11 ms·

My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of Foxconn’s total workforce? [2] /s My question is: if Tim Cook

by brk 5y ago

My question is: how is Tim so productive that he does roughly 160,000 people’s work, or 1/8th of Foxconn’s total workforce? [2] /s My question is: if Tim Cook didn't exist, would any of those Foxconn workers have jobs? My other questions is: if you put 160,190 Foxconn workers in front of 160,190 development environments, how long before they would randomly re-create the iPhone? You can't compare salaries, or even value, of people at two massively different levels in the machine. Is Tim Cook "worth" more than 160,190 Foxconn workers? Apple's board and investors seem to think so, and they are Apple's ultimate "customer", being that it is a publicly traded company.

TrackerFF 5y ago
I think it's a interesting discussion, because often when CEO comps come under scrutiny, one side will naturally argue that company performance correlated directly to CEO performance. Stock goes up = CEO does good job Stock stagnates or goes down = CEO does a bad job. It's an incredibly complex ting to analyze - but how much of company performance is really the result of the CEO, and the CEO alone? Sure, he sets the N-year course of the company, and being the navigator and captain of a ship, you should get some reward if the ship arrives its destination, intact, and on time. But I mean, how much of Apple company performance is nothing more than just built up momentum? Apple doesn't need to be revolutionary or cutting edge. They just need to adopt working/in-demand products to their own (Apple) domain, and their brand name alone will sell those products. Those Foxconn workers would likely have their jobs, Tim Cook or not in charge. And if not Foxconn, then some other factories and factory workers. Ok, that's a lot of rambling, but I guess my point is that when you're dealing with a behemoth of a company like Apple, with hundreds of millions of users locked in to their products, it's difficult to credit a CEO alone of the success.
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
I would actually propose that Tim Cook could be worth infinitely more than 160,190 Foxconn workers because they may have never re-created the iPhone.

by brk 5y ago

TrackerFF 5y ago

I think it's a interesting discussion, because often when CEO comps come under scrutiny, one side will naturally argue that company performance correlated directly to CEO performance. Stock goes up = CEO does good job Stock stagnates or goes down = CEO does a bad job. It's an incredibly complex ting to analyze - but how much of company performance is really the result of the CEO, and the CEO alone? Sure, he sets the N-year course of the company, and being the navigator and captain of a ship, you should get some reward if the ship arrives its destination, intact, and on time. But I mean, how much of Apple company performance is nothing more than just built up momentum? Apple doesn't need to be revolutionary or cutting edge. They just need to adopt working/in-demand products to their own (Apple) domain, and their brand name alone will sell those products. Those Foxconn workers would likely have their jobs, Tim Cook or not in charge. And if not Foxconn, then some other factories and factory workers. Ok, that's a lot of rambling, but I guess my point is that when you're dealing with a behemoth of a company like Apple, with hundreds of millions of users locked in to their products, it's difficult to credit a CEO alone of the success.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

I would actually propose that Tim Cook could be worth infinitely more than 160,190 Foxconn workers because they may have never re-created the iPhone.