5 ms·

So what? I'm sure the value he adds to Apple is 1400x that of the average worker.

by oliv__ 5y ago

Asooka 5y ago
I can see him being a bit more valuable than the average worker. 10 times? Most probably. 100 times? Maybe. 1000 times? Don't be ridiculous.
- stingrae 5y ago
  How much would the stock drop if he were to leave Apple today?
  - gompertz 5y ago
    It would probably drop 10% or so (out of investor uncertainty) and in 1 to 2 months be back to where it was, regardless of successor.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      What if they replaced him with someone currently making the average compensation at Apple?
      - gompertz 5y ago
        There are probably many adequate CEOs already within Apple, making average compensation. You seem to believe CEOs are minted; they all move up the ranks like the rest of us. If the skills are there to lead a company, investors don't care what their last pay scale or job title was and trust the Board or Directors in who is appointed.
  - williadc 5y ago
    By that logic, the members of the Fed should be on every tech company's payroll.
  - nolok 5y ago
    Given what happened to the stock when steve jobs, nothing ? https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Apple-stocks-when-Steve-Jobs-died https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Apple-stocks-when...
- jsodw 5y ago
  Seems the board of directors disagrees with you.
- negamax 5y ago
  Is a software engineer really that valuable than a hourly retail wager? You know the answer to that question because of your craft. Similar skill and perspective gaps exists between c-suite and associate employees.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- microtherion 5y ago
  As COO, Tim was responsible for reorganising Apple's supply chain. Before him, Apple had awful execution and would regularly overproduce some models that would end up unsaleable, while having shortages of other models. I'm pretty sure this was a substantial factor of the operating losses of the 1990s. Under Tim, this changed radically. Initially Apple solved the problem by drastically reducing the number of different models, but by the time the company managed to produce iMacs in 5 different colours without noticeable misproduction of numbers, it was evident that it it had become much better at execution. And around that time, Apple also started turning a profit again. So I'd argue that Tim may have been one of the key drivers of Apple's profitability. I'm not sure how much value he added over a hypothetical replacement level COO, but empirically, he was an enormous improvement over his predecessors.
  - henryfjordan 5y ago
    So his big insight that makes him worth 1400x the average employee was "We make more of these phones than we sell and less of those other phones than we could sell, let's do something about that"?
    - microtherion 5y ago
      *Macs, at the time. Apple did not even make iPods back then. And it was not that insight. Lots of people knew that. But not a lot of people had the skill to "do something about that".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
allturtles 5y ago
If executive pay packages are based on their value to the company, why do they keep increasing so much faster than wages? How have CEOs continuously become more and more valuable relative to workers over the previous 50 years? "In 2020, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 351-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 307-to-1 in 2019 and a big increase from 21-to-1 in 1965 and 61-to-1 in 1989."[0] [0]: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
- tedunangst 5y ago
  Companies are larger? If the CEO used to earn 1% of cumulative salary of all workers, and now they earn 0.5% but there's 4x as many workers, that's still a 2x increase. Why would you expect entry level workers wages to increase in proportion to company size?
- Invictus0 5y ago
  Apple is worth 3 trillion dollars; The stock has surged over 1,000% since Cook took charge. Is it really surprising that he took home 100 million? It pales in comparison to Musk's $250B. If he can increase the stock value just 0.01% it pays for his entire compensation package 3x over.
- mucle6 5y ago
  The value of oxygen is incredibly high, but the supply makes it priced low. Almost by definition, the higher the value of an executive, the lower the supply. As companies get bigger, the executives are able to add more value. If you have an executive leading the largest company,(i.e. Apple valuation wise), they have the largest ability to add value. And what is the supply for that? So far only one person, the current CEO, has experience. This creates a very limited supply where the pay matches the value created closer than in the vast majority of professions.
  - allturtles 5y ago
    How did you come up with a supply of 1 person? You could find thousands of well-qualified people who would want to take Tim Cook's job.

So what? I'm sure the value he adds to Apple is 1400x that of the average worker.

by oliv__ 5y ago

So what? I'm sure the value he adds to Apple is 1400x that of the average worker.

I can see him being a bit more valuable than the average worker. 10 times? Most probably. 100 times? Maybe. 1000 times? Don't be ridiculous.

stingrae 5y ago
How much would the stock drop if he were to leave Apple today?
- gompertz 5y ago
  It would probably drop 10% or so (out of investor uncertainty) and in 1 to 2 months be back to where it was, regardless of successor.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    What if they replaced him with someone currently making the average compensation at Apple?
    - gompertz 5y ago
      There are probably many adequate CEOs already within Apple, making average compensation. You seem to believe CEOs are minted; they all move up the ranks like the rest of us. If the skills are there to lead a company, investors don't care what their last pay scale or job title was and trust the Board or Directors in who is appointed.
- williadc 5y ago
  By that logic, the members of the Fed should be on every tech company's payroll.
- nolok 5y ago
  Given what happened to the stock when steve jobs, nothing ? https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Apple-stocks-when-Steve-Jobs-died https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-Apple-stocks-when...
jsodw 5y ago
Seems the board of directors disagrees with you.
negamax 5y ago
Is a software engineer really that valuable than a hourly retail wager? You know the answer to that question because of your craft. Similar skill and perspective gaps exists between c-suite and associate employees.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
microtherion 5y ago
As COO, Tim was responsible for reorganising Apple's supply chain. Before him, Apple had awful execution and would regularly overproduce some models that would end up unsaleable, while having shortages of other models. I'm pretty sure this was a substantial factor of the operating losses of the 1990s. Under Tim, this changed radically. Initially Apple solved the problem by drastically reducing the number of different models, but by the time the company managed to produce iMacs in 5 different colours without noticeable misproduction of numbers, it was evident that it it had become much better at execution. And around that time, Apple also started turning a profit again. So I'd argue that Tim may have been one of the key drivers of Apple's profitability. I'm not sure how much value he added over a hypothetical replacement level COO, but empirically, he was an enormous improvement over his predecessors.
- henryfjordan 5y ago
  So his big insight that makes him worth 1400x the average employee was "We make more of these phones than we sell and less of those other phones than we could sell, let's do something about that"?
  - microtherion 5y ago
    *Macs, at the time. Apple did not even make iPods back then. And it was not that insight. Lots of people knew that. But not a lot of people had the skill to "do something about that".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

allturtles 5y ago

If executive pay packages are based on their value to the company, why do they keep increasing so much faster than wages? How have CEOs continuously become more and more valuable relative to workers over the previous 50 years? "In 2020, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 351-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 307-to-1 in 2019 and a big increase from 21-to-1 in 1965 and 61-to-1 in 1989."[0] [0]: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/

tedunangst 5y ago
Companies are larger? If the CEO used to earn 1% of cumulative salary of all workers, and now they earn 0.5% but there's 4x as many workers, that's still a 2x increase. Why would you expect entry level workers wages to increase in proportion to company size?
Invictus0 5y ago
Apple is worth 3 trillion dollars; The stock has surged over 1,000% since Cook took charge. Is it really surprising that he took home 100 million? It pales in comparison to Musk's $250B. If he can increase the stock value just 0.01% it pays for his entire compensation package 3x over.
mucle6 5y ago
The value of oxygen is incredibly high, but the supply makes it priced low. Almost by definition, the higher the value of an executive, the lower the supply. As companies get bigger, the executives are able to add more value. If you have an executive leading the largest company,(i.e. Apple valuation wise), they have the largest ability to add value. And what is the supply for that? So far only one person, the current CEO, has experience. This creates a very limited supply where the pay matches the value created closer than in the vast majority of professions.
- allturtles 5y ago
  How did you come up with a supply of 1 person? You could find thousands of well-qualified people who would want to take Tim Cook's job.