3 ms·

When 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 ago
  Edited 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 ago
You 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?
- kennywinker 5y ago
  You’re talking to someone who believes in a maximum income, so yes generational wealth effects your pay expectations. Both up and down: up because you have a higher standard of living, and down because you can choose jobs that don’t pay your “market value” because you like the work. Ask anyone in the non-profit or arts sectors - pay is low and generational wealth is widespread. If you have millions or billions in the bank, you’re working for reasons other than wealth accumulation. You should be paid a living wage (like everyone) and derive your status and satisfaction from things besides a big number getting slightly bigger. Obviously we live in a world where markets impact how much you have to pay to retain someone beyond that livable wage threshold - but both tim cook and the “ceo of apple” job are not exactly fungible commodities, so it’s not a healthy balanced market that we should trust to invisibly-hand itself a correct valuation.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Need and should are largely irrelevant. The question is does he want it and demand it, and the answer is yes. Some people like you mention don't care about pay, don't demand it, and don't get it, others do care. It seems like you are mainly making a point about how Tim Cook should think and feel about his job, when he clearly has a different opinion. As you say, Tim Cook is not fungible and wants to get what he is worth.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      My point is not about what tim cook should think, it’s about how i believe people in his position do think. Their pay keeps going up because profits are high, monopolization is high, and so when they ask boards give. But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? That fact that he has 2bil in the bank and is still doing the work he’s doing suggests to me that he might not. CEO of apple isn’t a fungible job. I don’t believe tim cook wants to be CEO of any other company. If he wanted to leave no dollar amount could keep him, similarly, i’m not sure a pay cut would send him packing.

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 ago
Edited 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 ago

You 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?

kennywinker 5y ago
You’re talking to someone who believes in a maximum income, so yes generational wealth effects your pay expectations. Both up and down: up because you have a higher standard of living, and down because you can choose jobs that don’t pay your “market value” because you like the work. Ask anyone in the non-profit or arts sectors - pay is low and generational wealth is widespread. If you have millions or billions in the bank, you’re working for reasons other than wealth accumulation. You should be paid a living wage (like everyone) and derive your status and satisfaction from things besides a big number getting slightly bigger. Obviously we live in a world where markets impact how much you have to pay to retain someone beyond that livable wage threshold - but both tim cook and the “ceo of apple” job are not exactly fungible commodities, so it’s not a healthy balanced market that we should trust to invisibly-hand itself a correct valuation.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Need and should are largely irrelevant. The question is does he want it and demand it, and the answer is yes. Some people like you mention don't care about pay, don't demand it, and don't get it, others do care. It seems like you are mainly making a point about how Tim Cook should think and feel about his job, when he clearly has a different opinion. As you say, Tim Cook is not fungible and wants to get what he is worth.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    My point is not about what tim cook should think, it’s about how i believe people in his position do think. Their pay keeps going up because profits are high, monopolization is high, and so when they ask boards give. But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? That fact that he has 2bil in the bank and is still doing the work he’s doing suggests to me that he might not. CEO of apple isn’t a fungible job. I don’t believe tim cook wants to be CEO of any other company. If he wanted to leave no dollar amount could keep him, similarly, i’m not sure a pay cut would send him packing.