creating huge amounts of wealth is good

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

so when companies were struggling at the start of the pandemic, we gave them a $3 trillion bailout

now that they're enjoying record profits (by raising prices), we don't get a dime of it

there's always socialism for corporations, but never for the people paying the bill

CEO pay in past year: up 16% to $14.2 million
CFO pay in past year: up 16% to $4.9 million
Worker pay: down when adjusted for inflation

Funny how the people in charge of the money ensure their raises are comfortably above the inflation they helped create
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"there's always socialism for corporations, but never for the people paying the bill"

"the people" didn't get multiple stimulus checks? Including many many people who didn't miss a paycheck due to covid?

"Funny how the people in charge of the money ensure their raises are comfortably above the inflation they helped create"

Didn't you show recently, that those people are mostly democrats?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If you took Tim Cook's $99M pay package and instead gave it to the Apple Employees (154,000) it works out to be $.30 an hour......whatever will they do with that windfall
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simple solutions for simple minds

I know it crumbs... 2.4 dollars a day is 16.8 a week equal 837.00 a year


I am betting they could have still given everyone a 30 cent raise and still Pay Cook But they didn't

I bet you would welcome a 30 cent an hour raise .. I know most Americans would

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Simple solutions for simple minds

Says the man that can’t do simple math
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

For the last month I've been clicking on every headline with the word "inflation" in it and scrolling through to see how many mention record corporate profits.

Or the trillions that the fed printed and gave to the banks to dump into the stock market.

Just about none of them do.

Seems like a piece of information that would be relevant, but what do I know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Simple solutions for simple minds

I know it crumbs... 2.4 dollars a day is 16.8 a week equal 837.00 a year


I am betting they could have still given everyone a 30 cent raise and still Pay Cook But they didn't

I bet you would welcome a 30 cent an hour raise .. I know most Americans would

average salary is almost $70k a year. It ain't a plantation.

If you want what Tim Cook has, do what he did. Or just stop being so unbelievably jealous.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Simple solutions for simple minds

I know it crumbs... 2.4 dollars a day is 16.8 a week equal 837.00 a year


I am betting they could have still given everyone a 30 cent raise and still Pay Cook But they didn't

I bet you would welcome a 30 cent an hour raise .. I know most Americans would

If you ever worked in a private sector job in a very competitive industry, you'd want a top notch CEO.

Probably because you're in a public union (right?), and you take your money from customers whether they like it or not, you just might understand how the private sector works. There's competition. You have to make customers WANT to give you their money, and there are plenty of choices for the customer.

So its much better for every single Apple employee, if they have a talented CEO, than if they had an average CEO. If he wasn't adding that value, the board would find someone else.

It's an extraordinarily well-run company. Best of the best. You can bet that many of the employees also own stock, and the ones who buy stock in their 401k and stay there for years, have made out awesome.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Simple solutions for simple minds

I know it crumbs... 2.4 dollars a day is 16.8 a week equal 837.00 a year


I am betting they could have still given everyone a 30 cent raise and still Pay Cook But they didn't

I bet you would welcome a 30 cent an hour raise .. I know most Americans would

"Simple solutions for simple minds "

It is simple. It's simple to show that his compensation isn't a big deal.

"I know it crumbs"

Funny you use that word, that's exactly how Nancy Pelosi described all the bonuses that companies were giving when Trump cut corporate tax cuts. She mocked the bonuses (usually $1,000 bonuses), calling it "crumbs".

You're focused on what it costs to have Tim Cook, without uttering one syllable about his value. Because (1) that doesn't serve your agenda, and (2) you probably don't understand it. There aren't 25 people in the world who can run Apple well.

[Pete F.]

From 1978 to 2020, CEO pay based on realized compensation grew by 1,322%, far outstripping S&P stock market growth (817%) and top 0.1% earnings growth (which was 341% between 1978 and 2019, the latest data available). In contrast, compensation of the typical worker grew by just 18.0% from 1978 to 2020.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

From 1978 to 2020, CEO pay based on realized compensation grew by 1,322%, far outstripping S&P stock market growth (817%) and top 0.1% earnings growth (which was 341% between 1978 and 2019, the latest data available). In contrast, compensation of the typical worker grew by just 18.0% from 1978 to 2020.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you really want what the ceos have, do what they did and you’ll
have it. whiny and jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you really want what the ceos have, do what they did and you’ll
have it. whiny and jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simple isn’t it

Implications of the growth of CEO-to-top-0.1% compensation ratio.
The fact that CEO compensation has grown far faster than the pay of the top 0.1% of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”) that also increased the value of highly paid professionals: Rather, the growing pay differential between CEOs and top 0.1% earners suggests the growth of substantial economic rents (income not related to a corresponding growth of productivity) in CEO compensation. CEO compensation appears to reflect not greater productivity of executives but the power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Simple isn’t it

Implications of the growth of CEO-to-top-0.1% compensation ratio.
The fact that CEO compensation has grown far faster than the pay of the top 0.1% of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”) that also increased the value of highly paid professionals: Rather, the growing pay differential between CEOs and top 0.1% earners suggests the growth of substantial economic rents (income not related to a corresponding growth of productivity) in CEO compensation. CEO compensation appears to reflect not greater productivity of executives but the power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Waah waah waah.

Why do you care? What harm are they doing you? They're easing your tax burden, that's all they're doing. That, and keeping HUGE numbers of us employed.

You like to poke fun at me because I took a demotion. You know why I did it? Because while I'll never have as much as many, I have something that those CEOs will never have.

I have enough. It's an amazing feeling. It's nice to not give a rats azz about what anyone lese has. It's a lot healthier than being jealous of what a tiny, miniscule number of people have.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Simple solutions for simple minds "

It is simple. It's simple to show that his compensation isn't a big deal.

"I know it crumbs"

Funny you use that word, that's exactly how Nancy Pelosi described all the bonuses that companies were giving when Trump cut corporate tax cuts. She mocked the bonuses (usually $1,000 bonuses), calling it "crumbs".

.

Yes Jim That 1000 dollars pays once a 30 cent raise pays over time

why is that a hard concept for you to understand

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yes Jim That 1000 dollars pays once a 30 cent raise pays over time

why is that a hard concept for you to understand

I understand the math, I explained it to you. What I don't understand, is that you're saying $1,000 to these employees is significant. But when Trumps tax cuts incentivized many companies to give employees $1,000 bonuses, NO ONE on the left said "boy that's great". They said it was "crumbs"

Here's what YOU don't understand. It's much better for the Apple employees to have an amazingly capable CEO, than it is for them to have an average CEO and $640 a year. If an average employee making $70k a year is putting money into their 401(k) and buying apple stock with it, their stock appreciates by the same exact percentage as each share of Tim Cooks stock.

Nobody has to work at Apple. People with tech skills are in huge demand. They can go elsewhere. But they don't, huge numbers of people want to work there.

It's the single largest company on the planet in terms of market cap, the company is valued at almost $3 trillion. Cook is doing an amazing, amazing job there. Every possible indication is that hes worth what they're paying him.

His compensation is nothing to that companys balance sheet, absolutely nothing.

[Pete F.]

You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some irony here

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.

Just pointless cruelty by a $2.8 trillion company
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?"

100M a year, for a $3 trillion company, is nothing.

Like all the good commies here, all you're doing is focusing on his cost. You're assuming he ads zero value.

Look at the stock performance, growth, jobs added, any measure you want. He gets an A+ for his management of Apple.

I doubt most Apple employees want him gone and replaced with a cheaper alternative. If they don't care, no reason for you to care.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When employees leave Apple, it changes everyone's job title to "associate," so it becomes impossible for other companies to verify their resume, leading to rescinded job offers and lower pay.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except hiring companies don't base salary offers only on their title at their previous employer. And, I dunno, maybe the former Apple employee has the ability to tell his interviewer what his job was, or put it on his resume?

What a pathetic joke that was.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You’re seriously claiming Tim Apples compensation has no effect on Apples bottom line?"

100M a year, for a $3 trillion company, is nothing.

Like all the good commies here, all you're doing is focusing on his cost. You're assuming he ads zero value.

Look at the stock performance, growth, jobs added, any measure you want. He gets an A+ for his management of Apple.

I doubt most Apple employees want him gone and replaced with a cheaper alternative. If they don't care, no reason for you to care.

Oh, okay
In the last 50 years executive and upper level management compensation has increased at a rate much higher than the rate for lower level employees who in many cases have if you account for inflation, lost income even though worker productivity has increased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What a pathetic joke that was.

he's consistent...