Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook!

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Fred Moore, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)

    <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
    ation-2012.html>

    Wonder if he could spare a few bucks to update Java for 10.5.

    --
    So let me get this straight?
    Mandates to pay for American healthcare are unconstitutional.
    But mandates to pay for American war crimes are our patriotic duty?
    Sieg heil, Amereicha!
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fred Moore

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fred Moore

    Király Guest

    Fred Moore <> wrote:
    > Wonder if he could spare a few bucks to update Java for 10.5.


    Apple has only ever issued updates for the current version and its
    immediate predecessor. 10.5 is two versions old. Support and updates
    for it ended when 10.7 was released.

    --
    K.

    Lang may your lum reek.
     
    Király, Apr 8, 2012
    #3
  4. Fred Moore

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Tim McNamara, Apr 8, 2012
    #4
  5. Fred Moore

    JF Mezei Guest

    Tim Cook's "salary" is way out of whack with the rest of the folks. I
    suspect this is because of a one time signing bonus. So it may not be a
    fair comparison agianst CEOs who have been at their job for a long time.

    Next year might be a better indication of Cook's "on going" compensation.

    I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
    above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
    spend during your free time.
     
    JF Mezei, Apr 8, 2012
    #5
  6. Fred Moore

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim McNamara <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >
    > > On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
    > > > Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
    > > >
    > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
    > > > ation-2012.html>

    > >
    > > Read that this am. No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.

    >
    > Michael Moore was just about accurate.


    The thing that MM and all the others (especially the NYT ignore is that
    current exec compensation is almost entirely due to a change in tax
    policy in the mid-80s that was supposed to address problems in executive
    pay.
    It changed tax laws to effectively cap executive salaries at $1
    million by making that the highest amount the Corp could deduct (and if
    you look at K-1, most actual salaries still tend to be around $1 million
    to this day).
    Then, in an attempt to align the interests of management with the
    interests of shareholder, they tax-favored stock options and
    peformance-based bonuses. So, instead of being paid largely a salary (to
    run the company) they were paid largely in options and bonuses (to run
    the stock price). It wasn't two years later before the first
    book-cooking scandal erupted.
    Two other major outcomes. (1). Executive's total compensation went
    to areas that even the most captive Board wouldn't have had the balls to
    pay them. The second thing was the most interesting as the vaunted
    executive pay to average worker pay ratio went through the roof. During
    the 60s, 70s and early 80s, it had meandered around in range of 20-30
    times. In the mid-80s (within a couple of years of enactment) it had
    risen to more than 150 times and topped out in the late 90s around 300
    times, still better than 250 the last time I looked.
    Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
    the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Apr 9, 2012
    #6
  7. In article <4f82109e$0$2071$c3e8da3$>, JF Mezei
    <> wrote:
    >
    > Tim Cook's "salary" is way out of whack with the rest of the folks. I
    > suspect this is because of a one time signing bonus. So it may not be a
    > fair comparison agianst CEOs who have been at their job for a long time.
    >
    > Next year might be a better indication of Cook's "on going" compensation.
    >
    > I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
    > above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
    > spend during your free time.


    Just like all management-types, Tim Cook's on-going salary will still be
    massively "out of whack" with normal people. :eek:(

    Helpful Harry :eek:)
     
    Helpful Harry, Apr 9, 2012
    #7
  8. Fred Moore

    Davoud Guest

    Kurt Ullman:
    > Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
    > the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.


    The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
    U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
    classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting.
    All three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is
    the keystone.

    --
    I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
    you will say in your entire life.

    usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
     
    Davoud, Apr 9, 2012
    #8
  9. In article <080420122111083870%>, Davoud <> wrote:

    > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
    > U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
    > classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All
    > three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the
    > keystone.


    The problem is that congress is revolting.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Apr 9, 2012
    #9
  10. Fred Moore

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > In article <080420122111083870%>, Davoud <> wrote:
    >
    > > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
    > > U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
    > > classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All
    > > three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the
    > > keystone.

    >
    > The problem is that congress is revolting.


    Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
    nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
    revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Apr 9, 2012
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

    > > > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of
    > > > the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the
    > > > wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from
    > > > revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the
    > > > Congress is the keystone.

    > >
    > > The problem is that congress is revolting.

    >
    > Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
    > nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
    > revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.


    I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.
    <snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not
    feeling well. <g>

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Apr 9, 2012
    #11
  12. Fred Moore

    Fred Moore Guest

    In article <jlsvfv$dm6$>, (Király)
    wrote:

    > Fred Moore <> wrote:
    > > Wonder if he could spare a few bucks to update Java for 10.5.

    >
    > Apple has only ever issued updates for the current version and its
    > immediate predecessor. 10.5 is two versions old. Support and updates
    > for it ended when 10.7 was released.


    Thanks, Király, I'm aware of Apple's policy in this area. However, as I
    posted to the thread Flashback Infection Mechanism? in comp.sys.mac.apps,

    'I'm not a Java programmer so please correct my ignorance; but if Apple
    can adjust Java for 10.6&7, why can't it easily do the same for at least
    10.5? My understanding is that Java is reasonably self-contained in the
    system. If such updates are as easy as I speculate, it's unconscionable
    for them not to fix 10.5, especially since they have supposedly known
    about the vulnerability for over a year, if not two, according to some
    articles.'

    --
    So let me get this straight?
    Mandates to pay for American healthcare are unconstitutional.
    But mandates to pay for American war crimes are our patriotic duty?
    Sieg heil, Amereicha!
     
    Fred Moore, Apr 9, 2012
    #12
  13. Fred Moore

    nospam Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    Fred Moore <> wrote:

    > 'I'm not a Java programmer so please correct my ignorance; but if Apple
    > can adjust Java for 10.6&7, why can't it easily do the same for at least
    > 10.5? My understanding is that Java is reasonably self-contained in the
    > system. If such updates are as easy as I speculate, it's unconscionable
    > for them not to fix 10.5, especially since they have supposedly known
    > about the vulnerability for over a year, if not two, according to some
    > articles.'


    they can easily do it if they wanted to.

    what's really bullshit is that they sat on the fix for as long as they
    did.
     
    nospam, Apr 9, 2012
    #13
  14. Fred Moore

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Kurt Ullman <> wrote:
    >
    > > > > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of
    > > > > the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the
    > > > > wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from
    > > > > revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the
    > > > > Congress is the keystone.
    > > >
    > > > The problem is that congress is revolting.

    > >
    > > Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
    > > nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
    > > revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

    >
    > I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.
    > <snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not
    > feeling well. <g>


    Your health is always a concern of mine (grin). Actually I am very much
    bipartisan in my revulsioning.

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Apr 9, 2012
    #14
  15. Fred Moore

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/8/12 5:26 PM, in article
    4f82109e$0$2071$c3e8da3$, "JF Mezei"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > I have to wonder however whether one's lifestyle changes once you get
    > above 10 million per years. There is only so much money someone can
    > spend during your free time.


    Oh, but you are so naïve. Here are ten stories that prove that statement
    wrong...

    <http://www.oddee.com/item_97101.aspx>

    Plus, the 536 goofballs in Washington who think that our pockets are hind
    teats that will never run dry.
     
    George Kerby, Apr 9, 2012
    #15
  16. Fred Moore

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/8/12 7:33 PM, in article
    , "Kurt Ullman"
    <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim McNamara <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
    >>>> Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
    >>>> ation-2012.html>
    >>>
    >>> Read that this am. No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.

    >>
    >> Michael Moore was just about accurate.

    >
    > The thing that MM and all the others (especially the NYT ignore is that
    > current exec compensation is almost entirely due to a change in tax
    > policy in the mid-80s that was supposed to address problems in executive
    > pay.
    > It changed tax laws to effectively cap executive salaries at $1
    > million by making that the highest amount the Corp could deduct (and if
    > you look at K-1, most actual salaries still tend to be around $1 million
    > to this day).
    > Then, in an attempt to align the interests of management with the
    > interests of shareholder, they tax-favored stock options and
    > peformance-based bonuses. So, instead of being paid largely a salary (to
    > run the company) they were paid largely in options and bonuses (to run
    > the stock price). It wasn't two years later before the first
    > book-cooking scandal erupted.
    > Two other major outcomes. (1). Executive's total compensation went
    > to areas that even the most captive Board wouldn't have had the balls to
    > pay them. The second thing was the most interesting as the vaunted
    > executive pay to average worker pay ratio went through the roof. During
    > the 60s, 70s and early 80s, it had meandered around in range of 20-30
    > times. In the mid-80s (within a couple of years of enactment) it had
    > risen to more than 150 times and topped out in the late 90s around 300
    > times, still better than 250 the last time I looked.
    > Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
    > the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.


    Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.
     
    George Kerby, Apr 9, 2012
    #16
  17. Fred Moore

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/8/12 8:11 PM, in article 080420122111083870%, "Davoud"
    <> wrote:

    > Kurt Ullman:
    >> Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
    >> the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.

    >
    > The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
    > U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
    > classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting.
    > All three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is
    > the keystone.


    Wrong! WRONG!! Oh SO WRONG!!!

    The purpose of Congress is to keep themselves in power and not have to
    bother with the problems of us Commoners. They intension work the mooing
    masses against the 'rich boogiemen'. All the while filling their pockets
    with the taxpayers' hard earned money.
     
    George Kerby, Apr 9, 2012
    #17
  18. Fred Moore

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/9/12 10:26 AM, in article
    -september.org, "Michelle
    Steiner" <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Kurt Ullman <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of
    >>>> the U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the
    >>>> wealthy classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from
    >>>> revolting. All three branches of government play their part, but the
    >>>> Congress is the keystone.
    >>>
    >>> The problem is that congress is revolting.

    >>
    >> Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
    >> nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
    >> revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.

    >
    > I intended the first meaning, but both meanings apply to the GOP.
    > <snicker>; just had to get that dig in or you and Kerby would think I'm not
    > feeling well. <g>


    Should have done that on Sunday a week ago...
     
    George Kerby, Apr 9, 2012
    #18
  19. Fred Moore

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/9/12 5:58 AM, in article
    , "Kurt Ullman"
    <> wrote:

    > In article <-september.org>,
    > Michelle Steiner <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <080420122111083870%>, Davoud <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The U.S. Congress is fulfilling its responsibility. The purpose of the
    >>> U.S. government is to care for, protect, and further enrich the wealthy
    >>> classes while preventing the middle and underclasses from revolting. All
    >>> three branches of government play their part, but the Congress is the
    >>> keystone.

    >>
    >> The problem is that congress is revolting.

    >
    > Which meaning of revolting (serious Question)? As in causing revulsion;
    > nauseating, disgusting, or repulsive or as in participating in a
    > revolution? Personally, I'd say the first.


    Gag me with a spoon!
     
    George Kerby, Apr 9, 2012
    #19
  20. Fred Moore

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 04-09-2012 14:15, George Kerby wrote:
    > Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.


    Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh's mirror image.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Pat's Polemics
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett
     
    Wes Groleau, Apr 10, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wayne
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    420
  2. JF Mezei
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    242
    Michelle Steiner
    Mar 1, 2012
  3. GrosJean
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    299
    Jim Janney
    Nov 14, 2012
  4. JF Mezei
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    315
    Greg Johnson
    Dec 31, 2012
  5. Michelle Steiner
    Replies:
    113
    Views:
    513
    Erilar
    Feb 8, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page