Apple CEO Tim Cook Now the Eighth Highest-Paid Executive in the U.S.

[PinkyMacGodess]

I had a client that was always struggling, financially. Always laying people off, always having to scrimp on office supplies and other necessities. Then the employees found out how much the owner made.

They were furious... Livid... Almost homicidal!!!

The owner was draining almost every last cent out of the business, getting a 6 figure salary, 'plus expenses!'. A few of the employees were so pissed, they quit. A few of them went to work for the competition. The business failed within a few years.

I remain of the idea that there is NO WAY that one person is worth that much money. Absolutely not. Unless they are using the vast majority of that money to help make a better world, it's just obscene...

I saw a talk by the Chamber of Commerce, in defense of those insane salaries, and they tried to link them back to 'sports stars'. 'You have to pay your stars enough to keep them on the job', they said without grinning, or laughing. Look at all of the totally incompetent CEOs of the corporate world that were making what Tim Apple is making, and hundreds of times more, and the deep holes many of them left as they were fired, quit, or slunk away after the bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, there is only so much that someone can spend in a year.

AND such hideous salaries help drive the cost of property and homes through the exosphere! Yeah, just say NO to huge salaries... Not to mention such insane salaries make the recipients have a 'god complex' and they start trying to control things they shouldn't have any say in above anyone else.

 

[I7guy]

Regulatory agencies are made up of people.

I gave several non-regulatory agency examples of non-shareholders impacting internal decisions. Customers absolutely have an influence on strategy, management, and compensation, so how could their opinion not matter?

My premise was and is that what OP said—that the opinions of of non-shareholder don’t matter to every single aspect of a company—is an illusory distinction, a fantasy.

The distinction is a customer votes with their dollars and provide change through their purchases while regulatory agencies provide change through legislation, not necessarily to the customers benefit. (Like how ATT breakup many years later the US should be number one in cell service)

 

[Silverstring]

The distinction is a customer votes with their dollars and provide change through their purchases while regulatory agencies provide change through legislation, not necessarily to the customers benefit. (Like how ATT breakup many years later the US should be number one in cell service)

…and both kinds of changes are based on the opinions of non-shareholders.

I never claimed that regulatory agencies and customers are not distinct and potentially conflicting, just that the opinions of non-shareholder people matter to every aspect of every company’s operations—internal or external.

That’s true no matter the mechanism those people inhabit to exert their influence, which cannot be escaped.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Again, you can’t fully divorce those internal decisions from the context of larger society. They’re still literally informed by the opinions of non-shareholders.

Strategy can be and is at the mercy of the FTC and other governing bodies—see the storm brewing over the App Store “monopoly”.

If the FTC/European Union decides—in all of their non-shareholding opinion—that Apple must allow alternative payment options on the App Store, guess what instantly overrides the opinion of all the shareholders?

A good portion of Cook’s compensation—the topic of this thread, as you say—package is stock options. How those options can be exercised are at the mercy of the SEC, who’s regulatory decisions are shaped by non-shareholders.

All of these things made up of non-shareholder opinions precede all of Apple’s “internal decisions”, so, as I said in the first place: there is no bubble. The opinions of non-shareholders matters with regard to every single aspect of this company, any company.

But there IS a bubble. Many corporate boards are just rubber stamps for whatever the CEO and/or their management team(s) want. 'Give me/us a raise!' Board: Okay. 'I want my raise to be 'tax free', so pay the taxes on my salary too!' Board: Okay. 'We need a new corporate jet! The ashtray in the current one is too full!' Board: Okay...

That kind of stuff happens. If the board was filled with 'normal people', those kids of demands, and others, wouldn't cut it... Management salaries wouldn't be in the exosphere, and more salaries would be tied more firmly to the operation, and returns, of the corporation.

Heck, in Apple's history, they were near death. According to the story, Sculley had stocked up tens of millions of dollars of 'great deals' from chip and storage makers in warehouses across the country. Great deals on old chips, and slow/small hard drives. So what did Apple management do? Well, their bonuses, and some pay, were in jeopardy. They pulled a slight of hand and were able to bury the majority of the Sculley purchases in adesert, and make it look like a big positive for the bottom line, and got their bonuses, digging Apple's huge hole quite a bit deeper and wider. And the board was fine with it, and oddly, the gubment was too...

 

[I7guy]

…and both kinds of changes are based on the opinions of non-shareholders.

I never claimed that regulatory agencies and customers are not distinct and potentially conflicting, just that the opinions of non-shareholder people matter to every aspect of every company’s operations—internal or external.

That’s true no matter the mechanism those people inhabit to exert their influence, which cannot be escaped.

To me, the above is far too nuanced for this conversation.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

no matter what you buy from apple, none of us are paying Tim Cook. Apple's board of directors are paying tim cook. and in that sense, it's worth every penny for apple's BoD.

That said you can affect that pay by buying less apple products.

 

[carestudio]

I am wondering how do those high-paid CEOs spend their $?

 

[Yokon54]

What sad and petty commentary….

So many whine and complain about the man building the company with the highest market cap, most widely recognized branding, and among the highest levels of profit. Not to mention the dividends paid to huge numbers of stock holders , and value of their securities…

Yet nobody complains about actors/actresses making obscene amounts of money for playing pretend, or sports players for playing a game!

You’d be using Windows Phone if it wasn’t for Tim Apple….

The highest profit.

 

[Silverstring]

To me, the above is far too nuanced for this conversation.

Perhaps.

…but that speaks to my earlier point that an issue can be stripped of so much nuance, reduced so far…that one is not even addressing reality anymore.

Ideas such as “working hard=success” and “non-shareholder opinions don’t matter” can only gain traction in the context of those false environments.

 

[I7guy]

Perhaps.

…but that speaks to my earlier point that an issue can be stripped of so much nuance, reduced so far…that one is not even addressing reality anymore.

Ideas such as “working hard=success” and “non-shareholder opinions don’t matter” can only gain traction in the context of those false environments.

To me working hard=success and non-shareholder opinions don't matter are true. No regulation is going to come down (from non-shareholder regulatory bodies) to restrict CEO salaries. That would cause an uproar that would be heard around the world. However, non-shareholders can vote with their dollars and that will cause a change...although I am not aware of any change in CEO salary to people who buy products but cannot participate in regulatory affairs of the country.

So while this is a good excersize in mental gymnastics, that's where it ends.

 

[Silverstring]

To me working hard=success and non-shareholder opinions don't matter are true. No regulation is going to come down (from non-shareholder regulatory bodies) to restrict CEO salaries. That would cause an uproar that would be heard around the world. However, non-shareholders can vote with their dollars and that will cause a change...although I am not aware of any change in CEO salary to people who buy products but cannot participate in regulatory affairs of the country.

So while this is a good excersize in mental gymnastics, that's where it ends.

The “mental gymnastics” are in the oversimplifying, not in weighing very real complexities.

 

[I7guy]

The “mental gymnastics” are in the oversimplifying, not in weighing very real complexities.

There aren't really a lot of complexities, a lot of unknowns maybe.

 

[techwhiz]

no matter what you buy from apple, none of us are paying Tim Cook. Apple's board of directors are paying tim cook. and in that sense, it's worth every penny for apple's BoD.

That said you can affect that pay by buying less apple products.

Apple's board does not pay Tim cook.
Apple the company pays Tim Cook. The board votes on compensation but the do not pay him.

 

[tann]

So what is your line in the sand for compensation? What is the upper compensation that should be allowed? $10/hr, $100,000 ye, $1m yr etc.

Not for me to decide solely, but a wealth cap and income cap are things I would be fine with.

 

[PlayUltimate]

If they could sell you a tin of soup for the price of an iPhone and get away with it then they would drop tools immediately and do it. They have no loyalty to you, I have none to them.

Disagree with your general premise. The better question is does any business provide value that is worth the price. In an armageddon movie, a tin of soup is often worth the price of an iPhone. For me, Apple provides value.

Whats interesting is CEOs in the 1950s never got paid so much of a difference to employees and you had a big thriving middle class, you did not need two earners to own a home and raise a family.

interesting the stark difference today where Gen-Z really have a **** future.

Lot's of differences between then and now. . .
in the 1950s, the average home size was 950'. Now it is over 2000'.
see: https://compasscaliforniablog.com/have-american-homes-changed-much-over-the-years-take-a-look/
in the 1950s, we had fewer cars, fewer entertainment devices, and ate out much less. And women. in general, did not work full-time outside of the home. The push to have women work was to increase the comparative household income and thus afford a more expensive lifestyle. Many families in the 60s/70s had one salary covered the basic expenses and the other salary covered the "fun" stuff. Once everybody had a 2-income household, the basic prices rose accordingly.
The US economy was also mostly industry and we were massive exporters. Now, we are massive importers and mostly a service economy.

BTW, for an interesting perspective on life 50 years ago, watch the documentary 1971 on AppleTV+. Quite eye opening what the current Baby Boomers had to live through.