
Apple plans new U.S. campus, to pay $38B in foreign cash taxes - chollida1
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ
======
benjaminl
This discussion is missing context. The whole reason that Apple has to pay
taxes on foreign income is because unlike almost every other developed nation
the US has a worldwide tax system. Almost every other nation has a territorial
tax system. The rest of the world with their territorial system taxes income
earned within that country, the US rather taxes income worldwide, regardless
of where it is earned.

For example, if a British company earns income in Germany, its pays German
taxes on its German income. But if a US company earns income in Germany it
pays both German taxes and US taxes.

What is little known about this tax bill is that it normalizes our tax system
with the rest of the world by moving to a territorial tax system. This is not
about Apple avoiding tax on profit earned in the US, they will continue to pay
US taxes, they won't pay taxes on income earned outside of the US going
forward. [0] That means that there won't be any more hordes of overseas
profits. And means the end of those tax inversions or corporate inversions you
have been hearing about. [1]

So now that foreign profits aren't going to be taxed, something needed to be
done with all the profits generated under the old system. The 23% repatriation
tax is a compromise between the new rate of effectively 0% and the old rate of
39%. This BTW happens to be very close to the OECD, the developed world's,
average tax rate of 24%.

Edit: As was astutely pointed out below the US only pays additional taxes to
the US if their US tax bill was higher than their German one. And they paid
the difference between to two to the US.

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11430290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11430290)

[1] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11429859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11429859)

~~~
anilshanbhag
=> But if a US company earns income in Germany it pays both German taxes and
US taxes.

This is not portrayed accurately. If you pay German taxes, you claim exception
for that amount. So if you pay more taxes than the rate in US, you owe no tax
for that income in US. If the rate is less in the country than in US, you pay
the difference.

~~~
revelation
But of course Apple isn't paying no German taxes. They didn't pay taxes on any
of this overseas money, and they had the gall to ask for an "repatriation
holiday" so they could pay overall zero taxes on that huge heap of money.

Now they are paying the US gov. Unless they can keep coming up with more Irish
tax avoidance schemes, going forward they will probably also have to pay in
Europe.

~~~
valuearb
Yes, they paid taxes in Germany, France, etc. it’s reported in their financial
statements. They’ve already paid 8 or 9% foreign income taxes on their foreign
earnings.

~~~
gaius
Really?

Because those are EU countries and Apple has a tax deal with Ireland in the
EU.

~~~
skgoa
Their corporate headquarter is in Ireland. They pay payroll taxes, VAT etc. in
each EU member state just like every business has to. They do not, however,
have to pay taxes on their corporate earnings in EU countries other than
Ireland. That is a central part of "Freedom of Commerce" in the EU. (One of
the EU's 4 foundational freedoms.) What Apple has been rightfully accused of
is not paying their taxes on corporate earnings _in Ireland_.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/apple-accelerates-
us-...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/apple-accelerates-us-
investment-and-job-creation/). Some of the comments below make a bit more
sense if you know they were replying to that one.

This is a bit of an exception to the HN guidelines' call for original sources.
We generally prefer a high quality third party report on news like this to the
company's own press release. The latter tend to read like press releases.

~~~
Jerry2
dang, why a double standard? If this was a story about Google, HN would have
changed links to the official Google PR.

~~~
dang
Are there many, or even any, examples of that? If so I'd like to see one.

Really, all we care about is having the best article on a topic, where by
'best' I mean something like 'most substantive, while remaining accessible to
a general audience'. By that standard it seemed obvious that the Reuters url
was better. Anti-Apple bias doesn't enter into it, and frankly the idea feels
a little absurd to me.

~~~
Jerry2
dang, every time there's a story about Google, admins here link to official
Google blogs. Every time it hits the front page. And if thee's a negative
story about Google, it's quickly buried/flagged/disappeared.

~~~
dang
I'm sorry, but that's an absurd thing to claim. All I can really take from
what you've said there is that you dislike Google.

For any $bigco there are lots of HN users who strongly feel for or against it,
and they all have competing beliefs about which $bigco is secretly favored or
secretly suppressed here.

People come up with highly charged claims about HN all the time and they're
never true. They're in the eye of the beholder, reflecting how you feel, not
how HN actually is, and driven by cognitive bias. I don't mean to criticize
you personally—tons of HN readers do it, and I've written about the phenomenon
a lot.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

------
lbrdn
Of course lowering taxes would encourage companies to repatriate large
overseas cash hoards, but if that's the only goal, why have a tax at all?

As a country the US has obligations to its current citizens and its future
citizens and those obligations cost money. If we overly celebrate these
windfalls every time the tax rate is lowered, we might not realize that what
we owe the citizen is being forgot and allowed to erode because the means to
pay for it just aren't available.

~~~
downandout
We currently get $0 in tax revenue from the cash Apple is hoarding overseas.
This tax “holiday” (a term I dislike because it incorrectly implies that no
tax is being paid on the repatriation, when it is simply a reduced rate) is
resulting in $38 billion that we would not have otherwise received.

$38,000,000,000 > $0

~~~
onezerozeroone
If you or I decided we just didn't like the tax rate that applied to us and
didn't pay our taxes for decades at a time on income we made overseas, what do
you think would happen?

Corporations are treated as people only when it's convenient.

You and I don't have high-powered lawyers, lobbyists, loopholes, offshore
accounts, subsidiaries, etc to hide behind.

This is an insult to every U.S. citizen...Apple wouldn't exist if it weren't
for the U.S. and its tax-payers providing the environment that allowed Steve
Jobs to create his company and become successful.

The rate they're being charged on this money is even lower than the new lower
rate that they'll be charged on future income. Must be nice. Yay for corporate
oligarchy.

~~~
chrischen
If they bring the money back then inevitably they'd spend it back into the US
economy either through direct job creation or buying things. If they do create
jobs, the US gets most of its money from income tax, which would increase from
the more jobs/higher wages. It feels like double dipping if we expect them to
pay taxes on repatriating the money and then also taxing the wages that the
repatriated money allows them to pay.

~~~
pg314
> If they bring the money back then inevitably they'd spend it back into the
> US economy either through direct job creation or buying things.

That is a misconception. It's not like they are storing dollar bills in
warehouses on foreign soil. The bulk of the 'overseas' money is already
invested, for a large part in the US. See page 49 in Apple's yearly report
[1], to see how that money is currently invested: at the end of 2016 almost
$42 billion dollars were invested in US treasuries, $131 billion in corporate
securities. It doesn't say how much of those corporate securities are US
companies, but it's probably the bulk. It's an accounting/tax fiction that it
is currently 'overseas'.

[1]
[http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1628280-16-...](http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1628280-16-20309)

------
cromwellian
How realistic is it that a $5 billion fund can move a non-trivial amount of
iPhone manufacturing to the US? Most of the BOM supply chain is in Asia, and
assembly at FoxConn I heard amounts to 3% of the cost. It seems like Apple
would have to build mostly automated assembly in the US or suffer severe
margin reduction, and they'd suffer turnaround issues with the crucial
components being still sourced in China.

However, given the issue with iCloud, you can see that they've now realized
they have to reduce the leverage China has over time, but $5 billion seems way
too small to move an entire logistics manufacturing chain, they need a
moonshot for this. Apple spends way too much on stock buybacks and dividends
and not enough on reinvestment.

Elsewhere in this thread, the pro-Trumpists don't seem to get why people were
opposed to the tax plan:

The fear many people have is that this repatriation will mostly go to stock
buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation just like the last 3 times
there was a repatriation event. The last repatriation event didn't make a dent
in national income growth or GDP, it barely moved the needle. The Democrats
wanted the funds to be spent on infrastructure, or education as an offset.

The GOP decided to spend any increased revenue on lowering the estate tax and
marginal tax rate cuts to avoid the cutoff for reconciliation. Since
Democrats, backed by tech companies, had long supported repatriation. The GOP
had a chance to pass a clean corporate tax bill that left everything else
alone. Everyone knows the reductions for marginal rates at the high end and
the estate tax changes aren't going to affect GDP much, and the net result of
that was to impose double taxation on some states due to SALT deduction
changes, and increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Apparently, double
taxation is bad if it's the estate tax, but not if you're in California, New
York, etc.

A practical, clean, corporate tax reform bill would have been better,
especially if it was synchronized with international partners to try and close
loopholes. For this reason, although the tax plan had some good aspects to it,
overall, it's a very bad bill and I doubt the positives to Apple are going to
offset the negatives to the rest of the economy.

~~~
danjayh
Speak for yourself. I'm not at the high end of the income curve - not in the
1%, not even in the 10%, and I'm getting almost a $4k tax cut next year. I ran
the numbers for my friends who are probably in the bottom half of the income
curve (they make just over 40k between the two of them), and they're getting
about a $1200 reduction. They were pretty shocked, since they'd been told over
and over that it's not really a cut for lower income people. I think the truth
is that the cut is smaller in high tax states, and much larger across the
board in lower tax states.

Also, it's not double taxation. The SALT money is taxed in the states and
spent in the states. Why should those states that choose to have large
internal governments get a discount on their federal contribution percentages?
They receive the same services and benefits...

~~~
curun1r
The part you're not taking into consideration is that all of this will be paid
for with cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people not already receiving
benefits. So if you're still in your wage-earning years, that $4k tax cut
(which others have rightly pointed out only lasts 10 years) will cost you tens
(if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars a year in retirement.

It's extremely short-sighted to look at just the near-term effects of this tax
bill. But such is America where so few have adequate retirement planning.
We're headed for another period similar to the one that led to the
establishment of Social Security. The question is how people will react this
time when they see so many retirees dying in poverty.

~~~
talmand
I'm curious why I've never heard a politician go with the argument that a tax
cut today will ruin your social security benefits tomorrow. Why do they not
make the argument that a tax increase would be more beneficial for your
future?

~~~
danjayh
I don't trust the government to do much of anything, and that includes invest
money. Their stewardship of the social security trust fund has proven that I'm
right (it's essentially full of IOU's). Anybody who believes that giving the
government a few thousand dollars is better for their retirement than putting
the same cash in a 401k hasn't taken a hard look at the government's
performance to date.

TL;DL: I don't think that argument would fly with informed voters.

------
krebby
I love it. Apple gets to avoid paying taxes for years through accounting
slight of hand, and then when they finally pay for part of what they owe they
want a pat on the back for doing so. Corporations, man.

~~~
crusso
_they finally pay for part of what they owe_

You only owe the taxes that the law compels you to pay. There's no obligation
whatsoever to pay a dime more.

Do you personally look to pay the maximum amount of taxes that you could
possibly justify through various readings of the tax code? Because I guarantee
that your tax software or your tax accountant are not "taking advantage" of
opportunities for you to pay more unless you look to.

~~~
krebby
No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary in Ireland that owns my
intellectual property and pays me dividends for my freelance work. To pretend
that they didn't go above and beyond to avoid paying taxes is lunacy.

~~~
sigstoat
> No but I also don't set up a pretend subsidiary...

do you pay your state government the sales tax you owe it for all of your
online purchases?

~~~
CamelCaseName
At least here in Canada, sellers are legally obligated to remit sales taxes,
even if they do not explicitly collect them. The buyer does not need to do
anything.

I made this mistake when I first starting selling online, which stung. Setting
up a tax ID in Canada was very easy. Now that I am selling in the US, I am
just beginning to explore the issue, and it is notably less easy.

So if you "get away" with not paying sales tax online, it is likely that the
sales tax was simply baked into the price.

~~~
sigstoat
this does not reflect the situation in the US, where krebby appears to be
located. (i checked first.)

here's a little page from washington state on it, which matches my
understanding of the situation in most other states: [https://dor.wa.gov/get-
form-or-publication/publications-subj...](https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-
publication/publications-subject/tax-topics/sales-tax-not-listed-invoice)

> Have you ever made a retail purchase and the invoice didn’t include retail
> sales tax? This may occasionally occur, especially if you purchase items
> over the internet or from out-of-state vendors. ... However, the buyer has a
> responsibility to pay use tax to the Department of Revenue even if the
> seller doesn’t collect it.

> Also, an invoice should never have a single figure that “includes retail
> sales tax.” If you receive such an invoice, contact the vendor and ask for a
> new invoice with the retail sales tax separately stated. Washington law
> requires that customer sales slips, contracts, invoices or other sales
> documents separately state the amount of retail sales tax due.

------
tooltalk
I'd like to know who those 9,000 American suppliers and manufacturers are.
Other than Corning who supplies the Gorilla Glasses for almost all smartphone
makers, I can't really name any significant domestic suppliers who would make
up $55B of their "spending."

~~~
ErikVandeWater
I'm guessing they are also counting suppliers for their infrastructure. So
they are counting it when they buy 2x4s for a corporate office from a US wood
supplier.

~~~
matmann2001
Technically, the structural components for an Apple corporate office are
likely to also come from Corning.

------
nodesocket
All the comments seem to be sketpical or negative. I think it's funny if you
go back right before tax reform passed and look at all the comments on
articles here on HN almost all were blasting tax reform. Saying it won't work,
it does not help the economy, does not create jobs, and repatriation only
leads to stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

So far we've seen company after company giving substantial bonuses to all
employees, announcing expansions, repatriating large amounts of capital from
overseas back to America.

Funny the nerative always seems to stay negative even though facts say
otherwise.

~~~
southphillyman
To be fair the bonuses I've heard about have been laughable so far and
accompanied by large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).

~~~
rdtsc
> I've heard about have been laughable so far

Having been poor, then living on $750/month in US for many years, a $1000
bonus is not life changing but also not laughable.

The companies certainly didn't have to give those and could have pocketed all
of it.

> large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).

Are those because of the tax incentives?

~~~
geofft
> _Having been poor, then living on $750 /month in US for many years, a $1000
> bonus is not life changing but also not laughable._

But for rich and poor alike, a layoff is definitely life-changing....

~~~
rdtsc
> But for rich and poor alike, a layoff is definitely life-changing....

Agree there, no doubt, most people would rather have a job than a $1000 bonus.
But what does that mean in this context? Should Walmart keep those 60 Sam's
Club stores open at a loss to avoid laying people off? Should the government
subsidize them? Maybe it should break apart Amazon because a lot of those
location will become e-distribution centers.

What would you have done. How would you have saved those Sam's Clubs workers?
I am curious, not being sarcastic or tricky? I'd suggest breaking Amazon into
regional companies like they did with AT&T. Or maybe breaking AWS away from
Amazon-retail business.

------
samfisher83
If you read through the articles numbers don't seem to add up to 350B:

The Tax repatriations count for 38 bil. The new capital is 30 billion.
Supposed the 20000 people are all making a 200000 dollars/ years thats 20
biliion. Where does the other 250 billion come from?

~~~
adventured
From the link:

"Apple will spend an estimated $55 billion with US suppliers and manufacturers
in 2018"

~~~
samfisher83
How much of that is made here? If you look at their ICs even if its an
American company most of their chips are made in Taiwan. For example apple
might design CPU here, but its made in Hsinchu.

~~~
adventured
Very likely an impossible number to unravel (without Apple providing the
detail). Their cost of revenue for 2017 was $144b out of $229b in sales.

How much room is in there for $50b in the US and all manufacturing overseas?
It would seem theoretically possible to fit all of that in. Here's their
supplier list:

[https://images.apple.com/supplier-
responsibility/pdf/Apple-S...](https://images.apple.com/supplier-
responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf)

3M for example has six US location references. Broadcom has two US locations.
Corning has one. Flextronics has one US location. Intel has three US
locations. Samsung has one US location listed. Texas Instruments has several.
And so on; about 40 locations in all.

Does it add up to $50 billion in real US manufacturing and supplier activity?
Who knows.

~~~
madeofpalk
Also, remember they operate 271 retail stores in the US.

------
mudil
"Apple Plans to Pay $38 Billion in Repatriation Taxes. " Imagine headline like
this under Obama, how much praise he would get.

~~~
matthewmcg
You could also write the headline as "Most Profitable Company on Earth To
Receive $42B Repatriation Tax Break"

~~~
adventured
That money was never coming back otherwise. So no, you couldn't reasonably
write that. You'd have to enter an alternate reality where US corporations
like Apple voluntarily paid the backwards, high US global profit tax.

~~~
ejstronge
This doesn't quite make sense - the decision/cost to bring the money 'into the
US' depends on a variety of factors.

I am not a domain expert, but the availability of cheap credit must have been
a principal consideration, as well as the knowledge that a potential
Republican president would offer an effective repatriation holiday.

In short, there are many conceivable situations in which it might make sense
to pay such a tax - we're just not in one of those at the moment.

I won't address your last assertion, not having data, but I've read in many
publications that the effective corporate tax rates in the US are far lower
than rates in other countries.

~~~
adventured
> the decision/cost to bring the money 'into the US' depends on a variety of
> factors

No it doesn't. Apple has been lobbying aggressively for years, including
during most of the Obama Administration, to change the backwards US global tax
policy (the US being one of the few countries to utilize such an approach) and
or to arrange a one-time repatriation holiday. They finally got what they
wanted and they're repatriating the money immediately thereafter.

It depended on one thing: getting a low enough rate to make bringing the cash
home modestly punishing. Apple was always clear about that, Tim Cook spelled
it out in numerous interviews over several years.

~~~
jasonlotito
Sure, and the issue wasn't whether it would happen, it was what the money
would be used for. Republicans and Democrats wanted different things. The tax
policy was going to change. It was just a matter of what we did with it. In
this case, it was used to pay for lower taxes for corporations.

------
downandout
I find it fascinating that a tax plan proposed by a President reviled
throughout the Valley is the one thing that finally convinced Apple to
repatriate much of its overseas cash and invest it here in the US. They of
course give no credit to him in this press release, but the proof is in the
pudding. Of the many heavy handed ideas and efforts made by the previous
administration to convince Apple to do this, exactly 0 of them worked.

Only time will tell whether the recent reduction in corporate tax rates will
have a long-term net positive effect, but this move by Apple alone seems like
a good sign that it will. If other US corporations follow suit with
repatriation, the American economy will experience unprecedented corporate
reinvestment.

~~~
eridius
Once corporations have exhausted their large hoard of overseas cash, the
amount they repatriate will go down significantly. So isn't this really just a
short-term boost?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The USA has moved to a territorial tax system for corporations, so any income
earned abroad will no longer be subject to US tax (only taxed by the country
where the income was generated), and so can be freely moved back to the USA if
the companies wish. There is no longer a distinction to be made concerning
where money can be spent without being US taxed.

~~~
vasilipupkin
There was little distinction before as companies could borrow against their
overseas cash to invest in the US

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They would still have to pay those loans back out of their US income (or any
income repatriated). Bankruptcy would be weird, in that case.

------
rambleraptor
I feel like this potentially buried the lede. Apple is planning on opening up
a new campus in the USA.

I feel like Amazon's HQ2 search is going to open the floodgates for tech
companies asking for public incentives. Tech companies in the Bay Area have
been creating tens of thousands of jobs for years without asking for much
publicly. Expect that to change now.

~~~
mnglkhn2
Or maybe it will open the floodgates for tech companies to escape high costs
of SV/California/West Coast.

It is a hedging against increasingly expensive work force.

~~~
larkost
According to the article the new campus would be for support. Most of that in
the U.S. is currently part of the Apple Texas campus. So this would not really
alter much in Silicon Valley.

~~~
rlanday
> The company plans to establish an Apple campus in a new location, which will
> initially house technical support for customers.

Key word being "initially."

------
dmode
Giant PR move. Amazon was already doing all of these and opening a new HQ
without all this "tax" bill PR.

~~~
yueq
but Trump is going after Bezos..?

------
bob_theslob646
>Apple is already responsible for creating and supporting over 2 million jobs
across the United States and expects to generate even more jobs as a result of
the initiatives being announced today

What percentage of jobs of these are full time versus part time?

Why do large corporations and politicians love to toot their horns about
'jobs', but refuse to go into details?

Oh wait, there public.

>Employees:As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had approximately 123,000
full-time equivalent
employees.([http://investor.apple.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual&ndq_keyword...](http://investor.apple.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual&ndq_keyword=#filings))

123k divided by 2 million equals 6.15% of employees are full-time, whereas
93.85% are part-time.

~~~
missingcolours
Both your numerator and your divisor are incorrect. The 2 million number is
"creating and supporting", i.e. not direct Apple employees. The 123k number is
"full-time equivalent", i.e. "total number of hours worked by employees / 40",
where 2 employees @ 20 hours/week = 40 hours = 1 full-time equivalent. So
actual full-time employees might be a small portion of the 123k, due to the
workforce ofApple retail stores, etc.

------
cpollard0
An important distinction re: territorial taxes is that if there is no
settlement of the difference between a foreign tax rate and a home country tax
rate then companies are incentivized to artificially earn as much of their
income as possible in low tax jurisdictions.

------
joering2
Lesson to self: build empire even if it means not paying taxes and hoarding
money offshore. Wait until favorable political winds change that allow easy
and cheap transfer from offshore. Come up as a winner to masses, because now I
can hire more people. Rinse and repeat.

~~~
propman
Global minimum tax. No more rinse and repeat thanks to the tax bill. 11% tax
on all foreign profits so this eradicates tax havens in Ireland and the
islands because if you are paying 2% then you pony up the other 9% to Uncle
Sam.

Last repatriation, the companies did exactly what you said but now that is no
longer possible.

------
sparkling
Thank you president Trump.

------
dingo_bat
It's a nice feeling when your president and government actually work _for_
you! Hats off to the American voter.

------
bcheung
Did I miss something? I thought from the title of the article mentioning WHERE
the campus would be built would be a fairly important detail to include.

------
NelsonMinar
Alternate headline: "Apple dodges $49B in taxes by waiting for a tax holiday".
They reduced their rate on $250B of earnings from 35% to 15.5% by waiting for
a new tax policy. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/apple-plans-
to-p...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/apple-plans-to-
pay-38-billion-in-us-taxes-to-bring-overseas-cash-home/)

~~~
chrischen
Alternate headline: Trump policies enable Apple to re-invest in US jobs and
economy.

~~~
jriot
A headline that will never see the light of day.

~~~
SapphireSun
Mainly because it's hard to suppress laughter if you think about it at all
beyond a surface level. See discussion in another thread. I don't want to
repeat myself.

------
coolso
So is this actually a bad thing, or are all of the skeptical/negative comments
just due to the fact that it's yet another example of the new tax bill having
immediate, positive, real effects on the US economy?

~~~
dguaraglia
$1.5 trillion - $29bn... yeah, still not seeing the "positive effect" in the
long term.

~~~
mabdre
150 - 2.9 is definitely a step forward...

~~~
dguaraglia
Except that it took 1 bill to create the 1.5 trillion in debt and decades to
create the 29bn in profits. This kind of "big windfall" is only happening this
tax cycle, and won't happen ever again.

It's almost like people really focus on whatever positive input they get and
cling to it no matter what.

------
maxxxxx
I hate the phrase "job creation". It sounds almost like the "job creators" are
of divine nature. How about "hiring"?

~~~
jdoliner
Job creation and hiring mean different things. I can hire someone for a job
that already existed and was previously filled by someone else. If I bring a
new job into existence, that hasn't been filled by anyone before then saying I
created that job doesn't seem particularly untoward.

~~~
maxxxxx
I anybody creates jobs it's the people who buy stuff and create demand. Then
someone will meet that demand and potentially hire someone. I don't think
Apple "creates" jobs. It hires people for certain needs that have been created
by the market. If they don't fill the need somebody else will do in a market
economy.

~~~
jerkstate
I disagree, I would suspect that most Apple employees are probably engaged in
creating new products that have not been bought yet..

~~~
jasonlotito
Ignoring Apple retail employees, that might be true if you assume that the new
products are running a version of either iOS or macOS and that those people
working on that are considered part of creating that product.

------
SapphireSun
This is a diversion tactic.

They're grabbing 252.3B and spending less than a fifth of it. Let's imagine a
different world. 200B, divided by 50k + 1.5x overhead (75k) could create about
2.6M decent jobs for one year (or 1.3M for two years etc).

2.6M jobs is equal to 0.8% of the total US population. The total labor force
size is about 160M (~1/2 the total population) and the U6 measure of
unemployment is about 8%. A healthy U6 is probably closer to 6% (from around
2000). That 2% of 160M is 3.2M jobs. Thus, in one fell swoop without even
affecting operations overly much, Apple could reduce the magnitude of the
economic crisis by a little over 2/3.

These are astonishing numbers that would have real impacts on people's lives.
Imagine what we could do with the profits of the other large conglomerates.

Instead, they're spending a tiny amount on PR and reduced taxes that they
lobbied heavily for to do what? Probably stock buy backs. The adulation of the
rich and powerful continues at the expense of the working class.

EDIT: added some comparison numbers

EDIT: You guys are too much! So many questions, keep on asking, but I'll have
to let others answer. I have other things to do today. Keep thinking
critically about the political economy of the system. :)

~~~
stephen_g
That doesn’t make any sense though. Why would Apple just create millions of
jobs that they don’t require?

This is the key mistake people make when they say that tax cuts will create
jobs, or minimum wages will cost employment. Companies try to be efficient,
and therefore don’t create jobs they don’t need, and don’t get rid of jobs
they do need if wages go up. That’s why there is pretty much zero statistical
correlation between tax cuts and employment, or wage price and employment.

Apple will create jobs if their operations require them - they’re not going to
make up busywork out of the goodness of their hearts.

~~~
SapphireSun
Exactly right. Why would a for-profit company work to improve the lives of the
population that birthed them? I'm merely making the point that we can do
better than this.

~~~
stephen_g
I think companies should pay their fair share of tax, comply with stringent
labour, environmental and other regulations (high minimum wage, decent
holidays, humane limits on work hours per week etc.), even donating part of
their profits to charity would be cool.

But you can’t expect companies to randomly create new jobs just for the sake
of making jobs (because they have a bit of spare cash)... It just doesn’t make
sense.

------
muninn_
Would like to see more investment in manufacturing here in the United States.
Apple has to recognize that unstable relations between the United States, the
EU, and China (along with South Korea and others)could leave them in a
precarious position with their physical manufacturing capabilities. If China
says, give us U.S. user data, or give us the capability to build your new 3D
camera or we shut your facilities down, what will Apple do? Not to mention
South Korea's antics with raiding Apple's South Korean offices and whatnot.
The same goes for other US firms - EU you better watch out too.

~~~
samfisher83
It would need a lot of investment. You need glass makers, metal shops,
semiconductor shops all close together to emulate what is there in China right
now. I don't know if its really possible in the US.

~~~
leggomylibro
You'd need a sort of 'motor city' for electronics. Something like what Detroit
was for cars, or like what Shenzhen is now.

I'm surprised that no stateside port cities have tried to encourage that sort
of thing; there are plenty of negative externalities, but I would still _LEAP_
to move to such an initiative.

It's like...I want to create something that could make a difference for
people, but all that I see in our current tech cities is faux do-goodiness,
iniquity, and seething resentment. It's a bunch of people saying that they
want to save the world while reaching into the pockets of people who can't
afford it, and it hurts to be unfailingly lumped into that sort of behavior.

------
bzadoroz
Good but not nearly enough. I'm just glad they're paying something.

------
progressivebaka
Please everyone who wants to pay more taxes you can gift it to the govt. Match
me Bernie Bros!!!

------
zghst
Trump’s tax plan kicks ass.

------
blinkingled
I wonder if through it all Tim Cook has political ambitions.

------
aceon48
I wonder how many of these type of headlines of companies investing in
America, giving bonuses to workers, stock market and economy roaring, until it
breaks the cognitive dissonance out of liberals.

