r/technology • u/geoxol • Jan 13 '23 • Bravo! 1 Helpful (Pro) 1

Apple CEO Tim Cook to take more than 40% pay cut Business

https://apnews.com/article/technology-apple-inc-tim-cook-business-d056553b10120c4a968b562cb7ece5d2
39.1k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

406

u/teddytwelvetoes Jan 13 '23

he's still getting paid 10+ lifetimes worth of money in one (1) year to watch a money printer lol

133

u/jeanyanndecannes Jan 13 '23

We can simultaneously assert that executives are overpaid without pretending like they don’t do any work

19

u/functionallylazy Jan 13 '23

This is Reddit. Anyone we don't like must be utterly incompetent.

10

u/leafs456 Jan 13 '23

reddit genuinely believes its more stressful being a service worker than it is to head one of the biggest companies out there. you know cause theyre on their feet all day, deal with shitty customers, etc while CEO's take phone calls from their YACHTS

1

u/magic1623 Jan 14 '23

A few comments up someone was legitimately trying to argue that a fast food worker works harder than a doctor.

-35

u/AttonJRand Jan 13 '23

Relativ to how they are paid the effectively don't do any work.

Can never convince me these dudes do anything near the work of 100s of their employees.

39

u/Seiglerfone Jan 13 '23

The key details missed is not how much work they do but the consequences of their work.

An average employee has relatively little impact, but if your executives screw up, it could tank the company.

-12

u/wwj Jan 13 '23

An average employee has relatively little impact, but if your executives screw up, it could tank the company.

Yes, but there is no risk for him either way. If he makes bad decisions, the company could be hurt and he gets fired but he will still have hundreds of millions of dollars. There isn't even an incentive to do a good job at that level.

5

u/Seiglerfone Jan 13 '23

I mean, there's generally an incentive to maximize the valuation of the company at the point they can cash out their stock options or w/e, but yeah, the incentives are screwy, and inclined to reward looting rather than long-term prosperity.

0

u/Janis91 Jan 13 '23

That's really the key thing here. Even if they screw up, they are rewarded with a generous payment for being fired and just end up in another well-paid position somewhere else.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Janis91 Jan 14 '23

So you're saying the outcome/punishment is the same, yet the value of the company a CEO can ruin is much larger than the equipment that you can ruin. I just find this disparity strange.

1

u/leafs456 Jan 14 '23

Yes, because a CEO can make or break your company, thats why u want the best available candidate leading your company. You can make the argument apple wouldnt be where its at today if steve jobs never returned. But you cant make the same argument with your average employee

-8

u/Colluder Jan 13 '23

If executives are corrupt and steal money, it could tank the company. Stop acting like a CEO is doing anything that a blue collar worker couldn't do, especially for large companies. Making the wrong decision doesn't mean the company fails, it means our gross profit margin is 12% instead of 12.3%. when a decision has a greater effect it's either a matter of ethics or corruption, or so obvious anyone could make the right decision

10

u/Seiglerfone Jan 13 '23

Stop acting like I'm saying things I'm not.

2

u/leafs456 Jan 13 '23

it means our gross profit margin is 12% instead of 12.3%

uhm no its the difference between a successful, profitable company and one that goes under. would apple be where its at today if you took over in 2012?

99

u/jeanyanndecannes Jan 13 '23

This is a naive argument that weakens our overall position, and is why some people can dismiss the issue as whining. Decision making at this scale has massive impact (both positive and negative), and cannot be dismissed as low or no value. That doesn’t justify the current disparity in wages in comparison to the general employee base. Tim Cook can both work hard and create a ton of value while still being grossly overpaid.

53

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

People who make those arguments have probably never been in charge of people. It's incredibly hard to get people to operate as a cohesive unit effectively. Making decisions that affect the lives of millions or billions and the livelihoods of thousands isn't easy and is definitely stressful. Not everyone can do it, but like you said it definitely doesn't justify the wage gap

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

-2

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

Cook doesn't need to micromanage those things. He hires people who do that for him. CEOs of a megacorp have no business being in the weeds unless something is horribly wrong.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Colluder Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

No it's not, you are taking like 10 levels of management out of the equation and saying that's the same thing

To get from a CEO to someone who runs a line it's CEO - CTO - senior product manager - product manager - factory president - mid management - senior line worker. So the CEO has (at best) a very vague contribution towards any product line and is mostly felt through things like the corporate environment they help create.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

0

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

If they hire the right people, yea. they don't need to do any of the day to day.

-5

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

People who make those arguments have probably never been in charge of people. It's incredibly hard to get people to operate as a cohesive unit effectively. Making decisions that affect the lives of millions or billions and the livelihoods of thousands isn't easy and is definitely stressful. Not everyone can do it, but like you said it definitely doesn't justify the wage gap

has nothing to do with the level of compensation of a tech ceo.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make

-4

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

Just trying to keep you on topic.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

im still not sure what point you're trying to make

edit: since /u/benderunit9000 blocked me for some reason, my stance is that they essentially repeated something i said without adding anything new to the conversation, acting like it was some huge gotcha. i just wanted clarification

-2

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

You went off-topic, I was bringing you back to the topic at hand. I can't spell it out any more than that.

0

u/rich519 Jan 13 '23

The difficulty of the job has nothing to do with the compensation? Of course it does. If not many people can do your job you will get paid more.

7

u/Lukeds Jan 13 '23

Thank you for your polite responses. I already agreed with you to be honest but your calm demeanor is really appreciated

6

u/rich519 Jan 13 '23

It’s really frustrating. There are a bunch of left wing subs on Reddit that I think have some good arguments and ideas but then like 95% of the users see everything in black and white and seem to have no idea what they’re talking about. The most extreme comments get upvotes and anyone else gets called a simp and the entire thing devolves into a toxic mess of people posting the same rage bait tweets over and over.

-38

u/Athelis Jan 13 '23

What "Hard work" does he do? Doesn't he also have financial advisors to aid him in those legendary "tough" decisions that people in his position are said to be making?

40

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

Since you're putting it in quotations, you're already being dismissive so why don't you start with defining what hard work is?

-2

u/Athelis Jan 13 '23

If he takes a vacation away from his office for an extended period, will anyone notice?

Why are there so many people here defending a billionaire?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

Your definition of hard work is measured by whether people notice when someone is on vacation?

-2

u/Athelis Jan 13 '23

If people don't notice their absence, what are they doing?

Why are you defending a billionaire?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

if a company is healthy and well run, one person missing, regardless of whether it's the janitor or CEO shouldn't be a problem. if one person missing cripples a company, something isn't right.

and im not defending a billionaire, not that there's anything wrong with that. im scrutinizing dubious positions

now would you kindly answer my questions rather than evading them and asking your own?

→ More replies (0)

17

u/VirginiaMcCaskey Jan 13 '23

It's more like listening to the conflicting advice of many staff who all have their own agendas while managing relationships with other businesses and governments. And doing it at a global scale for hundreds of thousands of people takes up their entire life.

-5

u/Athelis Jan 13 '23

And what is he risking? If he messes up and loses his position than what? He's still got billions.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

My boy here scrutinizing things as if he's in the position to determine whether or not a CEO is needed. 😂

Probably has zero corporate experience and his 10y Reddit account is the standout in his resume.

Dunning-Kruger in full force.

9

u/Whyeth Jan 13 '23

Doesn't he also have financial advisors to aid him in those legendary "tough" decisions that people in his position are said to be making?

Are those hard working employees, or more do nothing higher ups?

Tim cook isn't God, but he ain't shit either.

-2

u/Athelis Jan 13 '23

If they're the ones carrying him I'd argue they're worth more than he is.

Why are you defending a billionaire?

-30

u/AttonJRand Jan 13 '23

Okay you are way too deep into the Corporate kool aid.

22

u/skyely Jan 13 '23

No, I think you have a really wrong understanding of how the world works. An apple store employee can do the same amount of work at apple store or at bed bath and beyond. The CEOs of Apple and the work they have put over the years is why it is now worth 2T+ while the CEOs of BBBY are the reason why it is now on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple has 3x the number of employees bbby has. Why isn’t the latter worth 700B at the moment if executives do nothing?

17

u/TeslasAndComicbooks Jan 13 '23

You think 100 retail employees are worth more than someone who can architect a supply chain?

-8

u/iMissTheOldInternet Jan 13 '23

lmao at "architect a supply chain". He was one of the many American executives who outsourced all of our manufacturing to China because of the extremely subtle and hard-to-grasp value proposition of "we will let you do anything and grind up our people into paste while paying them a fraction of what you would have paid Americans, and if they try to organize a labor action we will literally kill them for you." Good for you, Timmy.

25

u/oboshoe Jan 13 '23

People are not compensated on the work they do.

They are compensated on the value they deliver.

This is true from the highest paid CEO down to most entry level of jobs.

3

u/ImJLu Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Well, more like the minimum that the labor market can sustain, but yeah, impact plays heavily into that. People do tend to get paid below the theoretical proportional value they deliver, though, because otherwise profits wouldn't really be a thing because they'd be part of the value that gets split proportionally.

Can't pretend it doesn't lead to enormous inequity though, considering some things can scale massively and some really can't. CEO decision making can swing valuation by the billions, software can basically infinitely scale (e.g. I work on a product with billions of active users and recently pushed a change that runs hundreds of thousands of times per second), and hedgies can make decisions that affect where billions of dollars are allocated. Meanwhile, an individual physically can't flip a thousand burgers per second.

So some people get compensated far more than others, and while you could argue that it's proportional to their impact (or they're potentially even underpaid by that measure) and theoretically fair if you view it from that lens, it really is worth questioning whether that's good for society as a whole. And IMO, it's probably not.

18

u/bigspunge1 Jan 13 '23

Tim Cook isn’t a founder of this company. He’s been put in his position and compensated because the board finds him to be effective at his job. He is valued at what Apple thinks he is worth keeping for the company. It’s all because he does great work that 99% of people could not do. Similar to athletes who get paid in professional supports accordingly with being the top .1% of their profession, he receives that treatment as an exec. Pay increases exponentially at these levels of performance. It’s all what you’re worth to someone. Strive to make yourself more valuable or stop complaining about it

2

u/this_barb Jan 13 '23

He was Steve Jobs' #2. He's a defacto founder in the sense that he built the Apple we know today.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

That makes it sound like it was his buddy hired. Tim Cook worked at Apple for years.

-7

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

the value of work / $ compensated is incredibly out of whack.

13

u/TheTVDB Jan 13 '23

People generally aren't paid based on the amount of work they do, but how replaceable they are. I'm a senior developer and know that there are carpenters and waitresses and a lot of other jobs that work a lot harder than I do. But I'm paid more because those people are easier to replace than I am.

CEOs of public companies are slightly different, as their compensation is also based on how they affect the company's net worth. Company value is often driven by perception as much as by performance, so a CEO that can make investors feel good about the company while driving profits is going to be paid well for that. And it's not something everyone can do.

And again, it's fine to acknowledge that execs are overpaid. Nobody really thinks otherwise.

-3

u/benderunit9000 Jan 13 '23

Nobody really thinks otherwise.

and yet, nothing is done about it.

11

u/TheTVDB Jan 13 '23

What would you like to see done? Companies aren't going to adjust it because they want to stay competitive with other companies, and having a highly paid, highly performing CEO is part of that.

So you're limited to establishing a law that would restrict CEO pay. If attempted at the national level, individual states would fight it all the way through the Supreme Court and likely win because it's an overstep by the Federal Government.

If you attempt it at the state level, companies will avoid states that have those rules when incorporating since they'll be at a competitive disadvantage compared to states that don't have the law.

The only two ways to viably address this is:

  1. Convince the public they shouldn't buy from companies with overpaid CEOs. This isn't happening, but is a nice pipe dream.
  2. Leave it as is, but simplify our tax code and make it progressive so CEOs have to pay high taxes that help return a bit back to society.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

Unless you can pay congress to rewrite several corporate laws and securities and exchange laws - keep dreaming.

Let me ask you a question. If you start a business, and it’s doing so good you need workers, and one day you’re making a lot of money - how would you feel if the government told you, you’re making too much and we have to start distributing your profit elsewhere and take half your company?

-15

u/teddytwelvetoes Jan 13 '23

I'm using hyperbole to highlight the absurdity of c suite compensation at colossal juggernauts like Apple

14

u/gophergun Jan 13 '23

Can you see now how that's misleading and distracting as a rhetorical tactic compared to just saying what you mean based on the reality of the situation?

-16

u/teddytwelvetoes Jan 13 '23

if grown adults don't know what hyperbole is or want to pretend that they don't know what hyperbole is, that's their problem

-4

u/Tathorn Jan 13 '23

As an investor why would I pay someone for not doing work?

0

u/Arucious Jan 13 '23

you bought a stock that someone else already had. unless you’re the original stock buyer from the IPO, you didn’t pay him anything

-4

u/Tathorn Jan 13 '23

Pay who anything? The CEO of Apple? That's not how IPO nor stocks work at all. The current CEO wasn't even in that position when it IPO, so that makes no sense.

As an investor (holder of stock) one ought to be concerned about the productivity of the executive. That's literally the point of holding ownership in the company.

Does Reddit seriously think this is how company ownership works? You just pay the CEO at IPO? You pay whoever sells it, which may have been the CEO, thousands of other investors, or the company itself.

5

u/Arucious Jan 13 '23

did you read what you wrote?

As an investor why would I pay someone for not doing work?

What does this mean? Who are you paying? Buying a stock isn’t paying Tim’s salary. Or anybody else’s for that matter. Apple has zero need for your cash. And the investment purchase gives zero money to them unless you bought the shares from them — which you didn’t — you bought them on a marketplace from other shareholders.

1

u/Tathorn Jan 14 '23

Yes I know how this all works. I am an owner of a business and any expense paid to an executive is less cash flow for me. Investors really ought to be mindful of that.

I'm sure you're not seriously thinking I meant that buying shares gives money to companies (except when they issues new shares it does). Come on.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

You misunderstood. It’s a hypothetical. He’s talking about the board of directors. The shareholders. They vote on CEOs and also have the power to kick them out if they deem the CEO is doing poorly.

So they’re saying, why would shareholders vote on an incompetent CEO who was running a company to the ground? They wouldn’t.

Reddit believes CEO do nothing all day but spend money. This isn’t true. Many work 60+ hours a week.

0

u/Nut_based_spread Jan 14 '23

Take 4000 people and have them do ANYthing. Plant trees. Build the world’s biggest burrito. Do simple arithmetic.

Four thousand. Think of how many hands and minds that includes.

Now tell me your enlightened view of how CEOs “do work.” Get outta here.

181

u/Hi_Im_Dadbot Jan 13 '23

Ok, that’s inaccurate. You’re forgetting all his stock options and the like which he’s able to sell in a pinch, so it’s really closer to a thousand or a million lifetimes worth of cash.

11

u/memethereisnot Jan 13 '23

A million lifetimes? Are you suggesting that the average person makes less than $100 in their lifetime?

2

u/DonaldJenkins Jan 13 '23

that's like true isn't it. Just factor in all people in the world globally

3

u/senorswagster Jan 14 '23

Way too low, median income per year is probably around $500-1000. Let alone a whole life time

2

u/robertsong87 Jan 13 '23

They're probably reporting his pay as what the shares are worth. Still getting paid the same number of shares they're just worth about 40% less

5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

0

u/camisado84 Jan 14 '23

CEOs can not sell their stocks “in a pinch”.

-16

u/Seiglerfone Jan 13 '23

No, it's not inaccurate. Meanwhile, you literally just tried to assert the average person makes $40 in their life.

16

u/Hi_Im_Dadbot Jan 13 '23

That’s an … interesting … take on what I said, I suppose?

4

u/Seiglerfone Jan 13 '23

Yeah, interesting... that's what you call the ability to divide 40 million by 1 million.

Division... interesting.

-1

u/ShotokanSide Jan 13 '23

He isn't making $40m/yr. He took a 40% paycut, which amounts to $40m less. So he was making $100m beforehand. And Dadbot also said "add his stock options and bonuses", which apparently amount to around $1 billion. So the number to divide is $1,060,000,000. Still, not a million lifetimes worth of money. A thousand lifetimes would be way more accurate.

1

u/rich519 Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

He just did the math on numbers you gave. Tim Cook will get about $50 million in 2023, including stock options. If that’s the money of a million lifetimes it would be an average of $50 per lifetime.

The median American life time earning is 1.7M which makes Tim Cook’s salary 30 life times. Much closer to the 10+ number the original comment gave that you called incorrect before making up your own numbers.

15

u/9935c101ab17a66 Jan 13 '23

You can argue that executive compensation is totally insane and should be reduced across the board, but saying the man hasn’t done anything as CEO is such a brain dead take. He’s the CEO of the most valuable company on earth, and under his leadership, the growth has been literally unprecedented. The stock has delivered 1200% return over the last decade. Let that sink in for a minute.

4

u/Philly139 Jan 13 '23

People on reddit think companies lead themselves

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

Which is funny because they should know Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple BECAUSE the shareholders thought he was mismanaging it as CEO.

-6

u/NotSoMrNiceGuy Jan 13 '23

This comment spews r/antiwork . People act like people who work as business executives or upper management do nothing a sit around all day.

The double standard is hilarious because the same people look at Elon and how poorly they are now performing with different executive leadership..

The Reddit hivemind needs to pick a narrative and stick with it.. lol just pathetic

6

u/urgjotonlkec Jan 13 '23

Executive usually do work very hard.. but not 1000x harder, lol.

5

u/TheTVDB Jan 13 '23

People aren't paid based on the amount of work they do, but rather by how replaceable they are and the value they bring to the company. My company's janitors work harder than I do, but I drive a lot more revenue than they do and am much harder to replace.

1

u/kthnxbai123 Jan 14 '23

There are obviously exceptions and a lot of fakers but actually useful executives easily deliver 1000x the value of an analyst, for example.

2

u/juggernaut006 Jan 13 '23

People are not acting like upper management and CEOs do no work. That's a strawman you've concocted in your mind.

What they are saying is that they are being overpaid compared to the value they bring to a company.

18

u/Eric_Partman Jan 13 '23

People are literally saying it in this thread lmao.

3

u/NotSoMrNiceGuy Jan 13 '23

If you read the comments on any article like this you hear it as well.. lol

3

u/Mundane__Detail Jan 13 '23

What they are saying is that they are being overpaid compared to the value they bring to a company.

Why does the company pay them so much then? Honest question, I work a normal IT job and have no idea how c-suite stuff does or doesn't work.

7

u/afterburners_engaged Jan 13 '23

Lol In the case of Tim Cook? Absolutely not. Tim is a supply chain wizard. Like during the great chip shortage of 2020 and 2021 Tim managed to keep products on shelves while competitors were struggling.

3

u/juggernaut006 Jan 13 '23

Did Tim Cook single-handled work to fix the supply chain issue both the physical labor part and the logistics, the problem-solving part e.t.c?

3

u/Pleasant-Cellist-573 Jan 13 '23

Physical labor doesn't solve supply chain issues. The logistics is absolutely much more difficult and much more important and is actually what solved supply chain issues. Physical labor just puts it in practice.

0

u/danbert2000 Jan 13 '23

Just him, he personally did it. Amazing man, single handedly making all those chips.

1

u/urgjotonlkec Jan 13 '23

Apple was able to do that because they are the largest customer for most of their suppliers and can therefore demand preferential treatment. Doesn't take a genius.

2

u/esotec Jan 13 '23

can’t wait to see what you do when you take over as Apple CEO

-1

u/jhaluska Jan 13 '23

What they are saying is that they are being overpaid compared to the value they bring to a company.

Seriously, imagine how much better of a position Tesla would be in if they took Elon's pay compensation and applied it to QC and service.

1

u/Pleasant-Cellist-573 Jan 13 '23

Elon's compensation is stock options. You wouldn't be able to reallocate it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

they are being overpaid compared to the value they bring

This is literally diminishing their work. It’s the same way minimum wage work is diminished by people that think it’s too easy to do.

CEO literally DO get paid based on the value they bring. A great CEO will grow a company. A terrible CEO will get voted off quickly.

If the company grew by $100 billion under him, and Tim was paid $2 billion - then by what you just said - he’s he was compensated for the value he brings.

Everyone here thinks being a CEO is so easy. Lmao You think it’s easy managing one of the most successful companies that the shareholders wouldn’t vote you away?

1

u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 13 '23

People act like people who work as business executives or upper management do nothing a sit around all day.

Because they do. Elon Musk always claims that he "works 16 hour days" because to an executive, sitting around in your a luxury office being a Twitter troll counts as "work".

-2

u/teddytwelvetoes Jan 13 '23

I'm using hyperbole to highlight the absurdity of c suite compensation at colossal juggernauts like Apple

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

Gives up 40% and people still bitch. Lol

1

u/iMissTheOldInternet Jan 13 '23

It's over 20 lifetimes' worth, but other than that, spot on. Apple is still an abusive, monopolistic company that profits off of regulatory capture and slavery or slavery-adjacent working conditions in Asia.

1

u/procgen Jan 14 '23

He definitely works his ass off.

1

u/Impressive_Candy789 Jan 14 '23

"watch a money printer" lmao as if Tim Cook isn't actively making important strategic decisions every single day