”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.How about they pay employees more and not raise their prices? It’s not like Apple is losing money. They seem to be making more and more profit every quarter, yet average people are making less and less. If a companies profits go up, the CEO/stock holder profits go up, why shouldn’t all their employees profits go up?
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.”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 and believe 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.
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.Denise Coates, her brother and her father paid a combined £573 million in personal income tax last year, which funnily enough is 94 times more tax than Apple paid on ALL UK sales.
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.As long as you can put food on the table, a roof over your head, and have enough left over to improve yourself, good for you. I just hate hearing companies like Walmart where the company makes billions in profits, the CEO/owners makes millions, if not billions, yet the bottom workers are on food stamps. Heck, I think I heard a while ago that Walmart had to hold a fundraiser just to help its lowest employees. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong, IMO
It pisses me off when people say "Minimum wage for minimum skills," and "Take classes to gain skills to get more money," but costs like rent, food, and school tuition rise faster than their wages. How the hell are people to gain skills when they work 3 jobs to barely put food on the table. and don't have time to take classes? Yes, some people are lazy, but other people have the willingness to work & learn, but not the ability.
Take the lawsuit money out of the CEO's pockets?Executive salaries should be high. Of course, they should also be taking a lot more risk. Lawsuits should be paid out of the executive's pockets, as should jail time. Hold them accountable but pay them reasonably for taking on the risk.
Compare that to Denise Coats, of Bet365, who is the highest paid person in the UK.
Last years' salary? £469 million or in dollar terms...roughly $664m !!
She earns more than the rest of the FTSE 100 bosses combined. You gotta ask who is worth $1.8m PER DAY !!
But well done to Tim....whilst he earns a lot, he has brought a lot of value to Apple stock.
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.”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.
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.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.
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 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.
Hahahahaha....No such thing as a billionaire living a modest life. Quiet maybe, modest, no way!Spot on. He lives a relatively modest life.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Shh... Don't tell anyone, but 401K matching is actually an executive benefit.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?
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.Denise Coates is the owner and founder of Bet365 why shouldn't she take that much as salary?
How about they pay employees more and not raise their prices? It’s not like Apple is losing money. They seem to be making more and more profit every quarter, yet average people are making less and less. If a companies profits go up, the CEO/stock holder profits go up, why shouldn’t all their employees profits go up?
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.How so? You can only put in $18.5k per year or so.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I see, thanks for that explanation!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.