Saturday, October 22, 2011

Various Rates of Pay

Not ours, but others'. A little bit different wage survey.

I really don't have much of anything to say. The graphic kind of speaks for itself. (Click on the link here or up above to get a clearer view.)

Add On: I enjoyed this comment attached to the original Ritholtz post:

Let’s just take Jobs at 749M. Does ANYONE deserve that kind of money? What board, in it’s right mind unless it’s filled with sycophants would allow that to flow to one person instead of to employees and shareholders? Does anyone really ever NEED this sort of compensation? Is it really necessary to pay anyone more than, say 10x what the average worker makes to run a place and plow the rest back into the company as a whole and the shareholders?

And if anyone gives me the “the person will go elsewhere” line my attitude (as it is with my employees) is “go right ahead, no one is irreplaceable and if they are, it’s the fault of the organization”. If Apple can never replace Jobs, then he did a piss-poor job of building a company. Because, you know, that’s what a CEO is supposed to do. Not be famous.


Anonymous said...

For SJ, all but $1 of that was stock options.

Think about that. All of his compensation was tied up in the company he was running. That takes balls.

Goddamn right the Apple board was going to let him be compensated in that way. It gave him the most skin in the game.

Steve Hulett said...

On reflection, that's right. Jobs was one of the few (only?) CEOs who took a small wage package.

And thinking about it, he would have been far richer than $7.5 billion if he had held on to his original Apple stock.

So maybe Jobs deserved what he got, eh? OTOH, as an old Zen Master once said" "When you die, you die broke."

So Steve is now "broke."

Anonymous said...

Steve did more in his life than any of us could dream. He is a very atypical CEO

Meredith said...

I hope to be able to read the Jobs biography soon. A big takeaway I have from all the news coverage about him is that he was truly focused on making great products, and not concerned about the money. He has been compared to Edison as an innovator. There is a lot to be learned here: Make great stuff and the money just follows.

Anonymous said...

Edison was an inventor on an ungodly scale (and yes, he also was a monstrous self promoter). Jobs had a stunning gift for taking other people's inventions, and packaging them beautifully and intuitively and functionally (and also for complaining bitterly when another company copied his innovations).

Comparing Edison to Jobs is like comparing Babe Ruth to Red Smith. They aren't even in the same categories.

Site Meter