Tim Cook gets weensy 1.9% increase - but it's still twice an average joe's salary Apple CEO Tim Cook has been handed an $80,000 pay rise - a modest 1.9 per cent increase of his total take-home pay, which nevertheless amounts to almost twice what the average American worker can expect to take home in a whole year. In 2013, Cook was bunged a whopping $4.25m for leading Apple, according to the fruity firm's …
Depends what you do: I had a 2012 less profitable than 2011, but last year was better than both. In 2014 I'm going permie so will "take home" less wonga, but I calculate other factors will benefit me to compensate (location, lifestyle changes, favourable workplace, etc).
In my opinion if your employer isn't rewarding you as well as you think they should be, look to either convincing them of that, or find another one who will. The power is in YOUR hands.
if your employer isn't rewarding you as well as you think they should be
In my experience, there's a time delay there too.
The years I have worked my hardest, I was rewarded the least for, or not at all. So lack of motivation set in and I was less efficient, less pro-active.Bbut because things went wrong and I was then being seen to fix them quickly, I got good year-end reviews and even pay-rise and bonuses.
The moral I've taken from this : don't be too good at your job, otherwise no one will notice you are doing it.
As proof of this: Wasn't Steve Jobs famous for only having a salary of $1. Yet Tim Cook has a much bigger salary. :-)
Doesn't the small print say that he didn't take much of his holiday allowance, meaning that 35k of that 80k is money for days he worked when he needn't have had to. How much would your "average Joe" make each year if they also worked (and got paid for) their holidays?
This amount represents: ... (iii) vacation cash-out in the amount of $35,000.
anyway - that said - this isn't a pay rise. it's his 2013 salary. so technically, it's a "pay rose" and it happened nearly a year ago. must be a slow news day if you've nothing better than "this is what leader of very rich company earnt a year ago!!"
In America most employees get only ten days of holiday a year (versus twenty eight in the UK and similar quantities across Europe), so the average Joe wouldn't gain that much from working the extra days — 252 rather than 242 is only about a 4% increase.
Though that's more than 1.9% so your point stands.
The "average Joe" would still get the ~$45,000 due to most American companies not paying employees for unused vacation, instead either stopping accruing at some magical number of hours or a "use-or-lose" system where on a magical date (usually end of year or end of 1st quarter,) any amount of unused leave evaporates back into the ether.
The relevant comparison in this instance would be what were the percentage pay increases for the bulk of Apple employees?
If they've all jumped 3.8% then his 1.9% is modest despite the big numbers. I don't expect that's what happened, but I can't tell from your report.
"If they've all jumped 3.8% then his 1.9% is modest despite the big numbers."
It only sounds that way when working in percentages. If, on the other hand, a guy on 30k gets 4% and a guy on 1m get 3%, the gap just got wider. I know I'd rather my pay rise was "just" 0.5% of 1m than the 1.5% of current salary I got. ie, the same absolute value pay rise our CEO got.
So, are you saying the high earners need bigger absolute pay rises because the absolute costs of luxury items are rising by inflation percentages and therefore faster than the cheaper, "basic" items? Yeah, I can sympathise with that. There's nothing more devastating than finding out next years Rolex is going to cost an extra grand.
No minimally competent economist works in absolute dollars. They work with relative percentages. The key factor in buying decisions is the marginal value of the last dollar spent. If the guy at the top gets a 1% raise and the guy at the bottom gets a 4% raise, the guy at the bottom has closed the gap in marginal value. Unless of course the state has bolluxed him up with a progressive income tax that gives him less disposable income after taxes than he had before he got his raise. But since that isn't under Apple's control, that shouldn't be part of this discussion.
Bloody averages again. They really sway the outlook.
So, for example, one bloke gets £100,000 a year, and nine others get £10,000 per year. So in this case 'Joe Bloggs' average wage is £19,000 ~ obviously way off the mark what an average person gets in a wage in real terms.
Now manifest this into a few hundred people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds and MILLIONS of people earning less than £15,000 per year. The 'average' soon becomes a joke.
Then take the way the UK Government work out the 'average wage'. By using tax returns from income. That makes it even more of a joke.
Let alone using percent as an indicator for 'everybody' gets the same rise...
Bloody accountants.
Yep, agree totally. It is important when dealing in averages to qualify whether you are talking mean, mode or median. And listen to "more or less".
On a related point 1.9 % was more than HP ever gave me as a pay rise for successive Exceeds /Significantly Exceeds performance reviews. So, as they obviously wanted me to go somewhere else, I did. Best move I ever made.
The Top Knobs in business are usually on performance-related pay and bonus schemes, the better the company does under their steadfast and competent stewardship the more loot they rake in. Sadly for Mister Cook Apple's financial numbers aren't that hot -- the last quarter's earnings are flat to negative and margins (what Karl Marx called profits) are down as the company spends more to try and keep revenues up and they've also being indulging in yet more share buybacks to keep the stock ticker price inflated and avoid Wall Street looking deeper into their lackluster performance. No fat envelopes for the boss this year then.
No one, I'll say that again, no one is worth 4 million a year. No sports figure, no politician, no business leader, no corporate officer should be paid anything over a million a year. Salaries should be capped at that level (Including bonuses) to stop the idiocy of the bank crisis "paying bonuses for sending peoples life savings down the crapper" levels of idiocy.
Failing business? Lets get rid of the old CEO who put us in that position and pay him 25 mil? Bull crap.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
