Forum Post: Apple CEO received $378 million in compensation in 2011
Posted 12 years ago on May 22, 2012, 9:49 a.m. EST by guru401
(228)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://news.yahoo.com/apples-cook-top-paid-us-ceo-2011-report-200709007.html
Apple chief executive Tim Cook topped the list of the best-paid CEOs in the US in 2011 thanks to stock options that put him more than $300 million above his next rival, a Wall Street Journal survey showed Monday.
Cook, who took the helm of the iPhone and iPad maker in August last year, two months before the death of founder Steve Jobs, clocked in total compensation of $378 million.
Cook earned $900,000 for his annual salary and $900,000 for his annual incentives.
But he scooped up a cool $376 million in restricted stock grants, based on Apple's stock price at the time.
Another Silicon Valley big gun, the head of Oracle, Larry Ellison, came in second place with less than a fifth of Cook's pay, at $76 million.
Who's getting rid of their I-Phone?
I wonder if all the workers at Foxcon combined made that much making I-Phones?
The goal is to build Foxconn style industry in America with deregulation. Then the CEO's can pocket even more money for themselves.
No human being can possibly provide labor worthy of that much compensation.
[Removed]
If i made that much money in a year, id retire and do something i really wanted to do , like helping others. (and i dont mean give money to others, this doesnt help people) rather taking away the obstacles that limit another persons progress is a better way of helping others.
Al Gore wrote an article in Time magazine about how awesome he is, you should check it out.
Apple is making money “hand over fist” and the compensation that Tom Cook is what the board of director’s feels is fair for the job he is doing. Compensation in the free market is directly related to the health and the profitability of a company. If a company does poorly than the CEO and other company officers wouldn’t get such a lofty package. In fact most who do not perform to the expectations of the board and primary stock holders would be fired.
On the bright side he will be paying $ 37.8 million in taxes while 48% of Americans do not pay income taxes and in fact more than 20% of them get subsidies called a “Tax Refund” when contributing nothing. And when he dies 50% of his total wealth will be going to the coffers so the federal and state governments will be getting it’s take in the end.
If you don’t like how this is done use the power of your purse and replace that IPhone with a Droid. Better yet go buy a lot of stock in Apple and have some input in what these people earn.
is 48% high enough to keep the government going ?
[Removed]
Well said.
Whats the problem?
I have absolutely no problem with that. I think he deserves it. And please, remember these are stock options, not money in his pockets.
Written with a Macbook Pro tethering an iPhone.
sure the money comes from no where, and no one right?
LIke I explained a tad lower, economy is not static, it's dynamic. Money can be made, it doesn't have to be taken from others. Money simply represents resources. As an metaphor, if we both grow tomatoes and I decide to grow two more than usual, it doesn't mean you have to grow two less.
I know it's made by workers and taken by CEOs
Nothing stops you or anybody else from forming your own companies based on anarcho-syndicalism. I suggested this a few months back. I think OWS should create its own news outlet organized in this nature. Instead of wasting all their efforts into making this US vs THE POLICE rhetoric, they should teach by example. Don't just complain about big companies. Do something positive and creative! That's how America was built. You don't like something, you improve it.
You are attacking Apple, but they are a great example of this. IBM was organized old school, and Apple showed how a company could be organized in a different way.
Learn from them. Get together with many people and start anarcho-syndicalist start-ups. You could also write articles on how someone can go about starting up his anarcho-syndicalist based business.
Why don't you guys just do it?
Nothing stopping us from getting decent labor laws either, except the GOP.
I've been preaching the same thing. Instead of talking about it - do it. Instead of taking over factories, open your own. Show the world how well your theories work!
the land goes on forever in cyberspace
I'm not sure if you are saying that there isn't land available in the real world, or if you are talking about opening a virtual enterprise.
Assuming you mean the former, there are plenty of locations around this country that have closed down due to the economic situation and I bet the landowners would be very eager to get someone in there running a business...and paying rent.
Just for giggles and grins. Did you arrive at that belief using the scientific method?
My own take is their a bunch of overpaid hacks, and no, I did not use the scientific method. I just gave it the old fashioned smell test.
I am sure anyone who is more paid than you appears overpaid to you
I am sure your wrong.
[Removed]
I don't have a problem with the idea of making money and the idea of capitalism. If Apple shareholders believe Tim Cook is worth that amount of money, then that is their business. I don't prescribe to the idea that you need to take money from the rich to give it to the poor, or, otherwise put, I don't believe that when someone makes more money he is stealing from the poor. This is a false concept because we can create resources which in turn creates money. Economy is not static, it is dynamic. So, someone can get richer while everyone else remains at the same wealth. It's like if we grow tomatoes. If I decide to grow two more tomatoes it does not mean that you will get two less.
Oh please. It is not like growing god damned tomatoes. It is about how much compensation people receive for work done.
[Removed]
The shareholders believe he is worth that amount of money. I don't see what the problem is. My point is that you won't make more money if he gets paid less. And, we are talking about shares here, not money in his pocket.
You can go live with the shareholders in your trickle down tomato economy fantasy and keep believing it is sustainable, but in the real world, people should be compensated for work done in a fair manner. And to your point about making more money, everyone's wages should increase with the cost of living, not just the god damned people at the top of the chain. This increasing gap of income inequality has a social price, you dumb logical ape shit.
[Removed]
I think Tim Cook was compensated in a fair manner. That's the whole point. I think we can make a better society without necessarily eliminating the rich.
The gap is not the problem, the problem is the lowest wages. If everyone made 2$ an hour there would not be much of a gap, but everyone would be poor, at least they would when they would go to Canada. If the poorest person in American can live a decent life, that is all that matters. It doesn't matter if some people are a thousand times richer than him.
This whole idea of income inequality as being the problem stems from communist thinking. They want everyone to make the same amount of money. That's not the solution because income inequality is a false problem.
"It doesn't matter if some people are a thousand times richer than him."
The wealth gap matters because it determines societal rights. Who can afford health care in the most prosperous nation on the planet? The wealthy, who say universal free health care is not a right, but a privilege to those who can afford it. Bottom line, as long as there are massive status gaps, there will be rights granted only to the elite and privileged.
"This whole idea of income inequality as being the problem stems from communist thinking."
What is communist thinking? Please give me a definition so I know how it is to be taken in context. I could as easily make the claim that income inequality is a problem that stems from capitalist thinking. They want to exploit the many to enrich the few. If income inequality is a false problem (which I am highly skeptical of that claim). Then perhaps you need to enlighten me on what the real problem is. And it better not involve no fucking tomatoes.
Personally, I lean more toward equality than aristocracy, but call me crazy that way.
I did this already in an earlier posting. I provided proof as to why income inequality is a false problem, and I pointed out what the real problem is. Let's try again.
Wealth inequality is a false problem because eliminating it does not necessarily result in a healthy society. For example, a society where every one is equally dirt poor and can barely eat would not be good even though the problem of wealth inequality would have been solved.
The real problem is the level of the poorest people in a country. If the poorest people live comfortably, then the problem is solved. It does not matter how much richer other people might be. A country like this is actually preferable since you still have motivation to work harder, i.e. make more money. In a society where everyone is paid the same, motivation is lacking.
So, the perfect society is one in which the poorest person lives comfortably, but the motivation to work harder remains since you can make even more money if you want luxuries like flying across the world, or buying a secondary house in Columbia.
Tim Cook's salary wouldn't bother anyone if everyone lived comfortably in US. What bothers you is not income inequality, but the fact that there are poor people who can barely eat.
Your changing your words. Originally you said the wealth GAP was not the problem and did not matter. I said it did. I did not know we were discussing this in absolute terms. You are creating a do or don't scenario with no gray area in between. You paint this as a) must either eliminate income equality or b) let it run rampant. No where do you find middle ground and say it should be reduced or curved or monitored. I say it should be monitored and not let it run rampant by individual greed that is detrimental to society, which in essence agrees with the notion of practicing more socialism. Are we on the same page now?
False. Many countries offer health-care for all its citizen, paid for by taxes. The problem here is not caused by wealth inequality, but by the fact that US uses a harsh form of capitalism which turns around the individual instead of the society. Use a system based around socialist ideas like Canda, Sweden, Norway, and you will solve this problem.
The idea of eliminating wealth inequality comes from the idea that everyone should make the same amount of money. In any other system, wealth inequality remains. This is a communist idea. Even if you reduced the wealth inequality of US by half, you would still have the health care problem you refer to above. That is, there would still be richer people and poorer people, and he richer people would have an advantage at the hospital. Now, if everyone makes the same amount of money, there is no more advantage (communism). Or, the other way is the way I mentioned above. Make hospital free like in Canada and the rich are no long at an advantage in this department.
By the Marxist theory, socialism is the halfway transitioning point from overthrowing capitalism to realizing communism; therefore, socialism is halfway closer to moving in the direction of a more classless and equal society. Since socialism supports my desire for less aristocracy and more equality, I agree with that direction. And a good start toward narrowing the gap between classes would be to straighten out the CEO compensation and make it pass the 'socialist' smell test and not the 'capitalist' smell test.
[Removed]
Are you describing not for profit Health care? No insurance just providers? Nationalized? Funded through the government by taxes?
Yes. Health care should be funded entirely through taxes.
I have no problem with that none at all. Think Banking should be run the same way? Not for profit? Earnings funneled back to account holders/savers/customers of the bank? Low interest loans? Earnings cover cost of operation and then go back to the account holders?
[Removed]
I would run pretty much everything in a socialized manner. However, I don't consider the banks to be the problem as much as the people using them. Credit Unions and co-op banks have existed for awhile, but many people choose not to use them. Should we blame Bank of America if people prefer to put their money there as opposed to a credit union? This is one thing that bothers me about OWS. Many times they attack false problematics. That is, don't complain about the big banks, simply tell people to switch to credit unions.
That only works for checking and savings accounts. Not investments. The Wall Street banks have a monopoly on that.
[Removed]
We should blame BoA for fraudulent investment practices.
You don't see how for profit practices caused the economic meltdown?
[Removed]
[Removed]
good morning
income restricts the flow of resources through the system