual too much power over their peers, fueled largely by issues with various regulations, which should also be addressed with legislation, which by nature will never happen.
If you can't live on $100-300M in retirement then you're doing everything wrong. I used to disagree with this sentiment, was a free market capitalist when I was younger and more naive, but the world is completely out of control. Way too much influence from mega billionaires and it's getting exponentially worse now. But I wouldn't say that I'm completely against capitalism, I just want some reasonable limits in place. I think it would work much better on rails.
So many studies have shown that happiness doesn't increase beyond a certain point a bit past the median income—enough money to feel secure, be able to enjoy some hobbies, do some traveling, etc. I think nowadays that estimate is about $90-160K, depending where you live in the US, and things such as existing debt such as student loans. And I've found that to be true and have settled into a comfortable groove.
More money means more stress for most people, and the ones who aren't too stressed are typically the ones who want to crush everyone else to get to the top. The system basically rewards the biggest ass who is willing to compromise their morals. Not always true, but usually. That's unfortunate and I think putting limits in place, which adjust with inflation, is the best way to limit such behavior and influence.
Having these obscene amounts of money gives the individual too much power over their peers, fueled largely by issues with various regulations, which should also be addressed with legislation, which by nature will never happen.
If you can't live on $100-300M in retirement then you're doing everything wrong. I used to disagree with this sentiment, was a free market capitalist when I was younger and more naive, but the world is completely out of control. Way too much influence from mega billionaires and it's getting exponentially worse now. But I wouldn't say that I'm completely against capitalism, I just want some reasonable limits in place. I think it would work much better on rails.
So many studies have shown that happiness doesn't increase beyond a certain point a bit past the median income—enough money to feel secure, be able to enjoy some hobbies, do some traveling, etc. I think nowadays that estimate is about $90-160K, depending where you live in the US, and things such as existing debt such as student loans. And I've found that to be true and have settled into a comfortable groove.
More money means more stress for most people, and the ones who aren't too stressed are typically the ones who want to crush everyone else to get to the top. The system basically rewards the biggest ass who is willing to compromise their morals. Not always true, but usually. That's unfortunate and I think putting limits in place, which adjust with inflation, is the best way to limit such behavior and influence.
You're right.
Shame about the record quarters Apple continually keeps reporting to throw everyone off the scent, too.
The companies (and people who run them) who made the equipment, software, and services that billions used to continue staying productive, working, and earning during the pandemic all did well (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Zoom, etc.). As did the biggest store in the world that allowed the everyone to shop and buy absolutely anything completely safely from their homes and have it delivered quickly while physical stores were closed (Amazon). Some people changed jobs or started their "Side hustles" to go independent... so Shopify did well, as did Facebook because that's the best place for those small businesses to target advertising. It was a great time for tech companies because they allowed so many people to avoid financial disaster. I don't think it's unfair they made out well. I'm personally grateful these businesses exist... this whole thing has been hard enough without imagining life without them.
The thing with wealth today is that it won’t trickle down in reality. He won’t spend millions on burgers or on cheap cars. Rich people will spend on rich peoples toys like boats, sports cars, luxury watches and clothing, luxury homes, and so on. He earned it, sure. But does he need it all? He could donate half of it and still be the richest man in his neighborhood. Do sports players need hundreds of millions compensation? Had Musk really earned his 600 millions in one year??
One quibble: It's never "trickled down".
Getting people to buy into that whole-cloth fantasy is what causes them to defend a structure that benefits a few "representative examples" at the cost of their own day-to-day existence.
The biggest trick the Lords ever pulled was convincing their serfs to do the lobbying for them.
He adapted the company strategy of building computers, iPads, and iPhones? I feel like I would have been happy to make and capable of making that choice. I would have gladly done it for half of what Cook made? Of course, that's been the company strategy for the last 14 years, but sure.
So you don't think a president does anything to maintain the stability of our government? You think the only thing they do is tax people? Which, by the way is not the role of the executive branch, but rather the legislative branch, but let's put that aside. Taxes aren't a penalty, they are a cost of doing business. Companies choose to be in the US and (in theory) pay taxes because we are a stable market protected by a government that maintains that stability.
But that's the problem. It doesn't get recycled. Recycling would suggest that it's put back into the system to be re-used, but that's not what happens. Cook gets to pass it to someone else, whomever he wants. He can avoid paying taxes on that during his lifetime and the person who inherits it can also avoid paying taxes on it if Cook has structured things right.
Not really. Most of those decisions are made by the Board. The CEO is responsible for the implementation of the strategy. He's a great CEO. I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are arguing is whether he should be making over $1M/day.