Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Legally, yes.
Total fabrication. You think they do and so you believe it to be the case. You’re totally wrong though.

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL

“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not”

You have an issue with that then take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You should educate yourself next time before trying to school people. I suggest you start with reading up about the doctrine known as the Business Judgement Rule.

Want more proof? Air Products Inc, vs Airgas.
 
Total fabrication. You think they do and so you believe it to be the case. You’re totally wrong though.

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL

“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not”

You have an issue with that then take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You should educate yourself next time before trying to school people. I suggest you start with reading up about the doctrine known as the Business Judgement Rule.

Want more proof? Air Products Inc, vs Airgas.
You need to think about what you typed here and what I said. Do you understand the difference?
[automerge]1594649342[/automerge]
No they don't.
Where is this going? I'm right so what does that mean for you?
 
The California way. Throw money at the problem instead of dealing with the cause directly.
CA has had a net loss of tax payers over the years, but has increased taxes every year to cover CA’s ever growing budget demands. So the tax burden per resident is becoming untenable.
CA claims to have budget surpluses, but their unfunded liabilities are insane.
Then you have housing costs. CA severely limits construction of new housing. This drives prices of existing houses through the roof. People buying houses via two mortgages is pretty common. Anywhere relatively close to the coast in So Cal and you’re looking at $750k+ for a 1,200 Sqft. 2 bedroom house. Go north and it isn’t any better.
I love going to CA. Used to take 3-4 vacations a year there. It’s like my second home. Pacific Grove is fantastic. But I’ll never live there. Too expensive.
We have a running joke about PG. You can’t buy a 900 Sqft lean-too for less than a million. We’ve met many people that have lived there for decades. Paid $50k-$60k for their houses back in the late 70’s that are now wroth $4-$5 million.
No new construction permits are issued. The land is there, but only remodel permits of existing property are issued and those take a year plus to get approved.
Money alone isn’t going to solve it, and if CA government is involved, most of the money will get directed to some politicians “preferred vendor” or get eaten up by “administrative fees”.

You are assuming that everyone wants to solve the housing crisis. Are there vested interest groups who want to keep housing scarce so they can continue to profit from high home and rent prices?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
Yes, it does. Salaries are a huge expense for Apple, just like any company. Housing in the Bay Area is incredibly expensive, and as a result Apple has to continuously spend more and more on salaries so their employees can afford to live where the company is located. More affordable housing means more stable salaries for the company in the long term.

Not necessarily, due to the second point ($1B in mortgage aid). The combination of "affordable housing" and "mortgage aid" will keep house prices higher than they should and salaries lower than they should because they will prevent a buyer's market.
 
Now these are projects I support.

If I was a young college graduate these houses would be quite appealing.

It's almost certainly nicer that what most low-income people are living in. And it's definitely a lot nicer than what I lived in during college.

While I appreciate that global companies such as Apple contribute to fight global and local problems, such efforts should mainly be financed by public money, which should come from fair taxes?

You'd never be able to finance such projects through taxes. The US public is already taxed to death. There is a lot of money that has been 'locked up' in large corporations so-to-speak, especially over the last 30 years. It's time that money is put to work for the public benefit instead of shareholders (see below). The compound interest on $1B alone is insane. Now times that by other billions, from other corporations. The money will generate itself; all that is required is seed money.

As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?

This "shareholder value" sentiment has only really existed since the 1980's, to the detriment of our society and workers.
 
Don't you wish that Tim Cook allocated 2.5 billion dollars to his hardware team for advancements like a foldable iPhone, foldable iPad, redesigned bezeless iMac, ar glasses...
Better yet add in the billion he's wasting on TV+ and you would have nearly 4 billion dollars towards hardware.
Maybe then Apple would make products that kept up with the innovation coming from Lenovo on laptops (and Samsung on phones).
 
  • Like
Reactions: R88D
Don't you wish that Tim Cook allocated 2.5 billion dollars to his hardware team for advancements like a foldable iPhone, foldable iPad, redesigned bezeless iMac, ar glasses...
Better yet add in the billion he's wasting on TV+ and you would have nearly 4 billion dollars towards hardware.
Maybe then Apple would make products that kept up with the innovation coming from Lenovo on laptops (and Samsung on phones).

Tim Cook, CEO of one of the largest and most profitable company’s in the world, I feel has a far far far better idea on how to handle everything than you do.

And what makes you think Apple are not spending billions in innovation?
 
Don't you wish that Tim Cook allocated 2.5 billion dollars to his hardware team for advancements like a foldable iPhone, foldable iPad, redesigned bezeless iMac, ar glasses...
Better yet add in the billion he's wasting on TV+ and you would have nearly 4 billion dollars towards hardware.
Maybe then Apple would make products that kept up with cut the innovation coming from Lenovo on laptops (and Samsung on phones).
You don’t think that Apple has Proto types of all those things? The foldable iPhone has been worked on for years, and they haven’t released it yet. Maybe because, much like the rest of the industry, they’ve realize that foldable phones are not exactly a very good market to go into at this very moment? Look at the galaxy fold, the thing was a huge failure, that was overpriced and not durable at all.
Maybe Apple would go into the foldable market, when it’s mature and ready for their product.
As for a foldable iPad, that exists. It’s called the MacBook. Or an iPad Pro with magic keyboard.
A redesigned iMac is supposed to be coming out later this year.
And as for AR glasses... have you been on the Internet? These things are in development, and Apple has been dumping tons and tons of money into AR advances. Just cause it doesn’t come out when you say it should, doesn’t mean that it’s not being worked on.
The iPad began development around 2003-2004, and wasn’t released until 2010.
 
Last edited:
No new construction permits are issued. The land is there, but only remodel permits of existing property are issued and those take a year plus to get approved.

Just to make sure your ire is directed to the right place, this is decided by the local government, not the state. The people who live in PG have elected city officials who have restricted growth. I'll leave it to you to decide if this is right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
According to LAO (California's Legislative Analyst's Office), California has had a net loss of taxpayers every year since 1990. It appears that CA is more desirable to those who don't pay income taxes. Sounds like that could be part of the issue. I don't see how throwing money at the problem is going to help in the long run.

But then again, it's not my money or my state...

Yeah this is patently false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pianophile
Apple should seriously look at continuing to spread out its workforce. All of these tech companies bunching up in Silicon valley and Seattle is a big reason why housing is in such a crisis in those areas. Amazon had the right idea to create a "HQ2". Apple do likewise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R88D
Legally, yes.

Wrong, and I'm 100% certain you can't point to a single law anywhere that supports your ridiculous statement.
[automerge]1594656655[/automerge]
Apple should seriously look at continuing to spread out its workforce. All of these tech companies bunching up in Silicon valley and Seattle is a big reason why housing is in such a crisis in those areas. Amazon had the right idea to create a "HQ2". Apple do likewise.

Apple employs nearly 150,000, and fewer than 30,000 work in Silicon Valley. Amazon employs nearly 60,000 in Seattle.

Amazon's HQ2 is a fantasy that employs a mere 1,000 out of Amazon's 900,000 employees, and will have zero effect on employee count in Seattle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pianophile
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:
  • Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
  • Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
  • Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)
It's an investment into building projects and lending money to new homeowners, Apple is not giving it away. After the spaceship campus, i see this as the second step into the big-project construction market. Apple has the money and soon the experience to take on some big projects if the opportunities arise, it's one of the areas Apple could expand to. Finance, construction, cars, medical ...
 
You don’t think that Apple has Proto types of all those things? The foldable iPhone has been worked on for years, and they haven’t released it yet. Maybe because, much like the rest of the industry, they’ve realize that foldable phones are not exactly a very good market to go into at this very moment? Look at the galaxy fold, the thing was a huge failure, that was overpriced and not durable at all.

You have no idea whether Apple has been working on a foldable iPhone "for years."
 
I’m sorry but there is nothing desirable about living in California and I did it in Gilroy for 15 years
Weather, jobs, scenery, etc.
[automerge]1594658911[/automerge]
My guess is Tim Cook would prefer a reality in which corporate tax is higher and helps pay for such basic things, but he doesn't live in that reality. (He may also not want to admit it in public.)

The could also just not avoid/minimize taxes overseas, etc.
[automerge]1594658958[/automerge]
out of curiosity: you live in California, maybe you were born there, surely you or some of your ancestors arrived from outside ... but now you don't want others to come?

No I don't live in California, and I don't know why your comment was directed at me.
 
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't like the idea of corporations trying to solve public policy problems. Where is the state of California in this?

There are also a few issues that come to light that aren't being addressed by this action:
  • Continued construction of suburb-style developments versus walkable towns and villages
  • Influx of residents to California as a desirable location to live
  • Lack of effective public policies in the state of California to address these issues (Prop-13, etc.)

I think if you do the research you'll see that more residents are fleeing CA than there are people moving to that State to reside. A lot more leaving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
As a shareholder, how does this initiative maximize shareholder value? I get it can create goodwill in the human sense but can it create such in the financial sense?
It doesn’t. It just looks good
[automerge]1594660962[/automerge]
The American way, if it doesn’t benefit me, they just shouldn’t do it.
Nothing wrong with that. The hell with everyone else. I worry about me and my inner circle.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.