> Apple just makes too damn much money to worry overmuch about salaries.
Apple is a publicly traded company whose shareholders would not tolerate overpaying for labor.
Further: Apple was caught colluding with other major tech industry employers with regards to hiring/salary.
So please do go on about how Apple doesn't care about labor costs.
And also, look at the wages and benefits for Apple Store employees which are shit for the level of technical expertise they're expected to have and the products they're selling (there's usually at least some correlation between compensation and the cost of goods being sold - obviously not anything approaching linearity.)
Then look at how Apple store staff are starting to unionize, much to the terror of their Head of Retail, who likely makes half a million dollars a year in cash compensation alone - $250/hour, which is more than ten times the base wage for a retail employee (supposedly now $22/hour.)
Your naivete is pretty stunning. There isn't a single corporate employer on the planet who doesn't do everything they can to minimize labor costs.
> There isn't a single corporate employer on the planet who doesn't do everything they can to minimize labor costs.
If a company did "everything" they could to minimize labor costs they'd just fire everyone. But they don't, because this is a bad way to run a growth company. Focus on improving what you can get from them instead of managing them out.
Similarly, people say companies care about profit over everything, but they obviously don't because, say, scented candle companies sell scented candles and not fentanyl.
Ah yes, the classic "I don't like your point so I'm going to gently concern troll you into trying to walk it back with implied threats to your livelihood."
He made an argument for why he found what you do write naive. I think it'd be better to engage with that versus saying that you'd hamstring his career because you don't like that he finds your opinion naive. People can be actually abrasive and rude and I don't think that, that one line reaches that level.
I do find your implication shocking though. Do all Apple managers feel like they should get in the way of someones career progression over a disagreement like the one stated?
I didn't "threaten" anyone, and it's kind of an ... interesting ... leap of "logic" to have arrived at that inference.
All I said, and, if you go back and read it, you'll see this, was that this is a professional forum. It isn't LinkedIn (Thank Yog-Sothoth), but it is probably more relevant than LI, for the careers of many folks here.
I'm retired. I'm not looking for work.
The same cannot be said for most others, participating here.
I find it rather depressing, to see bright, talented folks, letting future managers know that they don't play well with others. As a former (non-Apple) manager, I can tell you that team cohesion is even more important than rockstar coders.
When we share on a forum like this, we are talking to our future peers and managers. We are telling them what it would be like, to have us working for|with them.
No one is doing me any damage, by attacking me. They may be making themselves feel a bit better about themselves, but I guarantee that their propensity for combativeness does not go unnoticed. When our first interaction-ever, with another person, is a direct insult, then that tells people something about the way we interact with our peers.
If we believe that managers would be happy to recruit warriors, then I guess it's OK. I just haven't met any managers (and I've known many) that prefer having staff that like to "stir the pot." That’s not always a good thing, as a truly creative, high-quality workplace will have disagreements; just not poo-flinging matches.
Sure, my original statement was probably provocative. I didn't mean it to be so, but it was interpreted that way. I didn't mean that Apple, as an organization, wasn't interested in saving money, just that the Ockham's Razor thingy says that it's likely to be individual (probably former) Apple managers that were chiefly responsible for the suit. Kind of basic human nature.
One of the ways that I try to be a good citizen on HN, is to not get into fights, here, so that's all I'll say. I apologize (sincerely) for the provocative nature of my original comment. I didn't mean it to be that way, but understand how it was interpreted. That's on me. I should have worded it different.
Now, why don't we all just take a few breaths, and remember that we're (probably) all grown-ups?
> Do all Apple managers feel like they should get in the way of someones career progression over a disagreement like the one stated?
> I never used the word threaten
> saying that you'd hamstring his career because you don't like that he finds your opinion naive.
Look, you have never met me, and I have never met you. We are unlikely to ever work together, which is, maybe a shame. I'm sure that you are talented. Unfortunately, that is not obvious, from this discussion.
If you want to find out about me, before lobbing insults my way, that's damn easy. I don't hide anything. Just look at my HN profile.
The entire discussion was about Apple's practices. You're reading it wrong, maybe intentionally.
You're not sure of that, you're only saying you're sure of that so that you can follow up with a passive aggressive remark to try and dunk on me for your own ego.
I don't think I'll spend my day reading your marketing copy. Instead I'll go find a proper discussion elsewhere.
Apple is a publicly traded company whose shareholders would not tolerate overpaying for labor.
Further: Apple was caught colluding with other major tech industry employers with regards to hiring/salary.
So please do go on about how Apple doesn't care about labor costs.
And also, look at the wages and benefits for Apple Store employees which are shit for the level of technical expertise they're expected to have and the products they're selling (there's usually at least some correlation between compensation and the cost of goods being sold - obviously not anything approaching linearity.)
Then look at how Apple store staff are starting to unionize, much to the terror of their Head of Retail, who likely makes half a million dollars a year in cash compensation alone - $250/hour, which is more than ten times the base wage for a retail employee (supposedly now $22/hour.)
Your naivete is pretty stunning. There isn't a single corporate employer on the planet who doesn't do everything they can to minimize labor costs.