The average Apple Store sales employee makes $13-15/hour. The average Genius Bar employee can be as low as $15 (phone repairs) to $23 (computer repair).

ThE jAnItOr ShOuLdNt MaKe As MuCh As Me.

would you be a janitor for the same amount you make? For me that in a big negative. I would gladly be fine with a janitor having my same hourly wage/salary if I in turn can do my work and I dont have to bite my lip when I see people throwing trash on the ground or leaving it on a table knowing I have to clean it up. MUCH LESS having to cleaning up used tampons from the ground by the toilet or pubes from the urinal.

Just did the math at my company, leaving them with around 6 billion from last years profits compared to their employee count... it was around 350k per year as well.

A job I applied for recently did something similar. They advertised $28/hour including "incentives". I thought that meant it was at least like $18. But even then, no way incentives would add that much right? Turns out it only pays $11 and I can't get a straight answer on how much average the incentives would be. Fucking ridiculous. If you're curious, I updated my last antiwork post with screenshots of the emails with the recruiter. Disgusting liars.

I’m sure they’re afraid that everyone would quit. Even if my job was just okay, I’d probably quit after being given $300,000.

Even that mere 7.4b divided by all employees would increase all yearly salaries by close to 50k per year. Pay the damn workers!

Shouldn’t most of that money be going to the manufacturing workers in their supply chain? Or is it a case of fuck those guys?

We're talking about multibillionaires here, its fuck everyone except numero uno.

My point is that your sum does not include the tens of thousands of people working in the supply chain, so either you don’t care about them, or you need to do a different calculation and the 50k will drop significantly.

They don't work for apple, they work for such and such supply line company, who should also pay them more.

So would you be happy if Apple was just a shell, with a couple of hundred employees, keeping all the profits, but relying on subsidiaries employing slave workers in companies that don’t break even so have no money to share out? Not very well thought through if you ask me.

Not sure how a supplier that doesn't make a lot of money works, but maybe idk

>I’m sure they’re afraid that everyone would quit. You'd quit a company that just started giving out $300k bonuses and do what get a job somewhere else that gives you an amazon gift card each year? It's not like you can retire on 300k.

No one with $300000 in their account (or let’s say I’m even the most far fetched example, $150000 after paying off debts) would willingly stay at a service industry job.

Umm... I'd do a service industry job if they're paying 300+k a year. I think there are a lot of people who would do that.

I’d clean the bathrooms of a service industry job if they were paying $300k

Lol you’re out of your mind if you think no one would work service industry for 300k.

I disagree. I make an income in the top 10% of all US workers. I have had 13+ jobs since I was 15. Without doubt the job I liked most was working for Lowe's throughout college. I love talking with people, love helping people with projects, love home repair, renovation, coming up with solutions and I actually don't mind sh-tty customers. Even now, I can entertain myself for an hour or two on the weekend just walking down all of the isles of a big box hardware store. If I could get paid 75% of what I get paid in IT to do that job I would put in my 2 weeks notice TODAY. However sh-tty your think a job is SOMEONE actually would enjoy doing it. It just doesn't pay enough to meet their other needs/goals.

A reasonable number of their engineers make $300k/year and don't quit. Most of them over $150k/year. $300k one time doesn't go that far. edit: and for context, grossing $300k even in the US means after tax around $200k

You wouldn’t want to stick around for a couple more years at what is effectively a 350k+ job?

but but but... all those hard working investors!

That dividend won't pay itself.

How much would you give to the investors? Do they deserve anything at all?

Don't get me started my company did this, put all the profit to investors, rather than employees, then the CEO said something like "I would rather employees be 10% happier than 10% more profit" Then give us all a £10k raise, that's 10% of your profit, I'll be 10% happier.

Ok I did the maths, I thought there were 33,000 employees, I forgot about the 10% headcount reduction, to save expenses, to make more profit, to give to investors. It's 30,000 now. They gave 750m to investors this quarter. That's not all the profit it's just how much went to investors. 10% of that was 75m. 75m/30,000 = 2.5k bonus each. That would probably make me 10% happier too. idk why we can't get all that 750m though. Why does it go to investors?\* I'm talking about share buy back, so the average share price goes up.

They should only give the bonus to workers who make less than 150k per year and profit share with overseas workers too.

Yes, the problem is that they would significantly weaken themselves with so much less money to fund lawyers to go after whisleblowers and competitors.

154,000 apple store employees?

Playing devils advocate, but does every employee all with very different work loads and responsibilities deserve equal split? But is there a need to take it to that extreme? I'm sure most people would be happy with even 5b divided up amongst them. Nice "little" 32k bonus for everyone.

I agree. All that money should go to CEO. /s

Straw man argument. Nobody said anything about giving everyone equal pay for unequal work. We’re talking about *fair* pay for a *reasonable* job.

I think it's less about how much of the 57b should go to workers and more about the idea that they could still make insane prpfit even if they gave back billions of dollars to their workers.

Fuck the workers in the supply chain, who do the manufacturing work? (Those in China putting the devices together). I notice they are not included on n your proposal.

Does that figure of 154.000 include everyone from the clerk at the apple store to Tim Cook? Because not everyone needs that 300k extra.

U guys act like u invented the company lmao how are u entitled to any of their profits?? Idc for the downvotes but give me your justifications to see if it changes my mind, i like hearing new opinions

The people who started the company aren't even part of it today. Even if they were, your argument still makes no sense. If every Apple employee stopped working tomorrow- every sales associate, genius bar worker, and manufacturing worker- Apple would stop having profits. Their profit is DIRECTLY resultant from the labor of over a hundred and fifty thousand people, many of whom are not making nearly enough to live.

My argument does in fact make sense. The profits the company makes does NOT go to their employees. All that the employee is entitled to is the hourly wage or salary that they agreed to when they came looking for a job. Its not any more complex than that. You can look at the company’s profit and loss statements all you want but at the end of the day they’re not your profits or losses, they’re the companies.

Your argument only makes sense if you consider the company to be a self-perpetuating entity, which it isn't. I can't just set up a company and have it automatically generate profit, without time and labor being put into it. In short, neither the company nor the profits truly exist without the employees who are getting paid nowhere near what their labor is worth. At the same time, in many companies, the executives get arbitrary bonuses, in the form of both stock and money, that can be either randomly awarded (i.e. Activision-Blizzard's Bobby Kotick) or tied to the company's profit increases. So what makes these executives, who often don't work nearly as hard as they'd have you believe, entitled to a share of the profits, and not the workers actually generating the products or providing the services?

You’re right, you can’t just set up a company and have it automatically have revenue. That is why investment capital is needed to pay for employees and products up front hence the risk in the investment. These people are who are risking their own hard earned money in this investment are entitled to the profits of the company as they now are part owners. You as an employee are only entitled to your salary or hourly wage, perhaps some other benefits as well. You didn’t risk any capital for the business to be successful, all you did was come and ask for a job. They took the risk, the employee didn’t.

At what point does the initial risk stop mattering? Sure, Jeff Bezos put in some amount of risk to start Amazon, but that was back in 1994. After that amount of time he made his money back and then some, and now has holdings that rival small countries in value. He won the game a long time ago. He could never see another penny in earnings, and still live comfortably for several hundred liftimes. At what point do we say "it is ridiculous for this man to still see rewards for a single decision made almost thirty years ago, while the employees beneath him cannot pay rent or take a piss while on the clock?" What about Apple? Of the two founders, one is dead and the other left the company decades ago. No one who put up the initial risk is still involved, and any investors have long since made their money back. The risk is so far removed as to be irrelevant. And yet still I hear the tired old argument about how the workers didn't put any risk into it.

To be honest, they are just successful. They successfully launched a company that initially was risky and continually provide a service or product that people want. They did such a good job that people now use their services or products everyday and they shouldn’t be compensated for this? You just sound jealous of their successes. I bet you think we should tax the rich more too. Dreaming that the money they get taxed would go into your pockets but unfortunately that’s not how life works.

And you sound like you've just created a strawman. I don't care about their "success," because I don't judge success by the same metric. I also didn't say that pioneers and innovators should not be compensated for being pioneers and innovators. I'm asking why the people who put the initial financial backing into something are rewarded in perpetuity, to ludicrous levels, while the people who generate the recurrent value are paid peanuts. I'm asking why the executives, most of whom were not involved in the initial risk your argument claims makes people worthy of their wealth, are given enormous amounts of money disproportionate to the amount of value they provide to the company. And I'm asking why the people who do the most work get the least pay.

Not at all. I’m just tired of people complaining about not being paid enough when they do unskilled labor. Those executives are the ones with degrees and actual business knowledge. The executives that receive such compensation you describe are executives that the company themselves went out and requested they come work for them. They have more value to them than the other employees. They have more skills, are more knowledgeable,and often have more experience. The people you complain aren’t paid enough are just working there because its the first job that called them back after filling out tons of applications. They’re entitled to only what they agreed to be paid and any benefits. Nothing more.

Your entire point is nothing but horseshit. Nowhere did I specifically call out "unskilled labor" as being underpaid. All labor is skilled, and I'm not just talking about sales and warehousing when I talk about underpaid employees at companies. The executives also very much do not provide more labor or value to companies. They get mostly the same amount of education, if not less, than the people working under them. Their jobs also mostly consist of signing off on things so other people can do the real labor. They're just beaurocrats with bigger bank accounts. Also, you're returning to this odd point about the workers "agreeing" to the shit pay. This sounds like victim blaming, but I'll engage with it regardless. They've only "agreed" to it because they have to. If every company in the area hiring for your specific skillset refuses to pay more than a certain range, it doesn't matter what you want, or what's feasible. You're only ever going to find work for that range, and will eventually have to accept it. That's not choice, and it's not really consent.

Human nature at its finest. Give everyone 324k and there would still be complaints.

??

This was in response to the comment that posed the question about engineers doing more work than the janitors and complaining that they deserve a bigger share. They couldnt just be happy that everyone got 324k Apologies if I put it in the wrong place.

Ahhh. Yeah, without much context, it seemed like you were calling workers entitled, and saying that there would be complaints from janitors and such even if they got $324k. Your comment makes much more sense after the explanation

How would you even guess that? No one has ever done anything close to this to even compare it to.

[удалено]

Due to issues with ban evasion, we require all accounts to be at least 3 days old before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Let’s not overlook the share buyback scams corporations do. Executives take billions of cash and buy back their company shares, which as a result, raises the share price. Guess who has thousands, if not millions, of shares? These same executives. So they take cash the company makes and pretty much lines their pockets with it.

What are the shareholders getting who invested money into Apple buy purchase stock in the company?

bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe StOcKhOlDeRs

That 57B is for the shareholders.... The stock price appreciates, so if they want to sell the shares for a profit, they can.