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

9.7k

u/this-my-5th-account Jan 13 '23 • Masterpiece

He's still earning more in a year than any of us will ever see in a lifetime.

I'm sure he'll survive.

3.7k

u/Evilbred Jan 13 '23

He earns more in a month than most in a lifetime. His salary is only a small part of his compensation package.

1.5k

u/UltraSPARC Jan 13 '23

They restructured his compensation package too. They don’t want him to retire before 2026 so now his comp won’t mature until the end of 2025 instead of yearly. It was something like $119 million. Fun fact: he had a compensation package in 2015 that was $900 million if he held onto all the stock in todays dollars.

758

u/BigGreen4 Jan 13 '23

According to the articles, this was his idea, after having listened to feedback from shareholders. He then put it to the shareholders to vote and they agreed, about 66% in favor of the new compensation package.

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees. This would be a big step forward. (I understand that’s wishful thinking.)

156

u/kent_eh Jan 13 '23

He then put it to the shareholders to vote and they agreed, about 66% in favor of the new compensation package.

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees

If the shareholders wanted it, then they'll be the ones getting any extra money.

I would be shocked if they voted for anything other than their own personal enrichment.

106

u/BigGreen4 Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Which is a good and valid point that CEO’s are not the one’s who control employee wages long-term. It’s the shareholders.

If Tim Cook gave all employees a 50% raise - everybody’s happy in the world. Until earnings come out, and the company (likely) underperforms. When a company underperforms, their shares tend to lose value. When the stock loses value, the shareholders lose money. The shareholders then pressure the board to fire the CEO (Tim Cook). New CEO moves in, cuts wages to get earnings back in line, and we’re back where we started.

Yet everyone points their fingers at the CEO.

103

u/beavedaniels Jan 13 '23

Part of the CEOs job is to be the one who gets the finger pointed at them.

It's like the commissioners of the major sports leagues. They accept huge amounts of compensation in return for being the villain, so the real villains can continue doing fucked up shit behind closed doors.

30

u/ChillyBearGrylls Jan 13 '23

They accept huge amounts of compensation in return for being the villain, so the real villains can continue doing fucked up shit behind closed doors

Amusingly, that also describes Ticketmaster et al - they would have no price setting ability if venues and performers didn't work with them. TM is the 'heel' in the story.

8

u/beavedaniels Jan 13 '23

Yep! No shortage of people and organizations willing to trade the moral high ground for money haha

6

u/FuujinSama Jan 13 '23

It's ridiculous, even. Venues have limited tickets. Clearly, there are enough people willing to buy the inflated """"scalper"""" prices. So why not set that as the initial sell price?

Instead they pretend concerts are still "affordable" and sell cheap tickets that they themselves immediately buy to sell again at the correct price. This in turn means the people that fail to buy the affordable tickets in time blame "scalpers" and "ticket master" instead of blaming the venues and artists for having the ridiculous but correct pricing.

In truth, it's all just an artifact of huge wealth inequality. If there's an event in demand with limited lotation (say 10,000 seats), the price of that event is what the 10,000 richest people that want to see the event can afford. In a world with huge wealth inequality that might be $500 or it might be $1000 whereas a reasonable price for the average worker would be $50 or lower.

Poor people will soon be unable to attend any sort of concert. That's just how it is. No money at all in filling a venue with poor people when there are enough rich people willing to pay. This wouldn't magically change if we added laws against scalpers or anything was made about ticketmaster. The only change would be venues and artists coming clean with the whole deal.

2

u/mloofburrow Jan 14 '23

Except that Ticketmaster owns the venues and forces the artists to use them if they want to perform at said venues. So... no. Ticketmaster is still the asshole here.

2

u/AndrewKemendo Jan 14 '23

It's almost as if, by supporting the villains, you become one too!

→ More replies (1)

30

u/Bakoro Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 14 '23

"Underperforms" the completely bullshit, high sloped infinite growth curve that shareholders expect, even during a recession.

The greedy psychopaths we generally call "shareholders" look at a perfectly healthy company, with steady returns, and a good long term strategy, and those shareholders will says it's "underperforming", because the company could also be sucking the blood from newborn children to maximize next quarter's profits.

3

u/BigGreen4 Jan 13 '23

Those “greedy psychopaths” are generally your average, everyday citizen with a retirement plan. Or at least it’s their votes, proxied by their broker. Maybe everybody should stop allowing their brokers to vote for them, and instead tune in for the calls and/or votes?

I totally understand what you mean though. The world could be a much better place if people/corporations (that aren’t trying to advance the planet, human race, etc) could be content with matching last years’ record profit, vs upset they didn’t beat it by another 10%.

4

u/Bakoro Jan 13 '23

Those “greedy psychopaths” are generally your average, everyday citizen with a retirement plan. Or at least it’s their votes, proxied by their broker.

Yeah, and brokers are likely greedy sociopaths.

Anyone who can look at a downward trending economy, or an industry devastated by some event, and still demand that they outperform the good times, is either a greedy idiot, or a greedy sociopath. That's all there is too it.

We've seen it time and time again.

The selfishness and short-sightedness is astounding.

2

u/jobonki Jan 14 '23

Maybe don’t have brokers, direct register shares, then all votes are purposeful votes from informed individuals not psychopathic businesses

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/siegmour Jan 14 '23

Pretty much this. It baffles my mind that people imagine shareholders as some kind of lizard people.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/group_XIII Jan 13 '23

Which means that the CEO that keeps the job is the one that is willing to exploit the workers. They certainly deserve to also be blamed.

-4

u/s0lesearching117 Jan 13 '23

What kind of ass-backwards reasoning is that? If you build a system that favors psychopaths, then don't be surprised when psychopaths dominate it. In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game.

6

u/alieninthegame Jan 13 '23

Yes, those poor innocent psychopaths, simply exploiting the system put before them, just minding their own business, please don't blame them for their horrible, murderous tendencies.

1

u/s0lesearching117 Jan 13 '23

You're missing the point. Hate the psychopaths all you like, but if you don't change the system, you'll only end up with more psychopaths to take their place.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/moustacheption Jan 13 '23

Right, employees need to start advocating to becoming shareholders via RSUs or other stock compensation so they can vote on shareholder proposals and actually have a say in the direction of their company.

Otherwise you’re really just a contractor with a shitty contract you can’t update every year.

6

u/kbotc Jan 13 '23

Right, employees need to start advocating to becoming shareholders via RSUs or other stock compensation so they can vote on shareholder proposals and actually have a say in the direction of their company.

Apple gives very generous RSU grants, though I'm sure some of the people are disappointed that their $180k in RSUs have been losing money, but that's tech as a whole. My grants are in the toilet

0

u/runningraider13 Jan 14 '23

For any public company (such as Apple) employees can already become shareholders by just buying shares, doesn't need to be any changes in how they get compensated.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Windex17 Jan 13 '23

Wall Street unironically controls everything. All of the business decisions the largest companies in the world make are made to appease shareholders by law and the vast majority of policy pushed by politicians on both sides are made to appease their donors who are primarily from the financial sector. Money talks and Wall Street has all of it.

-2

u/Dshmidley Jan 13 '23

Which proves stocks are a massive joke/scam.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ExceedingChunk Jan 13 '23

Shareholders sees a value in having a CEO like Tim tho. Not necessarily because he is many times more competent than any other CEO that could take significantly less salary, but because he's the face of Apple and him leaving would make the stock plummet.

Yes, they would obviously vote for themselves, but that would implicitly also vote for the company's value.

0

u/Impossible_Garbage_4 Jan 13 '23

What if half went to shareholders and half to employees? Do you think shareholders would go for that since they would still get richer?

→ More replies (1)

26

u/oboshoe Jan 13 '23

That would be nice for Apple employees.

They are doing well though. Median comp is $143,000 a year at Apple.

27

u/absentmindedjwc Jan 13 '23

They are doing well though. Median comp is $143,000 a year at Apple.

It is worth pointing out, as it seems to have confused people in another comment thread that mentioned this, that $143,000 is the median compensation for all Apple employees nationwide - corporate and retail.

A lot of people read this in that other chain and thought that Apple corporate employees averaged $143k, which is very much not a great salary in Cupertino California... the corporate employee median is likely quite a lot higher than $143k.

0

u/astrange Jan 13 '23

Salary isn't much above that (and might be less). The part above that comes from non-salary income like stock compensation.

(And nobody lives in Cupertino because it's so NIMBY there's no houses left.)

18

u/korben2600 Jan 13 '23

That's not median pay. That's mean. So including the multi-million dollar salaries of the executives. The average pay for the "Client Advisor" title is $31,115.

Apple's median pay in 2018 was just $55,426.

7

u/oboshoe Jan 13 '23

Yea I suppose if you include all the retail workers in, that does cut it down tremendously.

Nobody at Apple corporate makes less than $100k though and most are closer to $200k.

I don't feel like doing the math at Apple, but I've done it for other Fortune fifty companies. Usually if you eliminate the executive pay from the average or median, the number doesn't change significantly. While a single executive might earn as much as 200 employees, in a company with 40,000 employees their pay impact is quite diluted on the average and mean figures.

FWIW, if you took Tim Cooks entire comp package ($49m) and distributed it amongst the 40,000 employees, the employees would earn $1225 more a year.

3

u/kbotc Jan 13 '23

Total comp for Apple's been insane the past couple of years. They recently gave off cycle RSU grants between $50k and $180k.

​

But this reduction in Cook's payment was agreed on a bit ago: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-ceo-tim-cooks-compensation-rises-to-nearly-100-million-thanks-to-new-stock-award-11641508170

​

They call them performance stock units.

2

u/AstroPhysician Jan 13 '23

Nobody at Apple corporate makes less than $100k though and most are closer to $200k.

No, they're wayyyy above that

→ More replies (5)

441

u/Z23kG3Cn7f Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Apple is worth over $1TN in the bank.

It's their choice to not pay workers decently

Edit: I corrected it to worth, not cash. My bad.

165

u/IAP-23I Jan 13 '23

Apple doesn’t have over a trillion in the bank, how does shit like this get upvotes

15

u/big_sugi Jan 13 '23

$49 billion, according to the most recent report I saw.

-1

u/DeeJayGeezus Jan 13 '23

That was around their total profits for the year, not their total holdings. You can find all this information yourself on the 10-K. Public companies need to make all this information very transparent.

5

u/big_sugi Jan 13 '23

Apple has famously kept a lot of cash on hand for years. As of 9/30/22, they had $48.3 billion in cash on hand.

78

u/testedonsheep Jan 13 '23

it feels good to upvote misinformation that agrees with yourself.

6

u/16semesters Jan 13 '23

And them saying Apple doesn't pay their workers well, when they pay above average for every sector of employee?!

15

u/Qlinkenstein Jan 13 '23

how does shit like this get upvotes

The disinformation on Reddit is just a prevalent as it is on any other social network site. Some internet “genius” spews forth some BS and it gets repeated ad nauseam until it becomes “true” for some people. Rinse. Repeat.

3

u/Zanos Jan 14 '23

Reddit is incredibly ignorant about basic economics when it gets in the way of making a point about a company.

6

u/absentmindedjwc Jan 13 '23

Because people love hating on apple

17

u/velders01 Jan 13 '23

This is reddit, they'd lynch Ms. Smith down the street running her flower store for "exploiting" workers.

→ More replies (4)

176

u/Cthulhuonpcin144p Jan 13 '23

They have 48billion in cash+short term investments. It’s nowhere close to a trillion$

108

u/korben2600 Jan 13 '23

Yeah, they're probably conflating cash reserves with Apple's market cap which recently broke valuation records at $1 trillion (2018) and later $2 trillion (2020).

Apple's cash and bond reserves have been as high as $270 billion at its peak. Once Orange Julius passed his billionaire tax cuts in 2017, they took advantage of a tax loophole in the law which allowed corporations to repatriate their offshore cash back into the USA at a one-time rate of 15% which saved Apple roughly $47 billion in taxes.

Instead of adjusting employee compensation upwards, as Republicans said would happen, boosting the economy, most corporations used much of their windfall on stock buybacks and shareholder dividends. Apple used these methods to transfer ~$175 billion of the repatriated cash directly to shareholders.

As of Oct 2022, they currently hold $180B in cash and bonds. Apple keeps about 46% of its cash reserves in corporate bonds. Probably some of the largest cash reserves of any corporation on Earth.

12

u/NotReallyChaucer Jan 13 '23

Apple also, as a result of the 2017 Tax package, gave each employee below a certain executive level $2500 of RSUs that vested over three years. I didn’t read of other companies who actually took the opportunity to benefit their employees. Yes, the amount may seem paltry, but it’s not nothing.

7

u/Justtryme90 Jan 13 '23

Those dividends they paid out at least did go to a ton of peoples 401Ks as most US broad market index funds are heavily invested in apple.

2

u/Cthulhuonpcin144p Jan 13 '23

Wow. Thanks for all the information, it’s still an astounding amount of $. From my quick look at figures the number was a bit smaller, but I’m guessing it’s because of the bonds they are using as holdings.

2

u/SpongeBad Jan 13 '23

While the amount of cash on hand is insane, I get it when it comes to Apple. Any company that came that close to not existing because of cash flow issues would do everything in their power to prevent it from happening again.

If iPhone sales drop off a cliff, Apple will have a lot of cash to reinvent themselves (again).

0

u/Manny_Kant Jan 13 '23

Instead of adjusting employee compensation upwards, as Republicans said would happen, boosting the economy, most corporations used much of their windfall on stock buybacks and shareholder dividends. Apple used these methods to transfer ~$175 billion of the repatriated cash directly to shareholders.

You understand, surely, that RSUs are a substantial portion of the compensation package at most tech companies, including Apple, right? So sending that cash to shareholders is sending that cash to employees.

→ More replies (6)

49

u/Pokerhobo Jan 13 '23

This is correct and easy to look up. Apple has been continuously doing stock buybacks. They've never had close to $1T in the bank.

6

u/Cthulhuonpcin144p Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Yeah I think their peak cash on hand was like 100(nvm) billion. I’m shocked at just how big their buybacks have been, the more you know ig.

Edit: the real numbers around 200-250 billion

3

u/Sexy_Mfer Jan 13 '23

It definitely peaked higher than that, think it was close to 250b when the rumors of them acquiring Netflix was floating. They ended up buying back tons of stock instead

→ More replies (1)

9

u/manatwork01 Jan 13 '23

They did hit 1T in market cap at one point maybe thats where they were confused? (looked it up they are at 2T now but thats if apple owned all their shares, they don't, and sole them all at peak pricing at once which wouldnt happen it would tank the stock.

26

u/Fuzzy1450 Jan 13 '23

There’s so many finance illiterate people on Reddit who think a company’s net value is all in cash, or somehow easily spendable.

A company’s net value isn’t even a real number. It’s an evaluation. An estimate. If Jeff Bezos (net worth 118 bil) wanted to buy 118 billion dollars worth of people suffering, he’d have to sell everything he owns to pay for it. (Or he could open more Amazon warehouses)

10

u/manatwork01 Jan 13 '23

As someone who is on a ton of personalfi and investing subreddits it's kinda crazy how few people understand any of these most basic concepts.

6

u/Fuzzy1450 Jan 13 '23

And yet they have such strong feelings about it. I bet the “it’s their choice to not pay workers decently” thinks apple is a hand rubbing, evil corporation bent on hoarding money and making employees suffer.

When really it’s just a misconception.

6

u/manatwork01 Jan 13 '23

Just pointed out on a different thread where Americans (I am also American) were ganging up on a European for daring to say monthly paychecks were better and the people responding saying they would prefer weekly/biweekly because they would run out of money just screams no budget skills.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SplitOak Jan 13 '23

Not to mention if Jeff Bezos started selling his shares to cash out the stock price would crash fast. And not only that, he has to get approval to sell off the stock; not like they are going to let him liquidate all of it. So many more restrictions that most people think of.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Lessthanzerofucks Jan 13 '23

Their peak cash holdings were around $270 billion, then they vowed to spend most of that if they got a good deal on repatriating that cash from Ireland to the USA. That’s ONLY a quarter trillion.

-7

u/demonicneon Jan 13 '23

Nobody said they ever did. They were valued at 1trill. People are dumb.

Value doesn’t = cash in the bank.

It’s all your stuff and cash added together.

12

u/le_fuzz Jan 13 '23

If you look two comments up someone is trying to say that.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

460

u/Dman5891 Jan 13 '23

Fun fact; if you spent a million dollars a day from the day Christ was born you would have spent less than 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

Pay your workers Timmy.

100

u/GroverMcGillicutty Jan 13 '23

Apple is spending a hell of a lot more than a million a day in wages.

36

u/Part_Timer_99Y4 Jan 13 '23

Good to know they’ve been around longer than Christ

15

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist Jan 14 '23

Yeah, didn’t they start in Eden?

5

u/TaralasianThePraxic Jan 14 '23

This joke really deserves more credit

5

u/Part_Timer_99Y4 Jan 14 '23

Fuck me that is a solid one liner

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23 edited Jan 14 '23

[deleted]

4

u/MEME_RAIDER Jan 14 '23

In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because I have been enlightened by my own intelligence.

13

u/LifeHasLeft Jan 13 '23

Yep, they’ve got 160,000 employees, assuming the average salary is in the 100,000’s, they’re paying at least 40,000,000 a day in wages. Sure many Genius Bar employees will make less but there are also people making several hundred thousand dollars a year, or into the millions like Cook.

10

u/Blazing1 Jan 13 '23

That's.... A lot less than I expected.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Syntaire Jan 14 '23

At that rate it would take them about 68 years to spend their way through $1T.

Put another way Apple would have to spend about 20 average lifetimes worth of money every single day for most of a single average lifetime to burn through less than HALF of their current net worth.

3

u/LifeHasLeft Jan 14 '23

You can’t spend net worth on wages. I think they could increase the low end of their wages too, but they don’t actually have $1T in the bank.

1

u/Syntaire Jan 14 '23

Obviously. This is a theoretical discussion to illustrate just how much they are worth.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/metaStatic Jan 13 '23

What's the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? A billion dollars.

Most people don't understand the scales we're talking about here

11

u/Dragon_yum Jan 13 '23

Not that I disagree with you but Apple spends way more than 1 million a day.

4

u/Dman5891 Jan 13 '23

I was making a point about how much a trillion dollars actually is, most people can't even imagine a number that big. Another way...in just over 11 days there are a million seconds. A trillion seconds takes over 31000 years !

10

u/hrehbfthbrweer Jan 13 '23

This is always my favourite way of getting the point across:

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

Just shows how incomprehensibly wealthy these people and corporations are.

→ More replies (1)

-7

u/takabrash Jan 13 '23

What does that have to do with anything?

8

u/Dragon_yum Jan 13 '23

That their capital isn’t infinite, companies need runway to operate properly. So it’s not like they got enough money to operate for 2000 years. While it will last undoubtedly a long time it’s no where near that scale of that long.

-3

u/takabrash Jan 13 '23

Who said it's infinite? Apple also makes way more than a million a day. Their anecdote had almost nothing to do with Apple itself. Just money

5

u/Dragon_yum Jan 13 '23

It must be hard going through life when you forget context of conversations after two sentences.

-2

u/takabrash Jan 13 '23

Is hard. I so dum

→ More replies (0)

28

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

81

u/EvaUnit_03 Jan 13 '23

But christ was born more than 2000 years ago! He'd be 22 or something by your metric. Those 22 years make all the difference for the math.

4

u/negativeyoda Jan 13 '23

Most scholars agree Jesus was born between 6-4BC so he'd be pushing 30

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Mczern Jan 13 '23

Yeah but Christ had nothing for the first 21 years of his life then got his shit together and pulled himself up by his boot straps and became a trillionaire over the following year. Look it up it's in the Bible.

-1

u/PullinUpBootstraps Jan 13 '23

Assuming the man even existed. History can't even agree on when and where he was born so Christians just took over a few days important to Pagans,threw a dart at a map and decided this is where our story began.

14

u/Griffon489 Jan 13 '23

Look I get being skeptical about Jesus’s existence and what not but the time period chosen was because there is a guy in Roman occupied judea that lead a cult resistance against their rule that called himself “Jesus”. Hell here is a biblical scholar’s analysis of a letter by Pontius Pilate telling the current emporer at the time Tiberius why he crucified this “Jesus”.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560249

I’m atheist as hell but I’m pretty fucking sure Jesus was a real human being that was a real problem to Roman imperial interests.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/LikeACannibal Jan 13 '23

You're absolutely correct. There's no evidence for there actually being a person that existed named Jesus of any import. Literally the only thing people cite is a faked letter that even the damn Vatican said was a forgery.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

7

u/lukeswalton Jan 13 '23

I’m not religious and don’t necessarily think of him as Christ, but jesus was a person, not a myth. He existed.

-9

u/KylerGreen Jan 13 '23

Someone always has to say this.

Yes, there was probably a bunch of people named Jesus Christ around that time period.

3

u/stamminator Jan 13 '23

Do you apply the same lazy logic to other historical figures?

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/bimmerphile_ec Jan 13 '23

That is literally what we use to measure time, since the current year is based off Jesus’ supposed birth.

2

u/Gramage Jan 13 '23

So, since we don't actually know if Jesus was born when we think he was, or if he even truly existed, how about we stop using such an arbitrary and likely incorrect marker and instead choose January 1st exactly 2023 years ago as the precise date and year we start our calendars at? We're keeping the same year number as the old religious measurement out of pure convenience, but it no longer has anything to do with religion. We've decided it has been 2023 years since 2023 years ago because everyone's used to those numbers.

I mean, if we found evidence that Jesus was actually born 40 years earlier than we thought, do we have to update our calendars? Lols.

2

u/lilB0bbyTables Jan 13 '23

Estimations by scholars put Jesus’ birth at between 6 B.C. - 4 B.C. anyway, so the transition from B.C. to A.D. marker is not actually based on the birth of Christ marker. The A.D. acronym notation was created less out of any scientific basis for setting an epoch and more out of spite to remove Roman Emperor Diocletian from the pages of history.

At any rate … we already have an alternative way of referencing the timelines before and after that epoch which is to use BCE (Before Common Era) and ACE or more simply CE (Common Era).

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

34

u/large_moist_loaf Jan 13 '23

Redditor moment

11

u/ViennettaLurker Jan 13 '23

Its crazy that the difference your discussing might be, what, billions? And in a way it kinda doesn't matter at that point. Crazy to think of a million as change that could get lost in the couch.

7

u/deedoedee Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Your source doesn't mention the Alexamenos graffito at all, along with other close-to-contemporary sources of proof that, at the very least, a person named Jesus who was worshiped existed.

If you want to lose the battle of minds, start with omitting your opponent's most easily-accepted facts.

→ More replies (1)

59

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

7

u/keeelay Jan 13 '23

You’re no better than the Christians for this one homie

14

u/mungalo9 Jan 13 '23

Jesus existed

No matter how euphoric you are today, you should at least be able to admit that.

-8

u/Ecksplisit Jan 13 '23

Jesus exists. He’s hispanic and one of my good friends. The biblical Jesus might have existed. But even if he did he just did some slight of hand parlor tricks and paid people to write fantastical stories about him. The equivalent of if JK Rowling made the Harry Potter books about herself.

11

u/ATmotoman Jan 13 '23

As a agnostic/atheist who also studies the Bible in an academic/historical sense, Jesus almost 100% for sure existed, this is pretty undisputed by all scholars. Also, historical Jesus did not pay anyone to write about him. The earliest synoptic gospels are written somewhere around 50-70CE so a good 20-40 years after Jesus’s death. Most accounts of Jesus and his life would’ve been transmitted orally prior to that, most likely being exaggerated. The book of John was the last gospel of Jesus written closer to 90CE and we see a different christiology, or understanding of who Jesus is perceived to be, in this later book.

In summary this is not equivalent of Harry Potter, fully fictional character, and is more akin to king Midas. Or better yet start with Jesus’s close counterpartApollonius of Tyana

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/fb95dd7063 Jan 13 '23

reddit moment

2

u/kosen13 Jan 13 '23

Le epic Reddit moment

3

u/lilB0bbyTables Jan 13 '23

How about $1M a day since the start of the Common Era (C.E.) is what you’re looking for

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (9)

23

u/dank8844 Jan 13 '23

No they don’t. It’s not even close to that amount

27

u/ttylyl Jan 13 '23

Apple has nowhere near 1 trillion in the bank lol. The value of the entire company is around 1 trillion. Which means if Apple wanted a trillion dollars they would have to somehow reclaim all the already sold shares and then sell 100% of their company to someone else, at which point they don’t get to chose what to do with the 1 trillion.

2

u/RabidGuineaPig007 Jan 13 '23

The value of the entire company is around 1 trillion.

oh...that was Tesla once. US Tech valuation is a total joke.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/Draiko Jan 13 '23

In the bank? No.

Their cash on hand is around $50 Billion.

The entire company has a valuation of $1 Trillion which is very different.

2

u/RabidGuineaPig007 Jan 13 '23

The entire company has a valuation of $1 Trillion which is very different.

For example, Tesla had a valuation of $1T, until they didn't. $700B go poof, imagine how much more if Elon wasn't a genius.

2

u/Draiko Jan 13 '23

Elon isn't a genius. The world is just seeing more proof of that now.

68

u/bluespringsbeer Jan 13 '23

What? Apple employees make bank.

15

u/Luci_Noir Jan 13 '23

This is Reddit. Bosses, jobs, companies are bad and people like this will just make shit up and lie to support their bullshit. Antiwork maga

-12

u/RabidGuineaPig007 Jan 13 '23

Yes, those lazy iPhone workers in China would rather jump to their death than do an honest day and a half's work in 12 hours.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

24

u/fb95dd7063 Jan 13 '23

Those aren't apple employees

9

u/rubbery_anus Jan 14 '23 edited Jan 14 '23

Foxconn employs over 1,000,000 people across its manufacturing divisions, and while it's no less tragic, it shouldn't be surprising that some of them will unfortunately kill themselves each year, just as a percentage of Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft (and so on) employees will do.

More to the point, it should be noted that Foxconn employees have a suicide rate that's substantially lower than the average rate across all of China, 1.4 per 100,000 vs 22 per 100,000 — in other words, it's a statistical fact that if you wanted to lower the chance of a Chinese person killing themselves, getting them a job making iPhones would reduce the risk by more than an order of magnitude.

To be frank, whenever this topic comes up it always feels so slimy and dishonest, because 99.9% of the people who put this argument forward don't actually give a flying fuck about the lives of the victims involved, they're just happy to have yet another stick to beat Apple with. Hating Apple is so much a part of their identity that they'll make all sorts of excuses and dishonest arguments as to how this is somehow uniquely Apple's problem, ignoring the thousands of other major companies in the US and elsewhere that outsource manufacturing to Foxconn, or they'll angrily dismiss the statistics that prove their argument incorrect with the kind of broken logic that they would never allow anyone else to use in any other circumstance.

It's fine not to like Apple, there are plenty of legitimate issues to criticise them on, but falsely dragging suicide victims into it is just deranged.

-1

u/Luci_Noir Jan 13 '23

Oh I just have forgot to mention them. Thanks for the whataboutism.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

9

u/techieman33 Jan 13 '23

Actual Apple employees make ok money. What about all the 3rd party employees that actually build their products though?

26

u/VioletDaeva Jan 13 '23

Apple engineers certainly do, I know one who walked into a job straight from university on 6 figures and that was nearly 20 years ago.

13

u/ExpensiveGiraffe Jan 13 '23

Engineer pay, at least software engineer pay, is (I hope this is the right word…) bimodal.

One group of workers, mostly F500 and smaller companies, pays less than employees at large tech companies. Both make good money, to be clear.

Apple is in that second group, but on the lower end of the payband. Someone talented enough to work at Apple could likely get a job at another tech company paying more.

Apple knows people really want to work at Apple, so they don’t have as much incentive to offer ultra-competitive pay.

6

u/Purehappiness Jan 13 '23

You’re right if you don’t consider the long term performance of the stocks they provide.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (17)

2

u/Badtrainwreck Jan 13 '23

They aren’t paid even remotely close to the profits they generate. Even if your someone who rubs yourself in baby oil while thinking about capitalism, they could pay their employees a ton more and their bottom line and investor confidence wouldn’t blink an eye.

36

u/in_rainbows8 Jan 13 '23

They could pay their employees a ton more and their bottom line and investor confidence wouldn’t blink an eye.

This applies really to almost every corporation tbh. Walmart, the largest retailer worldwide, has some of the most employees on food stamps for example.

13

u/AvatarAarow1 Jan 13 '23

Amazon too, and they all should pay their workers a lot better. The fact they can get away with paying such paltry wages while making record profit is insane

3

u/ganjanoob Jan 13 '23

The company I work for assistant CEO said it’s a career year, we’re single handedly making the parent company so much money, most of the staff is making 16 per hour - 18 per hour while other companies under that parent company received raises to 22-24 per hour. They recommended to some employees trying unemployment/food stamps lol.

0

u/astrange Jan 13 '23

Giving people benefits (like food stamps) means they're paid more, not less. The government is increasing their negotiating power vs Walmart when they support them like this. That's why benefits are good!

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (1)

25

u/tickleMyBigPoop Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

They aren’t paid even remotely close to the profits they generate

Labor value theory is a meme nothing more.

Tesla was losing money in the 2010s does that mean worker pay should be cut?

What about biotech R&D workers, if there's a new biotech startup by default they're loosing shitloads of money....so should the workers be paid $0.00

14

u/JHarbinger Jan 13 '23

They should obviously have to pay to work there, duh /s

→ More replies (4)

2

u/sirgenz Jan 14 '23

So who exactly generates the profits from, say, iPhones? Is it the engineers that design them, the overseas labor factory workers that produce them, the people mining the minerals, the people at the store selling them, the people making the iPhone commercials for ATT or the ones for Verizon or the ones for T-Mobile? I’m just wondering how you would allocate the profits to each group that generates them

→ More replies (1)

5

u/absentmindedjwc Jan 13 '23

They aren’t paid even remotely close to the profits they generate.

And what major company does pay anything remotely close to the profits they generate...?

3

u/Zanos Jan 14 '23

Ironically, many apple employees have large portions of their compensations packages in company stock...

3

u/absentmindedjwc Jan 14 '23

Just like Tim Cook. Iirc, dude makes like $4M in compensation. The rest is stock grants.

5

u/Zanos Jan 14 '23

Not disagreeing, just find it funny that people are complaining that Apple isn't paying its employees in line with the profits it generates, when stock grants are basically the closest possible thing to doing that.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/slayer828 Jan 13 '23

Not the ones at the apple stores

→ More replies (2)

4

u/BigSwedenMan Jan 13 '23

Market cap isn't the same thing as how much money they have in the bank

3

u/testedonsheep Jan 13 '23

They also don't plan to have a layoff.

7

u/Prodigy195 Jan 13 '23

They have a valuation over 1T but they don't have 1T in literal cash. Cash on hand is closer to 62B. Still an insane amount of money but a far cry from 1T in the bank.

5

u/earthwormjim91 Jan 13 '23

They never had a trillion. They had around $200B. And not even that anymore. They’ve been burning their cash reserves down buying back stock and investing it other places, with a goal to have net zero cash reserves. They’re down to $48B now.

Also, Apple employees make pretty decent money. The Apple Store by me starts at $23 an hour and goes to $27 for just basic customer service/sales rep. Actual corporate devs make hundreds of thousands.

→ More replies (8)

16

u/oboshoe Jan 13 '23

You think that a median salary of $143,000 a year isn't decent?

1

u/korben2600 Jan 13 '23

That's not median pay. That's mean. So including the multi-million dollar salaries of the executives. The average pay for the "Client Advisor" title is $31,115.

Apple's median pay in 2018 was just $55,426.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/pieter1234569 Jan 13 '23

Apple Pay’s very very very very decently. It’s just that the factories Apple employs don’t.

1

u/BashBandit Jan 13 '23

Same with Amazon, a lot of things in their facilities don’t work properly/ they don’t hire proper people for positions where there should be specifically qualified workers/ and they skimp HARD on most amenities as far as I’m aware pertaining to safety. Sure they’re better than some, but with their resources there’s no reason the suck as much as they do

0

u/Lil-Stevie Jan 13 '23

How do you come to the conclusion that they have 1 trillion in cash? Im genuinely curious.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/oppairate Jan 13 '23

Apple doesn’t pay decently?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (15)

3

u/Kamakazieee Jan 13 '23

Apple pays really well, maybe a touch lower than other top tech companies but it’s definitely still quite good…

→ More replies (2)

3

u/jimbo_hawkins Jan 13 '23

I don’t think the employees would notice if they did…

Cook’s total comp this year will be $49M after a 40% cut. This means he received total comp of approx $82M last year. Apple has 164,000 employees. If you split the savings across those employees, they would receive a one-time payment of $201. Even if you cut his total comp to $0, you could give $500 to each employee…

2

u/tickleMyBigPoop Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

His comp is paid for from the shareholders in the form of share dilution.

Most workers comp is paid for via revenue streams. Now their corporate workers aka software devs get RSUs, which are paid for via share dilution aka by the shareholders

2

u/babybelly Jan 13 '23

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees. This would be a big step forward. (I understand that’s wishful thinking.)

cries in chinese sweatshop worker

0

u/BigGreen4 Jan 13 '23

Best argument I’ve seen, for sure. That’s the real change we need to make in the business world.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/EarendilStar Jan 13 '23

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees.

Yes, I’m sure the employees will really appreciate the extra $6 a week.

For anyone that finds it hard to compare large numbers, just convert it into something familiar.

$99.4m (2022) - $49m (2023) = $50.4m extra cash.

$50.4m / 164,000 employees = $307 per person.

$307 / 52 = $5.90 a week.

So yes, CEOs should be paid less and employees more. But it’s important to look at the size of things to realize that sometimes such a gesture would be symbolic and mostly go unnoticed.

Put another way, imagine if the headline was: “CEO takes pay cut, pays employees extra $6 a week”. They’d be crucified.

1

u/somegridplayer Jan 13 '23

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees.

Stock buy backs.

3

u/VirginiaMcCaskey Jan 13 '23

Stock buybacks are just tax preferred dividends. And they're great for employees who are paid partially with stock, which many apple folks are.

0

u/Throwaway20220913 Jan 13 '23

Stock buybacks bring nothing of value to the company, only to the shareholders

1

u/AstroPhysician Jan 13 '23

the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees

You have no idea how much payroll costs do you? This would be like $500 extra each tops

0

u/BigGreen4 Jan 13 '23

If distributed evenly, correct. Are there any employees making, perhaps, less than they’re able to live on that could, potentially, earn a raise? Maybe without raising the wages of the entire workforce? Just spit-balling, and mostly to appease the angry pitchfork holders.

Hope your day gets better, buddy.

2

u/AstroPhysician Jan 13 '23

It's just really silly to think that $45 million (which is his comp for 2023), would have a impact at all on a company with 300,000 apple store employees alone. That's $128 a person for the ones who are already in the apple store

mostly to appease the angry pitchfork holders.

what does this even mean? who are these angry pitchfork holders and why are you trying to appease them?

0

u/Hidesuru Jan 13 '23

I just hope the funds saved will remain in employee compensation and be redirected to the employees.

Just wanted to let you know I got a great laugh out of this, thanks.

→ More replies (10)

19

u/ExceedingChunk Jan 13 '23

His compensation is crazy and he got $75m in stocks alone last year, but using "if he held his stocks for years, his compensation 10 years ago would be X" for any kind of compensation doesn't make sense.

The compensation is always just what the stock is worth at the time for any single stock that is publically available.

For example, if any other CEO that worked for any other company, got the same cash value in stocks as Tim, sold them and bought Apple stock for every single penny, nobody would suggest he got a $900m compensation package in 2015.

He's obviously filthy rich, but compensation doesn't work like that.

28

u/LouieKablooie Jan 13 '23

That is too much money.

2

u/peace_love17 Jan 13 '23

What is enough money?

14

u/Unicycldev Jan 13 '23

5 million is plenty to live your best life.

-4

u/peace_love17 Jan 13 '23

Should no one be allowed to earn more than that? How did you arrive at that amount?

2

u/Unicycldev Jan 13 '23

To answer your first question no. To answer you second question: the average rate of return of the S&P 500 for a 5 million dollar investment would yield $325,000 dollars per year pre tax. That’s enough.

7

u/peace_love17 Jan 13 '23

That's a great living, way more than I make certainly, but why does income need a cap in general? The amount of people earning these headline grabbing salaries like Tim Cook are so few in number and the amount they earn is probably justified based on the economic growth the companies they oversee create (Apple is basically a small country at this point). It would probably cause more harm to poorer folks to cap Tim Cooks income than to just let Apple pay him his huge stack or whatever, at the end of the day it really doesn't affect me or you.

4

u/Knogood Jan 13 '23

Ah yes, pay the person at the top the most, not the people doing the actual work.

Don't want to tax poor tim too much too eh? Incase one day your in his shoes, huh?

5

u/peace_love17 Jan 13 '23

Nice good faith comment! I said nothing about not paying the ground level workers more or less.

I am perfectly fine with taxing Tim more and "the rich" more broadly. I am also perfectly aware that I will never be in Tim's shoes or earn even a fraction of what he does.

I am in favor of taxing the wealthy enough to afford whatever social safety net programs we as a society decide are appropriate. Beyond that, I truly do not care how much money Tim Apple wants to hoard away it doesn't impact me and it probably doesn't impact you either.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Peetrrabbit Jan 13 '23

Awesome that you've decided that for all of us.

2

u/roywarner Jan 13 '23

Put it to a vote and see what happens. You know how many people make more than 325k per year in the US? Less than 2%.

6

u/tickleMyBigPoop Jan 13 '23

see what happens

a massive exodus of US firms over a 10 year time horizon to overseas locations?

The total decimation of the US economy as global finance and tech leaves.

Also lets say someone buys an expensive house say a 1 million dollar home (depending where you are that can be a mcmansion or a basic single family home).

Now lets say there's massive levels of development around them now their property is valued at 5 million +1....do we force them to sell their house?

Because you realize tim cook gets compensation via equity through shareholder dilution not from apples revenue stream right?

-1

u/Extrodar Jan 13 '23

Oh no almost like as long as we allow tech companies to enact slave labor in asian/african countries the domestic workforce cant compete and we have to shower said companies in tax benefits to keep them satisfied enough

2

u/angrysquirrel777 Jan 13 '23

It has been put to a vote. Congress could adjust the constitution and enact an income cap at any point. They haven't because the people don't want it.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/rutabaga5 Jan 13 '23

Does it matter how they arrived at that specific amount? $5 million is definitely more than enough to live a great life and it is also definitely less than what he currently has. As for your second question yes, as long as there are still people living in abject poverty no one should be allowed to hoard money to such an excessive extent.

2

u/Peetrrabbit Jan 13 '23

So.... you just force him to stop working? Or worse, you tell him he must keep working but can't keep any of the money from that work? There's a word for that last one... Either option is horrible. Don't think you've really thought your plan through here.

-1

u/cantrecoveraccount Jan 13 '23

There is a third…

-1

u/rutabaga5 Jan 13 '23

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you got there. How about we don't force anyone to keep working but we do say "no more money for you though, you have enough." Do you see how that's a nice alternative to slavery or forced retirement?

2

u/Peetrrabbit Jan 13 '23

Well - in my world, nobody gets to 'force'. In yours, you're suggesting forcing. Which makes your arguments repugnant from my perspective.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (4)

1

u/dancin-weasel Jan 13 '23

About tree fiddy

1

u/sassydodo Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

That depends. Some people are overachievers and money is just a measurement of success, not some greedy goblin need.

I don't spend much money as there was time I was so poor I was rationing test strips for glucometer and asking for donations of infusion sets for my insulin pump, so I'm not used to throw away money, so now I'm just stacking cash or convert Russian rubles into USD in case of major crisis, I don't have a car and I live in one room apartment.

When owners of business ask if I'm happy with what I earn I tell that no, I'm not happy, because I get less than 1% of what I bring to them, but there is no number that would be satisfactory, like, I don't need $100k a month because I have something that requires $100k a months, I want $100k a month because I bring $500k a month in profit margins to them. I want all the money I can earn by being the best at what I'm doing.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/kiragami Jan 13 '23

I don't agree actually. The issue isn't CEO compensation. It's not paying all the workers properly. That's the real issue and everything else distracts from it. It's the same as besos and musky. I don't give a shit how much money they have. I care that they don't pay their employees properly.

0

u/354yo Jan 13 '23

Of course it is, and it seems pretty outlandish. But then when you look at how much money Apple pulls in a year, 900 million seems fair for the guy that runs it

3

u/commitpushdrink Jan 13 '23

He’s one of extremely few non-founder tech billionaires

2

u/rashaniquah Jan 13 '23

The craziest part is how he just became a billionaire not too long ago despite being the CEO of the largest company in the world

2

u/usereddit Jan 13 '23

That’s a bit off comparing his 2015 stock package to todays stock price as it also could have gone to zero, and he’s the primary reason the stock increased in price.

Is it too much? Yeah. But, it still doesn’t make sense to calculate his 2015 pay based on todays price

→ More replies (8)