3 ms·

You are not making sense. Apple sells more product outside the US, too, so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas? The rest of

by quesera 15y ago

You are not making sense. Apple sells more product outside the US, too, so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas? The rest of your accounting complaints are simply not true. If Apple represents 1% of UPS delivery business, they can rightfully claim to have created 1% of the UPS delivery person jobs. And of course it's PR. It's PR designed to counteract some clueless congresspeople asking for economic impossibilities from a very visible US success story. But it's honest PR. Such things do exist.

chrisacky 15y ago
> ...so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas? Absolutely nothing. I have zero issue with having overseas employees. I'm not even American. The point and issue I was trying to address is that they are trying to cast themselves in some golden light as being the crusader of US employment, when a vast majority of jobs which could be brought back to the US aren't. I would love to agree in that it is honest PR, perhaps if the word hyperbolic was put in the middle that might be true. Because they have clearly stretched these numbers quite considerably. As one commenter adds below, why not include the farmer who feeds the cows, who feeds the truck driver?
pm90 15y ago
You are right that its PR, but please don't argue about it being "Honest". The common use of the term "Creating Jobs" is only those "directly employed" by your company (i.e on your company's payroll). In this context, including other indirect jobs is misleading and hence dishonest. ( I would also argue that perhaps the right way to present information to congressmen requires one to have the patience to sincerely explain to them what the situation really is rather than deliberately misleading them)
- quesera 15y ago
  This is the point, though. I agree that the layman's interpretation of "created or supported" isn't necessarily the same as the formal definition of the terms by the US govt, but criticizing Apple for using the formal definition isn't reasonable. The intent of the formal definition is to answer the question "what would be the impact on US employment if this business were to cease operation tomorrow?", and I believe that Apple has made an honest effort to compute that number, probably rather conservatively. Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results. In response to your point about how to present this data to congresspeople, I'd argue that while there are some legitimate economic dunces in elected office, there are few that don't comprehend the cascade effect of business activity and therefore employment. Furthermore, I doubt that any congressperson would consider Apple's use of "create or support" to be misleading, because it is absolutely the standard usage of the term in these sorts of assessments. That does not, of course, mean that some senator who smells television coverage won't take notice of the confusion and grandstand his or her condescension for his or her electorate. It might even be a successful strategy, but we don't have to help. Obviously I haven't audited the numbers. That's a valid line of inquiry, but history shows Apple to be fastidiously circumspect in such matters. There's a new sheriff in town in Cupertino, but if anything he seems to be even more careful.
  - pm90 15y ago
    >Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results. That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't doubt Apple's contribution to the US economy in terms of the indirect jobs that it has created, but placing it in the same category as creating direct jobs is what I don't agree with (especially since the layman usually interprets it as the latter).
    - quesera 15y ago
      I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do you really think they are trying to trick people with (standard) terminology? Direct employment numbers are in every quarterly report, do you think they were hoping the lazy Apple press would overlook a huge employment increase? And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions. Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)
bsphil 15y ago
So UPS didn't create those UPS jobs just because sometimes, some of the boxes they deliver have Apple products in them?

by quesera 15y ago

chrisacky 15y ago

> ...so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas? Absolutely nothing. I have zero issue with having overseas employees. I'm not even American. The point and issue I was trying to address is that they are trying to cast themselves in some golden light as being the crusader of US employment, when a vast majority of jobs which could be brought back to the US aren't. I would love to agree in that it is honest PR, perhaps if the word hyperbolic was put in the middle that might be true. Because they have clearly stretched these numbers quite considerably. As one commenter adds below, why not include the farmer who feeds the cows, who feeds the truck driver?

pm90 15y ago

You are right that its PR, but please don't argue about it being "Honest". The common use of the term "Creating Jobs" is only those "directly employed" by your company (i.e on your company's payroll). In this context, including other indirect jobs is misleading and hence dishonest. ( I would also argue that perhaps the right way to present information to congressmen requires one to have the patience to sincerely explain to them what the situation really is rather than deliberately misleading them)

quesera 15y ago
This is the point, though. I agree that the layman's interpretation of "created or supported" isn't necessarily the same as the formal definition of the terms by the US govt, but criticizing Apple for using the formal definition isn't reasonable. The intent of the formal definition is to answer the question "what would be the impact on US employment if this business were to cease operation tomorrow?", and I believe that Apple has made an honest effort to compute that number, probably rather conservatively. Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results. In response to your point about how to present this data to congresspeople, I'd argue that while there are some legitimate economic dunces in elected office, there are few that don't comprehend the cascade effect of business activity and therefore employment. Furthermore, I doubt that any congressperson would consider Apple's use of "create or support" to be misleading, because it is absolutely the standard usage of the term in these sorts of assessments. That does not, of course, mean that some senator who smells television coverage won't take notice of the confusion and grandstand his or her condescension for his or her electorate. It might even be a successful strategy, but we don't have to help. Obviously I haven't audited the numbers. That's a valid line of inquiry, but history shows Apple to be fastidiously circumspect in such matters. There's a new sheriff in town in Cupertino, but if anything he seems to be even more careful.
- pm90 15y ago
  >Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results. That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't doubt Apple's contribution to the US economy in terms of the indirect jobs that it has created, but placing it in the same category as creating direct jobs is what I don't agree with (especially since the layman usually interprets it as the latter).
  - quesera 15y ago
    I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do you really think they are trying to trick people with (standard) terminology? Direct employment numbers are in every quarterly report, do you think they were hoping the lazy Apple press would overlook a huge employment increase? And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions. Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)

bsphil 15y ago

So UPS didn't create those UPS jobs just because sometimes, some of the boxes they deliver have Apple products in them?