This appears to count all the employees of all the suppliers Apple buys anything from and the entire "app economy" including people who write apps for non-Apple platforms.
This is like Google counting everyone who indirectly works on developing of a website that displays/sells via Google Ads, which is the majority of the digital economy, am I right?
That might be true, but also the premise of the PR piece isn't about workers, it's about the extended "job footprint" -- as in the industries of app developers, hardware and parts manufacturers, etc. that Apple "supports" rather than directly employs. It's not super obvious how a tax cut to Apple would lead to them, like, voluntarily overpaying part suppliers. The motivating examples in the article include a company that makes battery testing equipment and a company that makes lasers.
Direct employees account for only 3% of what they're talking about.
I don't think this takes away from the idea that Apple like most companies is it in to make boatloads of cash and to hell with everyone else, but your comment seems in response to the headline rather than the article.
Probably because a lot of people are looking around and realizing that "literally every" company should be different.
People are getting tired of making "market wages" when the market simply isn't working for them. It's been a long time since wages have even increased, let alone kept pace with cost of living in many areas.
> It's paying its workers market wages and returning the rest to investors.
The parent comment also isn't telling the entire story.
The Fed survey from 2016 indicated that about 52% of American families own stocks, directly or as part of a fund (other surveys support that general figure). A very large number of American families own shares in Apple and own part of its $911 billion market cap. The next counter would be to say that it only really benefits the top 25% of families or similar (those with meaningful equity assets), which would be a goalpost shift.
I think you've overlooked the fact that enriching investors IS enriching its workers, because they are generally given real stock grants upon employment, and gradually as time goes by.
This applies for countless engineers from the company past and present, whom I (as one of them) personally know.
> I think you've overlooked the fact that enriching investors IS enriching its workers, because they are generally given real stock grants upon employment, and gradually as time goes by.
Only in the same sense that tax cuts benefits everyone. While technically true, the benefits disproportionately go towards those who are already better off.
Employees means employees. "Footprint" is widely used to mean total effect at all levels removed, not just the immediate one -- e.g. carbon footprint is the carbon used by all suppliers and their suppliers and so on, not just in final assembly.
And it's meaningful too -- if Apple suddenly shut up shop, this is the total number of US workers who could be affected (although not necessarily laid off).
Readit News
This means you must join the Apple ecosystem to compete, even if you strongly disagree with their practices.
Deleted Comment
Source: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/1/18525672/apple-stock-ear...
Direct employees account for only 3% of what they're talking about.
I don't think this takes away from the idea that Apple like most companies is it in to make boatloads of cash and to hell with everyone else, but your comment seems in response to the headline rather than the article.
That's how literally every for-profit company works, and Apple's a for-profit company.
Why do you think Apple should be any different?
People are getting tired of making "market wages" when the market simply isn't working for them. It's been a long time since wages have even increased, let alone kept pace with cost of living in many areas.
The parent comment also isn't telling the entire story.
The Fed survey from 2016 indicated that about 52% of American families own stocks, directly or as part of a fund (other surveys support that general figure). A very large number of American families own shares in Apple and own part of its $911 billion market cap. The next counter would be to say that it only really benefits the top 25% of families or similar (those with meaningful equity assets), which would be a goalpost shift.
This applies for countless engineers from the company past and present, whom I (as one of them) personally know.
Only in the same sense that tax cuts benefits everyone. While technically true, the benefits disproportionately go towards those who are already better off.
Every company is trying to enrich investors. That's how capitalism works
Dead Comment
Employees means employees. "Footprint" is widely used to mean total effect at all levels removed, not just the immediate one -- e.g. carbon footprint is the carbon used by all suppliers and their suppliers and so on, not just in final assembly.
And it's meaningful too -- if Apple suddenly shut up shop, this is the total number of US workers who could be affected (although not necessarily laid off).
What else would you call it?