Forum Post: How do you Apple users feel about Steve Jobs Making Billions?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 12:09 p.m. EST by samsausage
(77)
from Lees Summit, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What gives?
Despite Protests, Cuomo Says He Will Not Extend a Tax Surcharge on Top Earners
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-not-renew-millionaires-tax.html
That is because if he does, the millionaires will move to NJ or CT (joining the 1000s that already have) and then NY will have even less tax revenue.
so he says. The fact is that the middle and poor cannot keep absorbing these tax cuts for the rich. If they paid them before 1981 then they can again. Things were better in the uS before all these tax cuts and Ron Reagan.
Yeah things were really great economically back in the 1970s.
better than post 1995 period. there were plenty of jobs then. not now
Huh? Let me guess... You weren't around in the late 70s - early 80s. lol
Not only did we have very high unemployment, we had +13% inflation and 18% interest rates to go along with it.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/us-double-digits-unemployment-rate-of-1980-1981-vs-2008-2009-single-digit/
As a poor self-supporting student through the late 70s and new grad in 1980, I can tell you first-hand that it was not a fun time. Coming out with a hard science degree from a good school, after about a 9-month search, I ended up moving back home and taking a mail room job making a whopping $8,800/yr. And I was damn glad to get that.
I was and there were some down times but nothing like today. At least people without a degree could get a middle class job and a home.
Tell that to my father who was laid off from the Steel Mill's in 1981 so that the union who was supposed to be protecting his job could make an extra buck. He never worked in a Steel Mill again.
Well, I think your memory may be selective. Anyone can go back and look at the stats and news reports to see that cleary wasn't the case. Manufacturing jobs took a huge hit and we weren't nearly the service econmy that we are now to provide other opportunities. That's when all of the "Buy American" stuff started, mainly focused on middle-class, non-degreed jobs. And that was without moving jobs overseas (i.e., it was pure loss due to contraction).
Actually, I'd say that it's more just the opposite - that much of the "rage" now is because it's affecting more mid- to upper-middle class, white-collar folks now. And that's also supported by the stats as well.
As I'll say again, most of what people are complaining about re jobs and housing and general social inequailty here is only new to them. That's in large part why this "movement" is so white. Blacks and other minorities have known these were huge problems for a long time. Not like it's much of a news flash for most beyond younger middle-class white folks.
I am old enough to remember double digit mortgage interest rates and gas rationing. Vietnam was still going on and we had a deep recession, so please stop with the platitudes that it was so much better in the 70's. at least the music was better than it is today.
I don't know if I agree with that statement, we had some tough times back then. There has never been a time of excess like we have now, I would argue things are better than they have ever been as far as standard of living.
I'm all for making all the money you are able to. I wonder what about all the protestors using Apple products, you do realize that you purchasing this product enables others to get Rich. If you really are against the top 1% then stop consuming the products and services they provide. This also goes for Kanye West and other entertainers supporting this misguided cause.
I think Jobs was little different than any other entrepreneur or capitalist - THAT IS NOT PEJORATIVE, it's time we reclaimed our language from extremist stupidity, but I digress - in that he used the existing system to make fistfuls of money.
Personally, I am put off by his lack of charitable giving. He shut down Apple's charitable works in 1997, ostensibly to "return Apple to profitability." Certainly an understandable goal for a corporation, but despite Apple's meteoric rise afterwards - in public image and on the balance sheet - those programs were never reinstated. I think if most people examined Jobs' record rationally, the adoration would be tempered somewhat.
The problem is that human beings are bonked. Our brains have come to respond to the Apple brand the same way we respond to religion.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20064577-71.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religious-reaction-in-brains-of-fans-say-neuroscientists/
So True Believers of Apple products are physically and mechanically restrained from seeing Steve Jobs in a bad light. There's a larger point to be made here about our physical limitations of rational thinking, but neuroscience and cognitive science seem to be off of most people's radars. The point is that Apple and Steve Jobs are not good metrics of people's rational beliefs.
Well put.
Steve Jobs supported a wife who is a full-time philanthropist. Which means that he has contributed a lot more to humanity than any unemployed person sitting in a park who can't even support themselves.
No, it means his wife has contributed a lot to humanity.
Jobs most important contribution to humanity, in my opinion, was entrenchment of proprietary, closed software systems. But as a self-proclaimed tech junkie, you must know what I mean.
Yes, I'm an independent Apple developer, and IMHO the legacy of Steve Jobs is the word, "No".
And I'm not especially interested in the opinions of unemployed people on the topic of what successful people "should" do with the money that they've earned. Which of course goes against the only thing that this movement stands for.
I smell a Double Standard. If you don't want someone to be Wealthy don't give them your money, simple.
Tech companies are more responsible for the wealth gap then the banks are. They out source more jobs overseas then any other sector.
get congressional republicans to vote yes on jobs bill-by any means necessary
Steve Jobs is one of the only CEO's who is actually worth Billions. Apple was in the Sewers when he was gone. He came back and now they are one of the most prosperous companies in the world. No average man can do that.
Now, take the CEO for CitiBank, I guarantee you that his subordinate could do just as good of a job, if not better, than him. This is where my problem lies:
Jobs was GENUINELY WORTH 1,000-10,000 times more to his company than his subordinate.
Pandit, isn't even worth 100 times his subordinate, much less 1,000 times.
That's my problem. People who do no more for their company than the guy below them does, pay themselves as if they are worth 1,000 times more than their subordinate is to their company.
Steve Jobs was actually worth 1,000 times his subordinate which is why I have no problem with his money. Pandit ran CitiBank into the ground...7 BILLION PEOPLE can run a company into the ground, now many fewer can run a company sustainably, but that still leaves you with well over 10,000,000 people, so, A LOT of people could do the same exact thing that Pandit is doing for his company.
Not everyone can do what Steve Jobs did for Apple. In fact, you can probably count the number of people that could do what Steve Jobs did using just your hands. No need for toes, just your hands.
Richard Stallman's take is must read. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/steve-jobs-stallman-dissenting-view.html
Yea, what he said, but a little more kindly put.
I'm not against entrepreneurs (like Steve Jobs) making billions because they're the ones who come up with the great ideas and risk their own money. Apple was Steve Jobs! But you can't convince me that someone like Lloyd Blankfein (CEO at Goldman) is worth that much more than his employees. He's a manager spending other people's money with no risk to his own!
I think the big difference is that we want manufacturers to be inventive, because in the end it benefits us. At least thanks to innovation I can make this comment.
When it comes to the financial sector, I am much more skeptical when it comes to innovation, because what is often called innovation ends up simply being fraud.
The same applies to finance practices within corporations. A new recipe for cooking the books may be innovative to some, but it is actually disruptive for the economy at large.
If you don't agree with how someone runs their business and/or how they compensate themselves then don't do business with them. When you purchase their product/service you enable them to do what they do.
I agree. But when an executive's or company's business practices have an effect on the entire economy (i.e., too big to fail) that's a problem.
I don't think anything is too big to fail, maybe bad for a while but not too big to fail. When we put something on a pedestal and say it is too big to fail we will be enslaved to that something. I'm against the myth of too big to fail.
To get back to the original point, wealth is not the problem--it's how you got there. I have no problem with entrepreneurs reaping rewards for their ideas. I do have a problem with a business society that continually rewards its members with entrepreneur-like compensation for managerial work. And to have subsequent mismanagement by these execs affect the economy at large but still receive their entrepreneur-like compensation is just another big slap in the face.
Only educated consumers can change this without converting to Communism and keeping our free society. Choose where you spend your money wisely and educate others on the same.
I wish it was that simple. I--as most people--did not have need for the services of a Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers. And yet, here we are with the economy they wrought. Will the remaining firms stop taking undue risk with other people's money and giving themselves outsized compensation? Something tells me there's a culture that keeps that system going. I think anything that disrupts that culture--protests, regulations and, yes, spending your money judiciously--is welcome.
I can choose what to do with my money, I will not be doing business with these big banks.
You miss the point. Most people have never done business with investment banks such as Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs, and yet they still suffer the consequences. There is still a small percentage of the population that continues to feed this beast and that culture needs to be disrupted.
I don't really use Apple that much, but I'm okay with his wealth. What I'm not okay with is corporations giving candidates millions of dollars to pass laws that skew the playing field in favor of those who are already successful. I also favor the ultra-wealthy paying more in taxes than the poor, not because I don't think they deserve their wealth, but because I think the more wealth you have the less value it has for you as a human being, it becomes just a number, an abstraction, and possibly an addiction.
meep, I thought I linked you to the IRS statistics to show the real proportion of who pays the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay 2%, the top 50% pay 98%. You may want to follow up on that other post and look at the figures, very enlightening.
I'm aware of that, thank you. My intent is not to suggest that the wealthy don't already pay more, but rather to suggest that it is reasonable that they do. I am expressing a view point, not making a factual assertion. I feel the need to express that point of view because of the rhetoric of flat taxes and the insistence by conservatives that a 2% tax on the wealthy is the end of the world and some form of evil and extreme socialism. It is not. I'd be willing to take a 2% tax hike if it meant better infrastructure, education, and a serious attempt at dealing with health care issues, and I'm barely in the top 40%.
Uhhh, Meep......the wealthy DO pay more in taxes than the poor. Both in dollars and percent.
And that is a novel thought. You want to tax the rich more for their own good? Because it is just a number to them? And abstraction? A possible addiction? Yeahhhhhhh, I say send them ALLLLLL to Money Anonymous.
Geez, I hadn't heard that one before, lol
true, they do pay more, and my point was that it is reasonable that they do. Nor was I saying taxing them was for their own good, but asking a millionaire to pay a few thousand dollars extra hurts them less than asking a minimum-wage single-mother to pay a hundred dollars extra. No I don't think all wealthy people are addicted to money and need to be sent to money anonymous, but economically and psychologically speaking wealth beyond a certain amount does become just numbers and the only reason to want more of it is purely psychological as it no longer benefits a person's well being as a human.
And you know that dollar amount where it no longer benefits them?
Nope! I'm pretty much talking out my butt ;-)
What I do know is that I'm barely in the top 40% or so, and I'd be willing to take a 2-5% tax hike if it meant better infrastructure, better education, and a limiting of the suffering of those less fortunate than myself. So there you go, put the marker where I am, and any household that makes as much as I do or more should pay more in taxes to avoid raising taxes on those that don't.
Better education? We have been pouring billions more into education and all it has done is prove that more money isn't what is needed.
That probably fair to some extent. What we need more than more money is more/better ideas. I like charter schools. In some cases more funding could help, but you are right, the current levels of funding aren't terrible.
There are millions of children getting good educations. I am pleased that our two sons are two of them. We are fortunate to be able to pay private school tuition. Children who can't pay the tuition, should be able to get a voucher from the school district that is equivalent with the per pupil tax funding. That was being done to great success in Washington DC until Obama killed the program two weeks into his presidency. Now, common, everyday kids can't attend the very same school his two privileged kids attend. The answers are out there, they just aren't popular with those who have a vested interest in maintaining/building the teacher unions and administrations of the public schools.
Yeah, I don't get that, I'd love to hear from someone who doesn't support vouchers, because I just don't understand what's so bad about them. I won't jump to the conclusion that it's some petty political thing until I hear a good defense though.
Hopefully, someone will show why they think vouchers are bad.
But really, no one likes to talk about the reason for poor education. Nothing is 100%, but the biggest factor in children not getting a good education is that their parents don't give a rat's ass. If they are even at home, that is. Far too many parents don't read to their children. They don't even know what homework has been assigned, let alone see to it that it gets done. They don't know the teachers. They don't show their children why it is important that they do well. Bad parenting is at the core of the education issue, but no one wants to offend anyone, or they have other agendas they are trying to serve.
For some reason there's no option to reply to your most recent comment, so...
Not all schools have enough funding for after school activities like the ones you mention. A lot of schools are cutting those kinds of activities, and if the parents aren't wealthy they probably can't afford to pay for those kinds of things for their kids. That said, you're right, a lack of after school activities could be compensated for by good parenting. But what do you say to the single parent with two jobs? Is bad parenting an excuse to let the child suffer? How would you force a negligent parent to do better? Or do you just think we should say f-it and spend more on prisons?
First of all, the parents don't have to be home for the kids to be studying. That isn't preferable, I know, but it can happen. As far as single parenthood..... That is the single biggest problem. It's one no one wants to talk about. Both political parties like to put single mothers up on stage with them. I'm not condemning single mothers. But the statistics are very clear. The single factor that most leads to both poverty and incarceration is being raised in a single parent home. That is just fact. Now.....what can we do to discourage single parent homes? That is the real question for the real issue.
Bad parenting is probably only a third of the problem. The other two thirds are lousy teachers and the youth culture outside of school. Tenure needs to go, and I say that as a former inner-city high school math teacher that just couldn't cut it at what I think is one of the hardest jobs in America. Also, children who don't have anything to do after school will find something to do after school. That's one way in which more funding could be helpful. More after school programs, clubs, music, art, sports, and all that other stuff that makes children feel like part of a productive community and less like a stray dog on the street.
I understand and appreciate your thoughts. But here is where I'm coming from. I think providing after school activities is bunk. If the parents are involved with the kids, they are much more likely to participate in extracurricular activities at school. Those are already funded and well run and supervised. Between our two sons, they play four sports. One is involved in Science Olympiad and the other in student government. Both have been in school musicals. It's not that they are the two greatest kids on earth, it's just that my wife and I have worked with them to show them what they can do and achieve. After school activities? What a grand time to do homework, you think?
using sweat shops is comparable to modern slavery.
Are you willing to pay $1200.00 for your iPhone? American citizens look for the best way to get the cheapest product. We brought this upon ourselves.
People who wanted to squash unions brought this upon us, and iPhone's wouldn't cost $1200 because nobody would buy them at that rate. The product's price would conform to the most profitable market which would have been America for years to come if we were responsible and had some long term vision.
take a class in economics. If it costs more to create a product, whether though materials and/or labor costs, the costs are passed along to the consumer. If he price is too high and no one buys, it is no longer manufactured. If the item cannot return the desired profit, it is no longer produced.
Steve Wozniak the founder of apples tech side didn't build the 1st p.c. because he wanted to turn a profit. He did it because he thought it was cool. He would give the blueprints to his friends for free. Not everything and everyone in this world is directed by profits.
then we should all toil for free and share our labors with all who want to join in. Mary can knit a beenie for me and I will build her a car. Makes perfect sense. Yoe, I know the story of Woz, but last i checked he is listed in Forbes as one of the richest men in the world.
Unlike the banksters, he deserves it. I'm not advocating communism but the people on wall st. don't generate real value with what they do. For the most part they just exploit poor people in this country and around the world.
competition, people would still bring quality products to market and the relative cost of all thing would be more reasonable because the higher labor cost would be built into the currency.
Anyone would go for the best deal, this is a great thing that should be exploited and a benefit of trade. It has been this way since ships where trading spices with the orient and before.
Also keep in mind, Apple may have this product made in China but sells Billions overseas and brings this money back to the US. Think about it, making money off a product you don't produce, they bring more money than they send overseas.
Trade can be a great ally when used properly, protectionism can be very dangerous.
After the internet has blown up 5 p.c. i finally got a g4 NO INTELL and its was his best mac ever (he told us ) its freakin 10 years old and still runs. he was forced to install intel for cia spys
The question suggests it is wrong to make billions. Is that what you are trying to say?
What is the CEO uses cheap labor overseas to make a product invented here in the USA?
I think Steve Jobs made his billions by doing good work. (Mac, iPod, Pixar, etc.) I have no problem with that. What I have problems with is those bank CEOs and fund managers getting rich by giving themselves unfairly big compensations.
So we are cherry picking the organizations and people we protest. Who decides the list? I thought we at OWS treat 1% equal. The fight is between 1% and the 99%. We don't decide which of 1%.
so the 1% is all rich people? Basically OWS is about rich vs poor?
And what defines " Good Work"? iPod for example is a piece of entertainment, it doesn't do any "Good" like feeding the poor. Define "Good" for me will you?
If people buy it. They made their money by selling goods (or skills, talent, whatever), that's a fair game, they deserved it. Nobody forced anyone to buy Apple products or see Pixar movies.
The bankers also provide goods/services. They didn't take the money at gunpoint from people, people gave them their money willingly when they decided to investment with them, a bigger house, Cars, items purchased on Credit Cards, education, etc...
You are not forced to do this, you have the choice of saving your money and paying cash.
I think you are wrong here, samsausage.
A. Those bank CEOs, fund managers give themselves fat bonuses and big paychecks, that's not fair.
B. Their compensations are proportionate to the money they manage, other people's money, in a fashion of an investment return. However, it's not their money, and they don't lose anything if they mess it up.
C. When they mess it up, it's us, they general taxpayers that have to bail them out. Simply put, they are building their wealth at our expense.
A. with money consumers chose to give to them
B. Again, they get this money through the free will of the consumer
C. Because our Government officials, whom we elected decided this, I won't vote for them.
I simply don't give my money to banks like BoA, I use my local Credit union who still has a soul. I choose who I give my money to, except for when I pay my taxes, that's the only time I'm forced at gunpoint.
No they didn't "give" to them. They purchased the service of managing the money. But if they take a percentage out of the returns, isn't it only fair that they also should pay for part of the losses?
But they don't. Good or bad, they take theirs, leaving all of us suffer the result. That's what people are mad about.
"They purchased the service of managing the money"
Simply don't purchase the service, problem solved.
Okay, let me ask you this topical question first. You do understand why the NBA owners and players are negotiating, right?
You can always say, "simply don't play for that team, problem solved", right? But when the owners are franchised together and players all united. The partnership becomes mutually exclusive. Owners can't find qualified players else where and players don't have other places to use their skills. Now it has become a little more complicated than just free market, walk-away-if-you-don't-like-it type of thing.
The reason I brought out this example is that when the finance industry is highly concentrated (Wall St.) and interconnected, even though they are not legally partnered, they carry some characteristics of a monopoly, while the individual investors are in a very disadvantaged position. Sadly, there is not an entity speaking for the individuals collectively.
That's why you can no longer just say, "simply don't purchase, problem solved".
I haven't been keeping track of the NBA negotiations, I don't usually have time to follow sports. My first thought when I heard about the demands was that players noticed the NFL received better contracts so why not try to do the same.
I haven't thought this through thoroughly but using my limited knowledge of professional sports and the situation I find that the NBA is unionized and does not follow free market principals. However since we live in a mostly free market society, I see this possibility: Say they don't come to an agreement and no players find work all year and then again next year, this will open the possibility to a new Basketball league. If there is no NBA games but there is demand for Basketball games from consumers then there will be a vacuum in the marketplace, someone with the drive and ingenuity will have the opportunity to step in and fill this vacuum with a new league. Hypothetically at least.
For the financial sector you do have a choice right now, go to your local Credit Union and avoid doing business with the big banks any chance you get. This is happening right now, my Credit Union is doing great and has been since the down turn in 2008. There are consumers seeking to get away from the big banks.
Well, the reason of the negotiation stalemate was that the old agreement was up and now owners are losing money so they want a bigger share, but the players refuse to give as much as demanded. But that's beside the point.
Yes you do have a choice with which bank you invest. But even the credit unions are ultimately part of the whole system dictated by the wall street bankers, right? (I could be wrong here.) Whether it's a big bank or credit union, I'm not discrediting anyone's work and service. I'm just pointing out the unfairness of their compensation hidden behind the name of profits. And when they all work in the same buildings they become a group that collectively set the standard of pay. It's not total monopoly but it's not totally free either.
Credit Unions mostly have done great through this crisis, there may be some exposure but I'm not familiar with any specific case. Credit Unions are usually local and actually deal with the people they serve. Credit Unions are also Member owned and controlled, by having an account there I can vote for people elected to the Board of Directors.
My Credit Union also holds the Mortgage on my Home. Unlike a Big Bank most Credit Unions will not sell them on the secondary market. Therefore they actually plug their brains in and write fewer bad loans. They have a vested interest in seeing you succeed.
I think the post meant creative, innovative etc. Not everything has to benefit in a materialistic way. If you say the profits were the result of slave labor, I agree.
That is relative to the beholder, what may be creative or innovative to one person may not be so to another. This is why I the consumer decide who I will support by choosing to buy a product/service or choosing not to buy it.
Of course. That is why Apple products sell a lot. The consumers have decided they are worth buying!
Exactly, the consumer should decide, not the government or some committee. If you don't like it don't buy it!
That's right. It's a free market. But I think these big banks should have been left dead when they were in trouble.
Yes they should have and I won't do business with them or vote for the tools that enabled them to stay around.
As we have discussed on here before, yes, there is a problem with having that much money. It's too much and it is greed, PERIOD.
A good suggestion was to have a $2 million cap on wealth. If you have or earn any more than that the rest will go to The People.
Who comes up with the $2 million number? Why is it not $3 million? or $100K? Why is there a problem with having too much money? I don't understand these authoritative statements. Reminds me of religious fanatics.