This means you must join the Apple ecosystem to compete, even if you strongly disagree with their practices.
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.
It's literally PR hosted on their own press portal. We're you expecting critical journalism?
As someone working for another company where some governments often threaten the existence of my job and the jobs of my colleagues, this concern resonates with me.
This piece is clearly in response to the existing and impending Chinese tariffs, and in response to the President’s constant attacks on large companies with his protectionist rhetoric.
This is nothing new nor unique to Apple. All major businesses tout job creation when they can. They get more clout from it.
None have done that; some have denounced specific business practices, and specific businesses for practicing them. That's very different.
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.
It's for us to vote for representatives who will implement better taxation and finance and safety net etc. policies, that result in better wages etc.
Criticizing Apple is a distraction. Criticize your representatives and vote.
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.
I guess you think we should all be grateful that they gave us a job. They're so good with us.
Only in the same sense that tax cuts benefits everyone. While technically true, the benefits disproportionately go towards those who are already better off.
A person making $200k pays a higher percentage than someone making $50k. So by definition, those making more are disproportionately affected by taxes. The government keeps more of every dollar earned from someone making more money. Not sure how that is fair. If we want fairness, everyone pays an identical rate. Making more money doesn’t mean I use more dramatically more government, so why should I pay a higher rate than people who make less? A flat tax is fair and doesn’t punish success (or failure.)
Because the more money you make, the greater your ability to earn and retain that money (or the equivalent value) is dependent on the governnent and it's provision of law; in societies without substantial government, there either isn't much concentration of wealth or the people who start to gain some wealth end up spending a considerable share of it becoming a government just to protect their ability to concentrate wealth.
> A flat tax is fair and doesn’t punish success
Any tax with a marginal rate below 100% doesn't punish success.
Every company is trying to enrich investors. That's how capitalism works
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?