Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Cecil Helton
12880 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
Technology Now
360 Followers
Mich De L'Orme
5515 Followers
Skateboarding
6163 Followers
Skateboard
3879 Followers
AngelWardriver
11954 Followers
blinker1315Jan 14, 2011
Sure, if my net worth was over, say $100 million, which it isn't.
badqatJan 14, 2011Submitter
Stock holdings alone in Apple for Steve Jobs are around $2 billion.
Seems like that alone would be quite the motivator.
ethergnatJan 14, 2011
Steve Jobs net worth increased well over half a billion dollars in 2010 from his Apple share holdings. Anybody who thinks he's working for Apple out of the good of his heart is incredibly naive.
ricksiteJan 14, 2011
He isn't exactly working solely for the money. He was set for life before he rejoined Apple. I think he genuinely enjoys the game.
ethergnatJan 14, 2011
Sure, there are all kinds of motivations, and I don't fault him for any of them. I'm just saying these so-called $1 salaries are little more than a smokescreen.
beerhoundJan 14, 2011
I'm no Apple fanboi, I don't care for some of their practices, but I have to point out a difference between Jobs' compensation and most others. You are right that the $1 salaries are just PR, most of the guys taking $1 are getting paid in stock options instead.
Jobs isn't taking stock options like the others, his net worth increased primarily because of the stock he already holds. Apple's stock price goes up, so does his net worth. The stock price drops and Steve's net worth drops with it.
That price closed today at $348.48 a share. That is exceptionally high, even with another outstanding year, how much higher can that realistically go? Steve could end up with $1 for real this year or even lose money of the stock falls off a few bucks.
ethergnatJan 14, 2011
No, he didn't get stock options, but he's basically a significant owner of Apple. Like anybody that owns a company, it pays him to work his ass off to improve it. If he wasn't so significantly invested in Apple I'm sure he wouldn't be willing to work for $1/year.
A more fair headline might be, "Would you work for a company if you had two billion dollars of your own money at stake?"
ricksiteJan 14, 2011
He is also the number one shareholder in Disney. Take Apple out of the picture completely and he is still riding high.
hipmanJan 14, 2011
Or his definition of "set for life" is a bit higher than yours.
monkeyrunJan 14, 2011
obviously he was more interested in proving he was right, people who kicked him out were wrong.
And he did just that.
macparrotJan 14, 2011
He is obviously right NOW, back then not so much. Apple could have taken over the whole enchilada back in 1984/85 if they hadn't been so fixated on hardware instead of software. Windows (versions 1 and 2) were a joke and nothing could top the ease of use of the Macintosh. Most of that (the hardware focus) was because of Jobs. How different would things be today if the Mac OS had been the dominant operating system?
Chances are we wouldn't have OS X as it is now, since one problem that Microsoft has with Windows has been having to keep backwards compatibility with ancient software so as not to piss off a lot of their corporate clients. The Mac Classic OS was also much more suseptable to viruses and malware than OS X is so all the problems MS had along those lines most likely would have been Apple's problem too.
warragulJan 15, 2011
Let's contrast this with someone in a similar position.
Steve Ballmer is worth many times what Jobs is by virtue of his holdings in Microsoft yet he still puts his hand out for his yearly salary package (many, many millions) plus bonuses (which he didn't quite qualify for in 2010).
Imagine what Ballmer's bonuses etc would be worth if he'd expanded Microsoft's net worth to the same extent Jobs has at Apple.
xfirealchemistxJan 14, 2011
Hell no. I want some compensation, but then again I'm not Steve Jobs.
alienmushroomJan 14, 2011
OK. Will leave it to a moron who with tarnish the company and render the couple of million shares of stock worthless.
unclefireJan 14, 2011
As noted above, if my net worth was sufficient for me to live comfortably, I'd probably do it.
norman619Jan 14, 2011
Just like they are doing.
Closed AccountJan 14, 2011
According to the Teabagger nuts, nobody would work for such low pay, certainly not a CEO - it is impossible, still according to the Teacrackers!
agmlauncherJan 14, 2011
No, they wouldn't. Please go ahead and try and live off of $1 for the year, see how well that works out for you.
Steve Jobs only does it because he's already worth a few billion dollars and doesn't need any more money. It's easy to work for free when you're already a billionaire...
elmuerte17Jan 14, 2011
It has nothing to do with not needing more money. He's got a couple billion worth of shares that are only increasing in value under his leadership. If someone else was running Apple the value would probably decrease, just like it did in the 90s before they brought Jobs back.
TomHanks4Jan 14, 2011
Your recollection of Apple's history is warped.
Apple's controlling board fired Steve Jobs because he had nearly run the company into the ground. His failed Apple III and Lisa projects had cost the company massive amounts of money and time, and resulted in computers that didn't work well (and that nobody wanted). His expensive marketing efforts for the new Macintosh flopped, resulting in very slow early sales.
Had they retained Jobs, Apple would likely have ceased to exist. Under Sculley's leadership the company managed to start selling some Macs and avoid destruction. They did not exactly prosper, but the company managed to stay in business, which was actually quite a feat.
This time around, Jobs has done much, much better at the wheel, but his prior termination was well deserved.
JebrodskyJan 14, 2011
I love this!
fadetooneJan 14, 2011
Apple is the not the "biggest tech company in the world." It's not even in the top 10.
dmbftpJan 14, 2011
Using market cap as the yard stick:
Apple: $320 billion
Microsoft: $240 billion
Google: $199 billion
HP: $101 billion
norman619Jan 14, 2011
Well actually it depends on what how they are measuring size.
nightsweatJan 14, 2011
Sorry, wrong. By Market Capitalization, Apple was the #3 company (not tech company - COMPANY) in the world in market capitalization. Exxon and China's PetroChina were the only two larger.
And yes, that's insane. Doesn't make it any less of a fact.
fadetooneJan 14, 2011
Market cap is a reflection of value, not size.
proteus8898Jan 14, 2011
'size' and 'big' have many, many meanings in business.
fadetooneJan 14, 2011
Especially to people who like to fudge numbers.
lemonfireJan 14, 2011
How is a number "fudged" when there's no standard definition of what company size means?
mrsarcasm22Jan 16, 2011
Being BIG and SIZE DOES matter when your fudging!
ricksiteJan 14, 2011
"biggest" can mean value or size.
macparrotJan 14, 2011
OK, what was Apple's value in 1998? What is their value today? By whatever standard you want to use, Apple is one of the biggest tech companies out there.
llanowarJan 14, 2011
I'm willing to bet the $1 makes him more money than a normal pay would. It gives great publicity. Makes people feel that Apple is a moral company and it's ok to spend a few extra bucks there.
norman619Jan 14, 2011
"It fools people into feeling that Apple is a moral company and it's OK to spend a few bucks there."
Fixed that for you.
weirddemonJan 14, 2011
Douche
norman619Jan 14, 2011
I'm a douche for stating the truth... does your mommy know you are playing with her computer?
johnomazzJan 14, 2011
Since Apple pays for everything for Jobs, if anything that $1 is nothing more than tax evasion.
moducJan 14, 2011
I will pay $5 to run the biggest tech company in the world, no, make it $100. And you read it right, I will not receive anything, other than work related expense, and pay out of my pocket $100 to run a biggest tech company in the world.
weirddemonJan 14, 2011
Ugh... you're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
moducJan 14, 2011
No, you are. Let me explain, since you're an idiot. I believe I can run a large organisation well. However, getting the job is not easy. If I got the job, and run it, I am pretty sure I will get a good resume for my next job, or when my contract is renewed. I don't say I will do that forever. My next job probably would lands me a lot more than what I am making now.
Anyway, I wonder if you even understand that logic. Well, for other people then.
fobulousguyJan 15, 2011
Ur dumb
moducJan 14, 2011
No, you are. Let me explain, since you're an idiot. I believe I can run a large organisation well. However, getting the job is not easy. If I got the job, and run it, I am pretty sure I will get a good resume for my next job, or when my contract is renewed. I don't say I will do that forever. My next job probably would lands me a lot more than what I am making now.
Anyway, I wonder if you even understand that logic. Well, for other people then.
fobulousguyJan 15, 2011
Ur still dumb
moducJan 15, 2011
you're stupid.
fobulousguyJan 15, 2011
Not anymore, I've decided to work for free! I'm smart just like you!
sutleyJan 14, 2011
This $1 a year salary is a form of legal tax evasion (called tax avoidance). Many, many, many CEO's do this, it's not out of the charity of his heart that Steve Jobs has decided to "reduce his payout." By redirecting his salary back into Apple, he's effectively increased the value of his stock options anyway, and off of the dividends he'll collect this year he'll still make millions.
antialiasJan 14, 2011
Apple doesn't pay dividends on their stock(at least the public stock, maybe there is something about different forms of the stock I'm unaware of).
sutleyJan 14, 2011
There are absolutely different perks depending on the numbers of shares you hold and your position within the company or on the board of directors. With as big a stake as Steve Jobs has in Apple, he does receive dividends and other gratuities. There are private bonuses to the largest stakeholders in most, if not all, publicly traded companies.
wassamattaJan 14, 2011
you mean like this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece It's Warren Buffet related, not spam.
addiktionJan 15, 2011
Best part is the tax rate is only 15% for those dividends. Far cheaper than going up the actual ladder chain of salaries that get taxed. Of course I don't think Apple pays outdividends but I get your point.
jhw539Jan 14, 2011
The guy gets his money, a real bundle from all his stock. And - there are VERY few CEOs I would say this about - he's worth every cent.
A chimp in a diaper could probably make Exxon-Mobile a money machine, but it takes a Steve Jobs to make Apple print money. As a share holder, I'd approve a 8 digit pay package for him in a heartbeat (and I kinda assume that's what he's pulling down at the end of the day). When you get a cross of PT Barnum and Thomas Edison* willing to run your company, you pay that mofo whatever he wants.
*Read up a bit, they actually are somewhat similar, mercilessly-drive-your-grunts-to-produce-good-product, types.
norman619Jan 14, 2011
I think it's funny that they make a big deal over these guys doing this. They are already rich. They don't run these huge companies for the money. They actually love running large companies.
elmuerte17Jan 14, 2011
No, they run large companies for the money. Think what Steve Jobs' shares would be worth without Steve Jobs running the show... if you think he'd still be filthy rich, look up Apple's share price before they released the original iMac.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sattireattireJan 14, 2011
CEOs arent supposed to receive stock benefits or options for the companies they work for. The Board of Directors (represents share holders) choose the management team. CEOs with shares generally provide conflict of interest.
That's like being the judge and the jury...not good for other share holders.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oxyrubberJan 15, 2011
"Aren't supposed to" doesn't really factor into capitalism. There is what benefits the (major) stockholders the most and nothing else.
The Judge and Jury is ALWAYS the Board. The CEO sits at the pleasure of the Board and the Board is only doing their job if they frequently conduct 3rd party audits to ensure the C*Os are forthright. If you hear about things like Enron, there was collusion between the Board and the management team.
There is an inherent "conflict of interest" in corporations that is unavoidable. If the company does well, the company can opt to reward those who influenced the upward trend.
butchthevizslaJan 14, 2011
and he's still a douche
wilhoitmJan 14, 2011
Ballmer is way overpaid!
Merry106Jan 14, 2011
sounds interesting...
macparrotJan 14, 2011
I'm guessing between his Apple holdings and 40% of Disney he won't miss many vegetarian meals
Closed AccountJan 14, 2011
Once again the Steve Jobs c**ksuck continues...they always have to mention him doing this even though it is VERY common for big time CEOs to do this. And most don't get NEARLY the same amount of extra compensation (above and beyond the usual stock options) that Jobs gets.
Would I run it for $1? Nope. Would I run it for $1 and a free plane (no the use of a plane...they gave him the plane itself) Yup.
feverhostJan 14, 2011
I bet Jobs loves to act like an innovator in the tech field, although I question that myself ;)
Name me a few Jobs innovations, and i'll dispute them immediately ;)
macparrotJan 14, 2011
He isn't an engineer and he isn't a programmer. What he DOES do very well is steer the real talent in the right direction. He has the final say on nearly every product Apple releases and if he doesn't think it's good enough he sends it back. He rightly gets his name on the products because most of the time he's shown to be right.
Here's all you have to do make a lot of money. Hire talented people, keep them focused on what (in your mind) is a great product. Don't let them talk you into releasing a lot of crap just because they don't want to make any changes. Have firm ideas on what would make it better (even if you couldn't implement those ideas yourself). When you talk to outsiders about your product be enthusiastic and know what it is you're going to say before you say it (which is one thing Balmer really doesn't do well).Be right only 25% of the time and you'll have a successful company. Jobs is hitting a lot higher than 25% and has for over 10 years (The original AppleTV, iPod HiFi, and iPod socks not withstanding).
wilhoitmJan 15, 2011
@feverhost, denial is not just a river in Egypt! A marriage between hardware, software, and elegant design is all Steve Jobs! Too bad Google and Microsoft can't integrate those 3 at all, they don't even know how to make their own chips!
cheatconfessionJan 14, 2011
When I'm worth $2 billion I'll work for free too
timberfishJan 14, 2011
If it meant owning millions worth of stock in said company, absolutely!
max1001Jan 14, 2011
He's doing it for his damn EGO! Maybe he will quit when his net worth is more than Bill. lol.
macparrotJan 14, 2011
When you're at the kind of money he has (or Bill Gates or any of the top 100 billionaires in the world) it no longer REALLY matters how much you have vs the next guy up or down on the ladder. It's more about leaving a legacy (this is especially true as you get older) or how people will see you and your accomplishments after you're gone. Gates has given away a good portion of his money because he knows he couldn't spend it all before he dies even if he was inclined to do so. And good on him. What Jobs does with his money I have no idea, but believe me I doubt he really cares if there are a few people wealthier than he is. And yes I DO agree he has a big ego but it isn't about money.
max1001Jan 15, 2011
It was a joke dude. Steve doesn't donate his money if u r wondering. Apple as a company has no philanthropic work either because Steve cancel them all. I don't think he cares about the poor.
jaythewiseJan 14, 2011
Apple is not even in the top 100 when it comes to revenue...
macparrotJan 14, 2011
With over 50 billion in the bank and positive cash flows for nearly every quarter for over 10 years, how exactly does this matter? Apple is one of the biggest tech companies in the world no matter how you measure it.
wilhoitmJan 15, 2011
You're wrong! Apple passed Microsoft in 3rd Quarter 2010 revenue! Apple had revenue of 20.34 Billion while Microsoft only had revenue of 16.2 Billion! Stop living in the past!
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/28/apple-tops-microsoft-in-third-quarter-revenue/
Closed AccountJan 14, 2011
Keep your dollar. I'll take the golden parachute retirement plan after I drive it into the ground.
wilhoitmJan 15, 2011
Is that you Steve Ballmer? You are doing a great job of driving Microsoft into the ground!
oxyrubberJan 14, 2011
This really isn't "news". He's done this for most of the decade.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-235835.html
US tax rates:
Marginal income tax rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates
Capital Gains tax rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Assuming he would make enough to put him well into the top income tax bracket, the marginal tax rate is 35%. If instead of salary income, he is paid in all-stock (save for $1), his maximum current capital gains is also 35%.
If, however, his stocks/other equity is structured as a long-term investment, he can effectively pay long-term capital gains tax when he does cash out his equity... meaning his effective tax rate could be closer to a one-time fee of 15% rather than 35% as he receives his salary.
williamfrJan 15, 2011
I'd run it for free if I had billions in stock in said company.
dwhsJan 15, 2011
That's great but he has more money then he could spend in a life time.
tstarkeJan 15, 2011
That's right Jobs. Show us how to be on top. More CEOs show act like that.
futurepocketJan 16, 2011
I don't understand, he took a dollar for all of 2010? How's he paying his bills?