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.
Tim Cook's Compensation Was Comparatively Modest Among Highest-Paid CEOs of 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
”They seem to be making more and more profit every quarter?” You do know as a publicly traded company their financial statements are available to you, right? Take a look and you will see that as profits rise so do revenues; why it is almost as if there is some kind of connection. It would be very concerning, in fact, if Apple revenues went up but the profit did not.
Perhaps your concern is net profit per dollar of gross? That has been pretty steady over the last decade so should not be causing any distress. Unless you take umbrage to Apple doing very well here but that is one reason they are such a successful company. Anyhow, my point is that it is not going up every quarter.
As to your suggestion that as “a companies(sic) profits go up… why shouldn’t all their employees(sic) profits go up?” well, that is a complicated question. I have always been a believer in some form of profit sharing as it is a strong motivator having seen it in action. The most interesting example I ever saw was when the employees shared the risk as well. When the economy took a downturn rather than layoffs the employees agreed to job share. It did mean people were making half of what they had been but everyone kept working. Not everyone was willing to do that, though. Would you? Many people choose to take a steady salary vs. the risk. Those who take the risk benefit in the good times and suffer in the bad, which seems fair to me but then it is easier to risk your salary when you are a millionaire than when you are just getting by. These are hard choices to be made and definitely one of the reasons the rich get richer because they can afford to take bigger risks.
Wow, life is complicated.
They already take a risk. 100% of their salary comes from Apple. The issue some have is that as profits go up risk for the company goes down, but the risk for the employee doesn't.
The amount they paid means nothing - what was the percentage? Apple isn't dodging taxes, that's how the UK taxes work, so that's also irrelevant.
Well, the skill set required to be the "lowest employee" is incredibly common and not worth much on the labor market, relatively speaking, anyway. I was recently in AZ and the local companies were paying dishwashers $16 per hour.
I'm not sure why facts "piss you off." You think it's somehow unfair? I suppose that's an understandable point, even if overly emotional.
Take the lawsuit money out of the CEO's pockets?
Lol. Make the CEO personally liable for every decision made in the company by every employee or vendor and see how many CEO's you have left.
There will no no good faith risks, no innovation, nothing for the CEO's that remain.
Imagine how demotivating it must be to work at Bet365. Forced to do development plans in the vain hope you might just be able to get a promotion to earn an extra 4k a year.
She earns that in 1minute. That's quite nauseating.
The idea that these people have more “risk” and should make more money is absurd. All employees have “risk”. Companies go broke or downsize all the time. Employees can work hard for years to make a company profitable and successful only to be laid off when times get though. Look at 2020 and the number of people who were let go at the sight of a couple of rough months. Those employees “risked” years of hard work for nothing.
Well, yes, doing anything involves risk, including posting thoughtfully on this forum. However let’s look at relative risk when considering compensation and avoid drawing false equivalencies.
Lol, so the person who bets $5 at the blackjack table should be paid out the same money as the person who bet $5000? Anyhow, take a moment to actually read what I posted. Do not worry, your apology is accepted.
The salary is a shell game. These guys make their money on stock. He was granted over 300,000 shares last year as well. He owns over 835,000 shares of Apple stock and reached billionaire status last year. He is set to own over a million shares by 2025. An interesting side note... A million or so of his "salary" was for travel ( 500k security, 500k private air travel ).
Last edited:
Executive pay is pretty meaningless. As it doesn't include the likes of bonuses and stock options. Those should be included in these types of articles. To give a real look at their comparative pay.
Even that doesn't cover perks and fringe benefits. Such as golf club memberships or travel by private jet.
Heck even with the average Apple Employee making ~$58,000. Does that include IRA/401K matching, health insurance and other employee benefits?
Even that doesn't cover perks and fringe benefits. Such as golf club memberships or travel by private jet.
Heck even with the average Apple Employee making ~$58,000. Does that include IRA/401K matching, health insurance and other employee benefits?
It should be really simple. If you approve a design that explodes in people's pockets or fails to stop when the user requests then you should personally pay. In exchange, they make millions of dollars. The market will set the CEO's salary with these conditions. CEO's would remain, but hopefully, we would see different ones.
What is the relative risk of a CEO? They can offset poor growth in one department with another. They can plead it's a rebuilding year. LOL! Meanwhile, salespeople see their commission cut when a product sells well and manufacturing employees lose their job when a product the CEO approved sells poorly. Most people's raises are determined by the company hitting YOY growth while having no say in strategy while CEOs get paid while the company files Chapter 11. You can't convince me someone deserves to get paid millions unless they also are at risk of losing their home(s) and spending the rest of their life in prison. The relative risk should be equally destructive as it is lucrative.
That analogy is pretty good, until you factor labor into the equation, and venture fund capitalists for that matter. There should certainly be a huge payout for taking risks, it simply shouldn't reward into perpetuity with no chance of losing it all at any point after that. Then add in lobbying and you're practically bribing the dealer to make sure you never lose too much.
If the game of blackjack is as rig as the wealth gap is, than yes. Most people will never have $5000 to bet since they will never have the opportunities given to the 1%. Open your eyes and look around. People work hard for pennies without ever having the opportunity to improve. The best way to keep citizens under control is to keep them from having the opportunity to growing.
How so? You can only put in $18.5k per year or so.Shh... Don't tell anyone, but 401K matching is actually an executive benefit.
Can you point me to the place where I said that she shouldn't earn that much? I have no issue whatever people earn.
The comparison was between a CEO of a company having revenues of $275Bn p/a being paid $14m and one with a revenue of $4bn being made $664m (or 47 times more than Tim).
If anything, Tim is under paid.
OK...What should they be paid?
Can you specify some salaries for a handful of different areas in the world, for the 147,000 employees Apple has? And after that, say a few words on how that would influence both GPM and NPM, and the resulting consequences.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act ties investments of 'regular' and high compensated employees and key employees. The short is that company executives stand to make less money overall if they fail to get their employees to invest enough of their income in programs like the 401K. That's the motivation behind 401K matching. Most companies try to avoid nondiscriminatory testing by qualifying as 'Safe Harbor'. That almost always requires a matching program.
I guess it's of a deserve vs. need thing. Not always the same amount. How much does a dishwasher deserve? Kind of subjective, but whatever. How much does a dishwasher need to have a decent home, food, and enough to improve their skills? Lots of variables. Plus, this whole thing isn't a black or white "The employee's just lazy" or "The employer's just greedy" kind of thing.
it works out at just under 50%. Apple dodges taxes left right and centre all around the world and everyone knows it, I have no problem with it that's business, but don't dress them up to be holier than thou when they aren't.
I would also add in something about people who have taken the time (and spending the $$$) to further their education going to college for 4-8 years. Should that major investment in time, hassle, and $$$ that results in better employment opportunities be rewarded with higher income?