6 ms·
The idea that Cook quits because he doesn’t get a raise somewhat relies on the notion that he can do better elsewhere. Is that true? He’s already at the nation’
by CGamesPlay 5y ago
The idea that Cook quits because he doesn’t get a raise somewhat relies on the notion that he can do better elsewhere. Is that true? He’s already at the nation’s wealthiest company.
- marcinzm 5y agoHe's worth 2 billion, he can do many many things to fill his time with that money without needing a day job. Investment, philanthropy, advising, etc.
- waffle_maniac 5y agoMost people don’t make enough to retire until they are in their 60s or 70s. It sounds like we are paying these guys too much if we have to compete for attention with their massive fortune.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoWho is we? Apple’s owners already get to decide how badly they want their executives, what is wrong with this system?
- waffle_maniac 5y agoIt awards people for being something that they cannot possibly be: worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year in compensation. Human excellence hasn't reached the point where this is the case.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThey were not awarded hundreds of millions of dollars. They were awarded a number of shares or options, which may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars when and if they sell or excercise. Either way, two entities came to a voluntary agreement on an exchange of services and compensation. I have not heard of a better model yet. If the issue is income/wealth gaps in society, then that is better solved by implementing huge marginal income/wealth taxes such that the can be rewarded hundreds of millions of dollars, but they will only end up with a small portion of it.
- anchpop 5y agoSo why do the owners of Apple decide to pay Tim Cook so much? Do they just not realize that they could come out ahead by only hiring CEOs willing to pay much less?
- labster 5y agoNo, it sounds like we’re not paying them enough if we can’t distract them from their massive fortune!
- smolder 5y agoI hope this is a joke. It's a failing or at best a quirk of our economic system that Tim Cook's time can be so highly valued when any number of different piles of well educated people could do 10x more useful work for less money. It's not meritocracy. He's winning the game, but he's replaceable.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago>He's winning the game, but he's replaceable. ~100 million/year says he isn't. It all comes down to how you define "useful work" and value. A big part Tim Cooks value is simply being a known factor. You might not like that this is valued more than 1,000 engineers, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
- waffle_maniac 5y agoIf Tim Cook was really worth 100 million a year or more and had achieved a state of intelligence and skill unknown to humanity before, don't you think scientists would be scrambling to study his genetics? He's just not that unique. The employees should be paid more and Tim should be paid less.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think you entirely missed the point of my comment. Tim Cook is worth 100 million because he is the same person that ran the company last year and is a known quantity, not because he is 1000x smarter. His value is being Tim Cook: Apple CEO since 2011. This is something that nobody else on the planet has and 1,000 engineers can't build.
- labster 5y agoHey, every human is unique and equally irreplaceable. It’s just that some of us are more equal than others.
- oblio 5y agoSome people just win capitalism. The problem is, frequently everyone else doesn't get to play a second game.
- kennywinker 5y agoWhen you have 2 billion, why would you work for $100mil a year? He is clearly working there for reasons other than money, at this point.
- ghostly_s 5y ago> To put that in perspective, if you were worth 200,000 would you work for $10k/year? That's not how perspective works.
- kennywinker 5y agoEdited my comment to remove that bit because it distracts from the point that he is working for reasons other than money. It’s not a 1:1 comparison, but it’s valid and useful to scale big numbers down to ones we’re more familiar with and can reason about intuitively. How’s this for perspective. Simply sitting on his 2bil invested at a 6% return he’s getting 120mil/year. He does not need that money as a motivator.
- gruez 5y ago$200k can't even buy an average american house. Also, I've seen commenters on HN and reddit arguing that a $10k/yea job isn't worth having because it's lower than your cost of living.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoYou don't set the compensation for a job bearing in mind the wealth of the person who is filling that position. That's such an odd perspective. For example, all other things being equal, would you pay someone working for you less because you found out they were the beneficiary of a large inheritance? I hope not; I hope you would keep paying them equitably according to their performance relative to market, I think?
- MereInterest 5y agoHaving $2 billion in assets, invested at the historic average of 7% after inflation, yields $14 million every year. The median household income is about $68k per year. Therefore, the passive income just from having $2 billion of assets comes out to about the full income of 2000 households. That's the only way I've come up with to visualize massive wealth, as it is so far beyond anything I have experience with. That the closest visualization is the size of a town that could be entirely devoted in perpetuity to the whims of the person with that wealth.
- k4tz 5y ago140 million
- jedberg 5y agoYour math is off by an order of magnitude. 7% of 2 billion is $140M.
- Jabbles 5y agoYour math is also off by an order of magnitude. It is $140M, but that makes it 2,000 households @$68k each.
- jedberg 5y agoYou're right. I'll be honest, I just assumed OP did the math after $14M correctly and added a 0. I didn't even think about how off it sounds. Fixed my comment, thanks for pointing that out.
- MereInterest 5y agoShoot, you're right. I miscounted the number of zeroes in the first step when copying from a python shell. All later numbers were computed from the initial values, which is why the order of magnitude was correct for the later values.
- pg_bot 5y agoIt yields 140 million
- DevKoala 5y agoI wouldn’t want him to stick and lose motivation either.
- sschueller 5y agoAt this point do you still work for money or you work because you enjoy it? What more do you want with more money? There isn't anything out of reach.
- Ericson2314 5y agoHe could also...not work.