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.
Steve Jobs Ranked World's 110th Richest Person With Net Worth of $8.3 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Carlos Slim Helu = Sick. Money. Not too long ago (within last 3 or 4 years I think?) he was quoted with a net worth somewhere around $54B or $55B - just a "bit" more than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates at the time and has since accumulated another (plus/minus) $20B. Not sure if he has telecom interests, etc. outside of Mexico, but it seems lots of folks down there all of a sudden need phones. I'm sure the iPhone had something to do with those colossal gains 
Either way, good for Steve.
Either way, good for Steve.From someone who may want a nicer car and giving it to someone who doesn't know where his next meal might be coming from.
Im sure the Gates get a sweet tax write off for all of the charity they trumpet before all to see and thats all they will get for that.
And who knows what Steve does or does not contribute honestly.
As far as cutting corporate philanthropy good. I can decide best where my charity goes. The annual United Way shake down at my company, with the attendant shame machine that comes along with it, is sick. And Id rather patronize a company for their products, not fopr whose cause they're in bed with. Again I can chose.
you guys realize that all of that 8 billion is tied up in Apple and Disney stock.
It's not like the guy has 8 billion sitting in his bank of america account.
His only source of personal income is his dividends he receives from his Disney stock.
1. If he sells that Disney stock he gets less in Dividends. Why would he sell the Disney stock? That wouldn't make any sense. That's his only source of income.
2. He has never sold any Apple stock since he came back to the company. You want Wall Street to freak out have Steve Job sell even a single share of Apple stock. That would make huge public headlines.
So he can't give money away, he really doesn't have "billions" sitting around. he is liquid in the millions.
Everyone calm down.
It's not like the guy has 8 billion sitting in his bank of america account.
His only source of personal income is his dividends he receives from his Disney stock.
1. If he sells that Disney stock he gets less in Dividends. Why would he sell the Disney stock? That wouldn't make any sense. That's his only source of income.
2. He has never sold any Apple stock since he came back to the company. You want Wall Street to freak out have Steve Job sell even a single share of Apple stock. That would make huge public headlines.
So he can't give money away, he really doesn't have "billions" sitting around. he is liquid in the millions.
Everyone calm down.
You mean the guy who cleaned the floors at the place that made the nice car?
Regardless, doesn't sound as much like charity when you are taking from one person to give to another.
Big ups to Toy Story 3, Cars, and the rest of the Pixar family...that's the reason for his net worth... HAHAHA
Do you think he would struggle to survive on the $5.9 Billion he'd get from the sale of his Disney shares?
however he could sell it all and therefore would have 8 Billion ... how's that for calm
You misunderstood what I said. I'm not one of the people who cares about charitable motives. But ultimately I'm sure Bill feels good about giving money to charity, while Steve may not want to. Sure I commend Bill for how much he gives away, and if he only does for reasons such as feeling good while doing it, I don't care.
Point of the story: I'm just saying we shouldn't consider steve the devil and bill a saint just bc Bill probably feels good about charity when Steve might have a different viewpoint. That is if we even know for a fact steve doesn't give any money away. I just was trying to point out that motives are almost never purely altruistic.
Well he stopped all charity donations from apple when they were struggling just over 10 years ago and hasn't done anything to restart it despite apple's remarkable growth.
He may give to charity but if he doesn't then I have little respect for him as a person.
The only reply I can give to the bolded part is "lol".
First, I'm not whining (why do you have to resort to personal attacks?) Thankfully I came from an affluent family so I have been fortunate. However I do have friends who are from middle class families who have worked hard and yet are facing financial issues regarding their student loans, which is a very common issue (you need to educate yourself instead of preaching to others of what you do not know). My comment was rhetorical/philosophical, not personal.
True, yet having lived in the U.K., other first world nations provide that thing called "education" without bankrupting you. Google the next financial crisis that's headed our way. Those exorbitant student loans and interests rates that many have to pay off are killing many (assuming banks gave out loans to qualified people after the last financial crisis). As for scholarships, those are very few and far between.
However, as a nation, our education system is failing and we are far behind other first world nations in higher education and employment. We have become a nation of consumers, not producers and many in the hedge fund/financial sect are playing god with the money of others.
My point I was throwing out: Steve Jobs' "success" is an abnormality of the "American Dream" propagated from the mid-20th century. Since then, times have changed and simple "hard work" doesn't lead to success. This is apparent with the lack of small business growth in the U.S. as competition with large national chains who have the financial resources to buy products in bulk cheaply from China is impossible. Google "rubbermaid walmart" and read on what happened to Rubbermaid in the 90's. Rubbermaid refused to cater to Walmarts demand in producing their products in China and then pulled their product (roughly 60% of Rubbermaids business), almost bankrupting them. Rubbermaid gave in and closed plants in America resulting in Walmart to employ ex-Rubbermaid employees in a new store where Rubbermaid once existed.
This is not about "whining", it's about a system that has become governed by executives and businesses who care more about their own greed and dominance than the common good of the nation. Collectively, we're not far off from a Feudalist system.
Last edited by a moderator:
While I think it is nice to give, I also think that everybody has a right to do with THEIR money what THEY want.
They made it. They decide this very personal issue!
Imagine somebody tells you: Hey, you have enough money, time to donate!
All the posters who claim he doesn't donate anything to charity, PLEASE back up your statements!
Get his tax return and let's take a look.
If you can't do that, you have no point!
As for being involved in charity: Done right, that is like running another company. I'd rather have him spend his energy and time at Apple.
Wish I was # 111 or even last place
They made it. They decide this very personal issue!
Imagine somebody tells you: Hey, you have enough money, time to donate!
All the posters who claim he doesn't donate anything to charity, PLEASE back up your statements!
Get his tax return and let's take a look.
If you can't do that, you have no point!
As for being involved in charity: Done right, that is like running another company. I'd rather have him spend his energy and time at Apple.
Wish I was # 111 or even last place
Yes, absolutely. It is his money and he can do whatever he wants to with it.While I think it is nice to give, I also think that everybody has a right to do with THEIR money what THEY want.
They made it. They decide this very personal issue!
Imagine somebody tells you: Hey, you have enough money, time to donate!
All the posters who claim he doesn't donate anything to charity, PLEASE back up your statements!
Get his tax return and let's take a look.
If you can't do that, you have no point!
As for being involved in charity: Done right, that is like running another company. I'd rather have him spend his energy and time at Apple.
Wish I was # 111 or even last place
However, like I have said in a previous post I would still have little or no respect for him as a person if he gives nothing to charity. I just don't see how you could be a good person to have that much wealth without helping others who are in desperate need of even the most very basic things in life such as food and water.
There are a few slight difference between Bill and Steve, I'm not sure anyone has noticed. I'll point out a few surface ones:
1. Bill is retired, and has nothing better to do with his time
2. Steve is working full time (I'm betting over 40 hours a week) and when he's not, he's out sick with something more than a cold.
3. Bill has 5 times more "worth", and I'm betting he has a multiple higher than 5 more liquid cash then Steve.
4. Steve has at least half his "networth" tied up in Disney. He can't just donate disney to Sinegal
He also can't sell off all the stock and keep a vote in the company.
5. Bill gates has seen nothing but success, and a lot of it. Steve has seen his companies (what he devotes his life to) sink and rise. His journey has in no way been easy. I would not doubt that such a person would be careful with their money while still on their "journey", but once the journey is over give it away.
Wait until Steve retires to compare him to Bill. Steven will have more time, and will have no reason to keep stock in a company, and can sell it for something that is easier to donate.
No, if anyone has actually seen Steve jobs pass by girl scouts begging for a $5 sale while he sorts and sniffs a large wad of cash, then I'll think a little less of him.
In the end though, I know that *I* have personally spent my money on things I don't need to, and I know that *I* have enough money to spare to make a dramatic difference in ONE persons life. And yet I've failed to make that difference. So I'm not about to give someone I don't know (even if I'd recognize him on the street) crap for not publicly giving away money.
It's also worth noting that there is at least one religion out there that says that donations should be done privately and without public display. That way the donation is done because they want to help, vs wanting to be popular or cool.
It's funny how outeageous your post is. While quite calm, it is also quite unintelligent. As the original poster correctly points out, if Steve tried to sell 8 billion of mostly Apple stock, the company's stock would take a dive and all the investors in the company and the company itself would take a huge hit.
And someone said something about dividends before, which is also insane. Why would anyone want a company with such profits and stock growth to start giving it away instead of putting it back in the company to promote further growth. If the stockholders want money, sell your stock and multiply your money by 30 if you've been a stockholder for the last decade.
It just annoys me when people make statements without any knowledge of how the market works. Mature companies that aren't looking to grow as much give out dividends because otherwise they'd just build up an insane amount of cash and not have anything to do with it. While Apple has a lot of cash, they spend a lot of money on R&D, which is why they come out with products first like the iPhone and iPad. In essence, they get the investors a better return over time by using possible dividends to grow the company instead of giving out their money. If they gave out dividends over the last 10 years, it probably wouldnt have grown the stock anywhere near the $340 or so that it has.
I'm just curious about the acceptable threshhold for when a person is rich enough to have charitable giving become mandatory. And does that threshhold change according to how many dependents they have?
Or is it not so much a monetary threshhold, but more of a "they can afford it?" Because really, everyone can afford something. So, if a person who makes $10 an hour doesn't throw 50 cents into those annoying bellringers' buckets at Christmas-time, are they greedy bastards?
Yes, I'm giving ridiculous arguments here, but I tend to get a little testy when people tell other people how to spend their money.
Or is it not so much a monetary threshhold, but more of a "they can afford it?" Because really, everyone can afford something. So, if a person who makes $10 an hour doesn't throw 50 cents into those annoying bellringers' buckets at Christmas-time, are they greedy bastards?
Yes, I'm giving ridiculous arguments here, but I tend to get a little testy when people tell other people how to spend their money.
As a novice Buddhist, it is customary for Buddhist followers to were black/grey/white clothing with no logo's, etc. Very minimalist in order to break from materialism and focus on the inner self. I believe Steve Jobs is a follower of Tibetan Buddhism, not Japanese Buddhism.
Thanks, I was worried I'd get slammed for throwing that out there. People on here can be vicious lol.