Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The CEO of a for-profit company prioritizing the financial health of the company itself as required by law for someone in his position? No way!

Now, explain to me, convincingly, why someone at the top end of the scale in the article deserves to make $62,400 annually for tapping on an iPad to ask someone in the back of the store to bring out the product I am picking up? And please justify it by also explaining why most of the time I end up knowing more about the product than they do. I worked retail as well, so any claims of elitism will be useless. I just want to know why people like yourself want to pretend these workers are out on street corners selling matchbooks to make ends meet.
Should you be buying android 😟
 
The UK also has universal healthcare and a better social safety net (and yes, the NHS is struggling right now, it’s still better than what most retail employees in the US can access affordably)
And most UK employers are required to provide their empolyees with 28 days (5.6 work weeks) of paid annual leave.

In America, people live to work. In other parts of the world, people work so they can live.
 
No doubt many here complaining about 4% raises would instead be on-board with Apple having massive layoffs like google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Meta/Facebook, PayPal, Roku, Oracle, Amazon, T-Mobile, Cisco, DoorDash, Accenture, Zoom, Twitter, IBM, Salesforce, SAP, etc.

There's a reason Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world. And also one of the best managed companies.

Hat-tip to TC and other Apple executives keeping their 160,000+ employees employed while other companies cast them to the wind as mere expendables.
 
I was interested in that location in Texas in the CBS Sunday Morning story Tim Cook was visiting. Wanted to find out what’s the process for getting one of those customer support jobs there.
 
The term is fiduciary duty. In the 80’s under Reagan the Supreme Court interpreted this to be the primary function of issuing a Corporate Charter.

It was stealthy, nobody noticed, but that was when things officially changed in America.

Coincidently, until the Reagan administration Stock Buybacks were actually illegal as they were considered (as it factually is) stock price manipulation.

Stock buybacks are just tax efficient dividends. An extreme distaste for stock buybacks is a really good indicator of financial illiteracy (not personal finance, but corporate finance).

I'll help you conceptualize: companies remit profits to the people/entities that own them. That is why they exist. Buybacks are just a cash payment from the company to investors who desire cash (investors who decide to sell their shares in the market). Say you own 10% of Apple and Apple is worth $100. Your value is $10. If Apple decides to use $10 of cash to buy back its stock and you decide not to sell you will still own around 11% but of a company that now has $10 less cash, making its value approximately $90. Your ownership, by not selling, effectively increases but of a company that has less cash than it would have had had it not done the buyback. This is similar to a dividend. If you think buybacks are stock manipulation then you think dividends are and if you think dividends are then you quite literally misunderstand the purpose of a company or what stock manipulation is.
 
Last edited:
Then it’s not really even a raise, it’s just not a pay decrease. Apple can and certainly should pay more.
Why would Apple pay above market for their employees? If their employees are more valuable than Apple's pay would indicate then they will leave and Apple will be negatively impacted. If they leave (which many do) and Apple is not marginally negatively impacted then they weren't worth more than they were being paid.

We are not owed anything. We're all on a floating rock trying to make the best situation for ourselves. Make yourself valuable if you think you're being undervalued.
 
No doubt many here complaining about 4% raises would instead be on-board with Apple having massive layoffs like google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Meta/Facebook, PayPal, Roku, Oracle, Amazon, T-Mobile, Cisco, DoorDash, Accenture, Zoom, Twitter, IBM, Salesforce, SAP, etc.

There's a reason Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world. And also one of the best managed companies.

Hat-tip to TC and other Apple executives keeping their 160,000+ employees employed while other companies cast them to the wind as mere expendables.
Bear in mind that most of those companies have higher than pre-pandemic headcounts, they overhired during the pandemic (and in many cases in the tech industry deliberately hired people without having work for them to do just to keep them from competitors). Apple never went on that hiring spree to begin with. The actual headcount has grown more at many of those companies.

For example:

Google had 119,000 employees in 2019

Apple had 137,000 employees in 2019

Now Google has a whopping 174,000 employees, Apple has 170,000.

Google, *after layoffs* still increased their headcount substantially more, both in sheer numbers and in percentage, than Apple did compared to pre-pandemic

The huge layoffs were a correction, not a cratering of job prospects that Apple and folks like you can use to justify paltry raises
 
Then it’s not really even a raise, it’s just not a pay decrease. Apple can and certainly should pay more.
Oh true because even though it's equal to the rate of inflation, prices will go up over the next year. So it is like a pay cut.

Although I do think deflation is possible in 2024, just wait until student loan payments resume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jefish
Oh true because even though it's equal to the rate of inflation, prices will go up over the next year. So it is like a pay cut.

Although I do think deflation is possible in 2024, just wait until student loan payments resume.
The fed will absolutely not let deflation happen if they can avoid it, it would be a disaster for federal, state, and municipal debt service for one thing, I doubt itll happen
 
Why would Apple pay above market for their employees? If their employees are more valuable than Apple's pay would indicate then they will leave and Apple will be negatively impacted. If they leave (which many do) and Apple is not marginally negatively impacted then they weren't worth more than they were being paid.

We are not owed anything. We're all on a floating rock trying to make the best situation for ourselves. Make yourself valuable if you think you're being undervalued.
I’m not an Apple retail employee, but it doesn’t take a genius (no pun intended) to see that the continuous push to screw over workers at every turn is bad for society as a whole.
 
It is easy to look a raise of 2%-5% and say that it’s not high enough, but it’s a irrelevant number overall when we do not have any visibility into whether or not Apple pays it’s retail employees a living wage. All it telling us is that overall Apple is repeating its “lackluster year playbook” again…. Hello 2008.

What’s more important to me is whether or not they actually pay enough. I prefer to buy only from companies that do.

It would be nice if we had visibility into, on a company by company basis, data that provides the “percentage rate in which the employed have a job that offers a living wage, when contrasted with the local consumer price index, based on a schedule of working no more than 40 hours of per week.”

Back in the 2000s/early 2010s, I remember the salaries would easily provide a living wage for full time employees in the midwestern markets I worked in. Not so easily on the coasts.
 
Because they provide significant value for a massively valuable company, because people deserve living wages, and because cost of living makes that $60k not actually all that much money in at least most urban areas in the us.
"Because they provide significant value for a massively valuable company..."
This is totally fair and this massively valuable company should recognize and compensate accordingly.

"...because people deserve living wages..."
People deserve what they and their value proposition provide.

"...because cost of living makes that $60k not actually all that much money in at least most urban areas in the us."
The fabulous thing about the US is the freedom to up and move and find a new job and make life decisions for yourself. There are countless places to reside of varying costs of living and all sorts of jobs and careers - none of which include shackles!
 
The CEO of a for-profit company prioritizing the financial health of the company itself as required by law for someone in his position? No way!
This is utter nonsense that’s trotted out to end the discussion any time someone dares to even suggest that a company might have made a decision that doesn’t provide immediate financial benefit to itself.

Can we please stop repeating it?
 
Paying market value is not screwing over workers. Why should anyone be entitled to more than what anyone else would willingly pay?
Market value doesn't take the needs of workers into account unless they can collectively bargain.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it a little more, this discussion here is also part of market dynamics. But, collective bargaining is still the best way to push back against stagnating wages.
 
Looks like near 100M to me. When I calculate my yearly earnings (as well as how the IRS calculates it), stock and base all count. So he is making near 9 digits...

Exactly what I said. 15+85. Last time I checked that’s not “hundreds”.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.