[HN Gopher] Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years
___________________________________________________________________
Apple commits $430B in US investments over five years
Author : sologuardsman2
Score : 254 points
Date : 2021-04-26 12:56 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Invest it in some tax payments and I'll be impressed, these sound
| like normal business expenses.
|
| https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/h...
| cromwellian wrote:
| I don't really see anything significant here about derisking
| their heavy dependence on Chinese assembly and supply chains
| which means they will continue to be over a barrel and subject to
| the whims of the CCP as well as US - China relations.
|
| Plus the spreading of their small manufacturing fund over several
| states isn't going to bring about an American Shenzhen, like with
| Silicon Valley, it needs to be a geographically centralized hub
| or nexus to get increasing gains from cross pollination between
| all of the firms.
|
| Apple needs to be investing to lessen their dependence on Foxconn
| mainland manufacturing and logistics.
| [deleted]
| luke2m wrote:
| What laptop is that in the background?
| nathancahill wrote:
| New 16" M1X
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Clearly an M2 with 64 GB of RAM...
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Announcing a new multi-billion dollar campus during a pandemic
| strikes me as so fucking out of touch, and goes against the
| direction the industry was already going pre-pandemic. IMO at
| this point they should just fold and start transitioning to
| permanent work from home like the vast majority of startups and
| tech companies. This terrifies FANG because then they will have a
| vacant campus and whoever commissioned it will look pretty dumb.
| Dumber is spending multi-billion dollars on a campus when you
| could work from home.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| They sell hardware and lots of it. That requires labs and
| direct collaboration at many points in the process. It also
| requires lots of highly specialized test equipment and test
| facilities. This cannot be done with everyone working from
| home. It is naive to suggest otherwise.
|
| Also, many of us enjoy and still want direct in-person
| collaboration. If you don't and your job doesn't require it,
| then good for you. Enjoy, but there is no need to project that
| onto everyone else.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| There is literally no difference between sitting in a zoom
| call all day with your coworkers while you code and sitting
| in a cubicle with them. Sometimes HN is so boomer brain
| dmode wrote:
| Wait, no investment in Miami ? Reading tech twitter, folks
| already claimed Miami to be the next tech hub
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| Here, I'll quote it for you: "Apple has also surpassed its 2018
| hiring commitments in Miami, New York, Pittsburgh, and
| Portland, Oregon."
| dmode wrote:
| That's not really an investment. Sounds more like retail
| hiring.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| As a Floridian, it's difficult for me to understand why we've
| done so bad at attracting any sort of tech industry. Five, ten
| years ago, you could simply say that it's Silicon Valley (or
| Seattle) or bust.
|
| But since then, Austin, Denver, NC, Nova, Portland, Nashville
| and others have all done a really good job of actually
| competing with California for tech industry growth. On paper,
| Florida seems like it should be really competitive in this
| space. Good weather, low taxes, business friendly climate,
| immigrant centric culture, decently low cost of living, good
| schools, and population ties to the high-skilled NYC area.
|
| So, I'm genuinely curious, because I know there are people on
| this board who are in a position to make these decisions. If
| your company considered a satellite campus in Miami or Tampa or
| the Space Coast and decided to pass, what was the reason? The
| sticky summers? Lack of topography? Florida Man stereotypes?
| SirSourdough wrote:
| I think it's culture, or at least perceptions of. For the
| demo that tech companies are trying to attract, I think the
| perception of Florida is as an older, conservative "place
| where dreams go to die". It's also in the South which I think
| is seen as a broadly unappealing place to live by a lot of
| people in the current political climate. Florida especially
| has garnered negative sentiment from the left since the Bush
| era, which is most of the lives of the new hires these
| companies are trying to attract. Add on humidity and poor
| climate change prospects and I think it's not as appealing to
| people.
| dmode wrote:
| Honestly, the only places that have grown were already
| somewhat of a tech hub. I don't think Denver, Portland,
| Nashville have grown in meaningful terms. Yeah, you see some
| growth just because the tech companies are worth trillions
| now, and there will be more crumbs everywhere. But tech hubs
| that have employees and campuses at scale are places like
| Seattle, Austin, and NYC. And these already had established
| tech players prior to the recent boom.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Florida has some decent engineering schools, so I'm a bit
| confused why Florida doesn't attract more tech as well.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Lack of intellectual density.
|
| > Austin, Denver, NC, Nova, Portland, Nashville
|
| All have great universities in the immediate vicinity which
| are a nexus for commercial intellect. These metros are
| roughly 1/3 of the size with probably double on avg. the
| available tech talent pool.
| hit8run wrote:
| Would be nice if they also started to pay taxes in the EU.
| continuations wrote:
| > $430 billion and add 20,000 new jobs
|
| So it takes $22 million investment to add just 1 job?
|
| Something seems off.
| zsmi wrote:
| It seems off because the jobs just a byproduct of the
| investment, not the end goal.
|
| i.e. Say I invest $10M to make a precision machine shop and I
| employing 5 machinists, as a crude example. Here my goal was to
| make a machine shop capable of producing precision parts, not
| to spend $2M/job.
| sva_ wrote:
| It says "and add", not "to add". So I'd say the new jobs are
| just a side-effect.
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| /s
|
| 0. So how many trillions will be laundered and hidden overseas?
|
| 1. Is Apple really just launching the eWallet, the world's first
| self-laundering wallet with domestic currency support?
| perardi wrote:
| Let's run through the possible reasons Apple announced this, with
| various degrees of cynicism.
|
| 1. Getting some good press before Congress decides to do
| something in regards to the app store model.
|
| 2. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains
| may be politically constrained, and preparing for that future.
|
| 3. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains
| may be politically constrained, and announcing this investment so
| they can continue to have Chinese supply chains after a good PR
| move.
| jimmont wrote:
| Apple and much US associated supply chains have already been
| moving away from China. Media is regularly coming up where the
| side effects are reported, for example the Foxconn contractor
| in India. The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or
| capacity domestically. The only thing that will fix this is
| government policy--otherwise Silicon Valley would have decent
| transit, no homelessness and California would have its own
| State or region-level healthcare delivery network. The same
| things Taiwan has with only 23 million people that benefits
| TSMC (and the people there).
| syshum wrote:
| >The US lacks the infrastructure to leverage talent or
| capacity domestically
|
| I dont think infrastructure is the root of our (US) problem.
| We do have a skills, and talent gap. not just in "tech jobs"
| like many people think but at factory floor level as well.
|
| Even if they could open the factories tomorrow finding people
| to fill those jobs will be hard.
| jimmont wrote:
| Personally I see infrastructure as the thing that gets
| qualified people to productivity and keeps them productive
| (jobs or whatever form that takes), and I also expand the
| notion of infrastructure to include a society and community
| with effective education and healthcare to maximize the
| human capital of the group. Given this I see infrastructure
| and the various components of it as decades behind in the
| US and Apple would be smart to take the direction. Just
| consider the process of applying for an SBIR or finding a
| job or starting a startup or getting from SF to San Jose,
| etc.
| syshum wrote:
| This would require the expansion of the term
| infrastructure to encompass just about everything in
| society thus making the term meaningless.
|
| This is the current Democrat definition of the word where
| everything from health care to education is
| "infrastructure", that is not what the average person
| would consider to be "infrastructure".
|
| Healthcare and Schools are not "infrastructure",
| "infrastructure" would be Roads, Power, Communications,
| Basic Utilities, etc etc etc.
|
| >> Just consider the process of applying for an SBIR or
| finding a job or starting a startup or getting from SF to
| San Jose, etc.
|
| Given that California is the least business friendly
| state in the union, in fact it is down right hostile to
| business I would image doing anything in CA is pretty
| hard
| ksdale wrote:
| Or they are anticipating some sort of tax on funds held
| offshore and figure it is better to repatriate the money prior
| to a tax increase.
| Daishiman wrote:
| Don't forget 4. doing a good PR so that a Dem-controlled
| Congress doesn't push for repatriation of corporate cash
| reserves kept in tax havens.
| sircastor wrote:
| Didn't they do this with the former administration's tax
| deal?
| mrweasel wrote:
| $430B seems like more than you'd need for a good PR stunt.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| It's $0 if you were already going to spend it anyway
| perardi wrote:
| I suspect they really were going to spend a significant
| chunk of this regardless, but they packaged it into a nice
| press release at a potentially fraught political moment.
|
| And...$430 billion over 5 years is a lot, but what if it
| influences tax or tariff rates _just a bit_ in your
| direction over a 10-year period? Because that _could_ be
| worth it, especially, again, if you were going to set up
| that new campus anyway.
| zepto wrote:
| > I suspect they really were going to spend a significant
| chunk of this regardless
|
| Regardless of what?
| perardi wrote:
| Regardless of this PR they put out.
|
| This spend was probably in the books, so let's wrap it in
| a nice bow before Congressional hearings.
| zepto wrote:
| It seems inconceivable that they _wouldn't_ have made a
| PR announcement about a large investment in the US,
| regardless.
| coliveira wrote:
| Most of the so-called "investment" is real estate based. They
| will most probably develop some very expensive offices, fancy
| stores, put some additional people to work there, and call it a
| day.
| StandardFuture wrote:
| > app store model
|
| Yes, well we as a developer community can _never_ let up on
| Apple and Google 's app store models being legally
| reprehensible.
|
| We are quite literally the most negatively affected community
| by these monopolies over general consumer's devices.
|
| We need to be the "force to be reckoned with" here and
| constantly petitioning politicians for action else get
| campaigned AGAINST electronically (our domain).
|
| I would say that the app store model negatively affects a
| growing "small software business" sector of the economy which
| will only continue to grow as a stable pillar of the modern
| middle class.
|
| In other words, this is only becoming that much more of a
| critically important issue.
| fossuser wrote:
| If I was Apple getting out of the Chinese supply chain would be
| a priority - if only to have some leverage with a second
| option.
|
| It seems like a pretty high risk situation for them and has
| chilling effects elsewhere (content restrictions on Apple TV).
| It also damages their brand ethos around privacy. CCP pressure
| on Taiwan and TSMC is also a concern I'd be thinking about if I
| was them.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| 4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of
| normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in
| the country"
| delfinom wrote:
| Yep, all tech companies have seen the writing on the wall for
| overconcentrating their operations in California. People in
| general have become more and more hesitant to move there for
| a wide platitude of reasons from absurd cost of living to
| issues such as mass wildfires.
|
| They've realized that perhaps, just perhaps, they could
| afford to have more than one large corporate campus at their
| scale of fuck you money. Which gives them wider access to
| talent and actually reduces headaches such spiraling cost of
| living forcing salaries to also spiral upwards and also being
| expected to solve housing crises locally.
| [deleted]
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Apple already has a large campus in Austin that dwarfs a
| lot of companies and a second under construction. They
| might not be quite Spaceship in terms of unique design but
| they exist.
|
| Being solely located in one of the most expensive areas in
| the United States does seem a bit absurd if you can avoid
| it. Based on Cook's statements about returning to the
| office, it seems like they value being physically proximate
| more than the immense savings that moving the workers who
| could be remote to remote.
| Angostura wrote:
| Just an FYI - I'm not sure what word you were reaching for,
| but it wasn't 'platitude' in this context.
|
| Perhaps 'plethora' or 'multitude'.
| mft_ wrote:
| Neither would work well with the preceding 'wide'.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| variety. Or better yet, drop "a wide variety of" and just
| say "various"
| sizzle wrote:
| Seems like they were going for latitude?
| dangus wrote:
| Comments like these greatly downplay the role of industry
| clusters. The hot take of the day is that California is a
| hellhole to be escaped as soon as possible.
|
| Industry Clusters are often historical, so it always
| strikes me as strange when I see comments like this one
| that make a case for how misguided it was for tech
| companies to cluster in Silicon Valley and tolerate the
| high cost of living.
|
| That line of thinking misplaces causes and effects so that
| they're hilariously backwards.
|
| Silicon Valley is a innovative place because of an
| extensive history of educational institutions, research
| facilities, and other market conditions that simply did not
| physically manifest in any other place.
|
| On top of all that, the software industry has one of the
| lowest COGS (cost of goods sold) of any major industry.
| Facebook's sales per employee is close to $2 million [1].
| The fact that their SV employees cost hundreds of thousands
| of dollars more than employees is quite nearly irrelevant.
| Someone that's 10 or 20 percent more productive will make
| up that labor cost difference by bringing in 10 or 20% more
| revenue, so it doesn't really make sense for Facebook to
| abandon the best talent pools in search of cheaper rent or
| wages.
|
| Tech giants are building out in Austin for its specific
| traits, and they don't seem to mind that it's rapidly
| becoming expensive and congested just like California. The
| question that might be asked is: why is Apple in Austin
| instead of Houston or Dallas or Nashville or Omaha?
|
| [1] https://csimarket.com/stocks/FB-Revenue-per-
| Employee.html
| cletus wrote:
| 100% this.
|
| So many of these corporate investment announcements are
| really "look at what we were already going to do".
|
| Amazon HQ2 anyone?
| zepto wrote:
| But surely 'what we were already going to do', must include
| hedging against predictable political changes.
| blackearl wrote:
| They're upping it from $350B so they were most of the way
| there.
| plank_time wrote:
| Apple is already moving out of China for some of their
| factories. India was a big target for this.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| their use of the word 'campus' is pretty cringeworthy
|
| It's called an office park
| dalbasal wrote:
| I'm probably reading too much into this, but it feels like this
| and other corporate announcements are channeling a pretty
| substantial shift in political-economic mood, theory-space or
| whatnot. They seem to be justifying themselves in ways that were
| previously unnecessary.
|
| If Monetarism really is being abandoned, I predict unpredictable
| changes to economic thinking across the board. It was definitely
| impactful on the way in. I suppose unicorns zooming past the $trn
| mark is connected too.
|
| The "cash accumulation" aspect of FAANG economies is (IMO) hard
| to digest in terms of economic theory. Rather that existing to
| finance economic activity, these companies make stock markets
| look like they exist solely for liquidity: cashing out VCs,
| compensating executives, etc. There is no "I need $1bn to build a
| new factory or something." There is no equity/debt ratio. Most of
| the texbook (at least mine, from circa 2003) doesn't apply.
| Apple/etc have plenty of cash, and don't need capital to expand
| either way. Economics has surprisingly little (new) to say about
| why dividends aren't happening, the difference between buybacks &
| dividends or cash accumulation generally.
|
| I can think ways to "story" cash accumulation. Eg, instead of
| investors getting dividends and buying Vanguard or Bitcoin,
| FAANGs might as well just buy the securities on their behalf.
| This _could_ be an argument, but I haven 't heard it made. I'm
| not advocating it, just eg.
|
| A "hostile" story might be that Apple are hogging all the capital
| that should be available for Tesla or some other company that
| actually needs capital.
|
| In any case, I suspect there is more pressure to invest big sums
| than we know.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| fonix wrote:
| anyone here have any deets on what it's like to work for apple
| (any, but hopefully specifically some engineering job)? perks,
| hours, any flex time - did the interview suck?
| the_only_law wrote:
| I'm curious as well, having seen a number of positions that
| look interesting. How strict are they on degree requirements?
| I've seen some job postings within the same divisions (team?)
| for software development positions requiring degrees and others
| explicitly noting a "or equivalent experience".
|
| One concern I have is regarding IP and open source works. I
| recall an article posted to HN a while back where someone who
| had got a job apple was required to give up a project they had
| worked in outside work.
| ramshanker wrote:
| Reading between the lines, anyone else seeing an inhouse FAB! In
| the name of vertical integration, that is the last thing they
| need to consolidate after M1. Imagine Processor, Graphics, Modem,
| Baseband, Power Control all chips designed inhouse and
| manufactured on own FAB. ;)
| Someone wrote:
| I doubt they have the scale to make owning a fab worthwhile.
|
| Certainly, unless they branch out into selling more mundane
| chips, they would have a problem using the capacity in their
| fabs for their own chips once those fabs get older.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| How is owning a fab not worthwhile for a company that
| produces billions of devices each containing multiple chips?
|
| Sure you can make the arguments against vertical integration,
| but to "doubt they have the scale" when speaking of the most
| valuable company in the world, with a product in the hands of
| billions? If Apple doesn't have the scale, then who does?
| Someone wrote:
| Of course they have the money, but I don't think they have
| the demand from their own products that can keep a fab
| running full-time through its lifetime. I just don't see
| them selling low-end devices or producing low-end devices
| for others.
|
| That would make owning a fab for themselves uneconomical.
|
| Exception would be if they managed to build a fab that's
| better than what others have, but I don't see them do that,
| either.
|
| On the other hand, TSMC, without Apple's money, might not
| be as strong as it is with it, allowing Apple to beat it,
| and have the best fab.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Apple outsources nearly all of its manufacturing, I can't see
| that changing any time soon.
| ksec wrote:
| >Apple's $430 billion in contributions to the US economy include
| direct spend with American suppliers, data center investments,
| capital expenditures in the US, and other domestic spend --
| including dozens of Apple TV+ productions across 20 states,
| creating thousands of jobs and supporting the creative industry.
|
| I dont like how Apple spin this as _investment_ in the headline,
| when it is clearly _contribution_. If you buy something at
| Walmart, or any of your daily needs, is that an _investment_ in
| US?
|
| And I dont know how that $430B is calculated.
|
| Direct Spend with American Suppliers are mostly Corning for Front
| Glasses, Qualcomm for Modem and Patents. These two alone is close
| to $50B in five years.
|
| Even if Apple spend $10B on Datacenter and $10B on Apple TV (
| They dont ), Likely including all their employees salary, Rent
| for Apple Retail, basically every single dollar spend within US.
| The numbers still doesn't add up.
|
| It reads to me Apple is doing their PR pieces on their
| contribution to US because Congress is now looking at them as
| enemies.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you buy something at Walmart, or any of your daily needs,
| is that an investment in US?_
|
| If a company opens an office overseas and hires people, we call
| it foreign direct investment. Using the same math for domestic
| investment seems alright. It's money being pumped into the
| local economy, after all.
| skybrian wrote:
| Well, it's all spending, but is all spending investment?
|
| From an accounting perspective, when a business spends money on
| a factory it's an investment since you end up with an asset on
| the balance sheets. But the same is true of spending on
| inventory. There are also intangible investments that don't end
| up on balance sheets (like writing software) and for high tech
| companies that can be pretty substantial.
|
| You could simplify this to "Apple says they're going to spend a
| lot of money in the US." Okay, I guess that's good?
| gowld wrote:
| That's a standard use of the term "investment" in the
| macroeconomic sense of exchanging money to get people to do
| work so they can pay other people to do work for them.
|
| Ita because paying US people for that work is better for the
| personal development of (otherwise underemployed) US people
| than paying non-US people.
| [deleted]
| mrweasel wrote:
| It reads like they're trying to avoid creating jobs in
| manufacturing directly, but will instead pick US suppliers and
| potentially let them hire lower skilled workers.
|
| I wouldn't expect this to create that many jobs in
| manufacturing, it seems more like engineering and creative
| work, with a promise to prefer US suppliers, assuming they
| exists.
| andrewjl wrote:
| Yeah that sounds right, although I don't think they ever
| claimed or even implied that they themselves are creating
| manufacturing jobs. Even prior PR by them around creating
| domestic manufacturing jobs was showcasing their suppliers.
|
| Barring a major transformation, I don't see Apple ever
| operating a factory, whether in the US or overseas.
| dubcanada wrote:
| > I dont like how Apple spin this as investment in the
| headline, when it is clearly contribution. If you buy something
| at Walmart, or any of your daily needs, is that an investment
| in US?
|
| You can argue yes, if you pay Walmart $50 for eggs and stuff.
| That means Walmart pays taxes (goes to the Gov), Walmart pays
| employees (so they can buy other stuff), Walmart buys a product
| (paying every individual person from shipping to receiving,
| etc). Opposite would be saying going to Canada and buying it
| all, and all you would pay would be an import fee. Or buying
| something from Aliexpress and getting free shipping, which is
| probably a net value on the US economy.
|
| But you can also argue no, cause it's so small that it is
| almost insignificant.
| breck wrote:
| This is fantastic. Apples devices continue to be so
| groundbreaking (M1), it's exciting that their culture of
| innovation and excellence will be spread more throughout the
| country. They will further seed the innovation hubs in all these
| places. I think it's smart too, to gain new perspectives and tap
| new talent that doesn't want to move to San Jose area.
| c-cube wrote:
| How about they pay taxes, for a start?
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| > Today, Apple supports more than 2.7 million jobs across the
| country through direct employment, spending with US suppliers
| and manufacturers, and developer jobs in the thriving iOS app
| economy. Apple is the largest taxpayer in the US and has paid
| almost $45 billion in domestic corporate income taxes over the
| past five years alone.
| est31 wrote:
| I tried to look up this figure, using the following link:
|
| https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Apple-
| Inc/A...
|
| If I add up the entries of the "federal" line, I get $69
| billion for the 5 columns 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. Am I
| doing something wrong here? This is only the federal tax, not
| even the state tax, which would probably count into "domestic
| corporate income taxes" too.
| gowld wrote:
| What happens if you add/subtract those negative "deferred"
| lines?
| est31 wrote:
| The sum of the deferred lines is, for federal corporate
| income tax, $51.4 billion. The difference is $9
| billion...
|
| IDK I dont know much about US tax law, financial reports,
| or the like. So maybe I did something wrongly. It'd be
| interesting how they obtained that figure in the press
| release.
| gruez wrote:
| deferred just means "put off untill later", right? ie.
| they'll still have to pay it, just in a later tax year?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If crazy tax schemes are legal, that's the politicians' fault
| for not fixing them, not Apple's (who has a duty to
| shareholders to, you know, not pay more taxes than they have
| to).
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > If crazy tax schemes are legal, that's the politicians'
| fault for not fixing them, not Apple's
|
| 100% agreed.
|
| > who has a duty to shareholders to, you know, not pay more
| taxes than they have to
|
| I don't believe they have any such duty. Corporate charitable
| giving is a really big thing.
| sosborn wrote:
| Corporate charitable giving is also a means to stay in the
| public's good graces. It is a long-term play for profit.
| (I'm not arguing that it is a bad thing).
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > It is a long-term play for profit.
|
| Is it? I'd expect most of it is driven by actually
| valuing the charity. If we frame even the charitable
| stuff as profit-driven, it just reinforces the idea of
| some duty towards profit.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Not attacking you, but I'm so tired of this:
|
| "...who has a duty to shareholders to, you know, not pay more
| taxes than they have to..."
|
| Let's make shareholders rich. It'll all trickle down from
| there...
| gruez wrote:
| >Let's make shareholders rich. It'll all trickle down from
| there...
|
| This sounds like a strawman because GP wasn't making any
| claims about whether it's bad or not. Moreover, it's
| perfectly reasonable to expect that each individual tax
| payer to pay as little tax as possible. eg. are you going
| to claim all tax eligible tax credits/deductions on this
| year's returns?
| adkadskhj wrote:
| It's a game of incentives, imo.
|
| Companies (and people), one way or another, will always
| have to be expected to be greedy. This is why i'm pro-
| capitalism and pro-government. We can't hope for
| corporations to _not_ be greedy just because it's
| "possible". We have to expect/assume they are, and act
| accordingly.
|
| Just like we can't give government entities absolute power.
| Checks and balances are needed in all of this. Reality is
| messy.
|
| Do you see another way?
| xwolfi wrote:
| Rich rich, look I am a small shareholder like millions of
| other and I just like put 5% of my salary into my company
| because I like what I see in the inside, every month.
|
| It kept dropping since I started and maybe one day it'll
| rise but I just enjoy taking some sort of ownership of my
| own work.
|
| You always want to tax shareholders when a company gets
| popular in the media but it's hard to reimburse
| shareholders when the company goes down...
| katbyte wrote:
| You can't expect a company (or individual) to not act in
| their best interests - it's up to the Goverment to make the
| law and tax code fair or redistribute wealth
| sumedh wrote:
| Warren Buffett and Bill Gates say they should be paying
| more taxes.
| gruez wrote:
| But they're not voluntarily doing so. They don't want to
| be the only ones doing it.
| sumedh wrote:
| They are lobbying to increase taxes and giving away their
| wealth. What more do you want from them?
|
| Are you paying more taxes than you are required to?
| gruez wrote:
| > They are lobbying to increase taxes and giving away
| their wealth. What more do you want from them?
|
| I think you're misreading my comment. It wasn't meant to
| shame buffet/gates for not paying more taxes, it was to
| point out that even they are going to act in their self
| interest in terms of paying taxes. ie. they won't pay
| more taxes than they need do.
| rabuse wrote:
| Yet, they're not. "Do as I say, not as I do!"
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| It's not as clear cut IMO. I'd argue that general
| societal prosperity is in the best interest of a lot of
| companies (and their shareholders).
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Right, but that's not the comment. There's no duty not to
| be charitable.
| hurril wrote:
| Why aren't you a shareholder?
|
| EDIT: sure - downvote me all you want. The question is
| still around.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Getting rich via investment depends on having income
| above a threshold which is set by the cost of living.
|
| If you spend 50% of your income every year and stick the
| rest into the stock market and get 6% or so after
| inflation, you can sustain your spending without working
| after about twelve years.
|
| If you spend 90% of your income every year and stick the
| rest into the stock market and get 6% or so after
| inflation, you can sustain your spending without working
| after about forty years.
|
| It's all to say that being a shareholder matters in a
| hugely different way depending on your income. The
| disparity is worse when you look at how you can sustain
| higher volatility once you're already wealthy.
|
| You're asking why can't people just be shareholders, but
| I think you're asking why it isn't enough that everyone
| can be shareholders. The reason is that being a
| shareholder only matters for those already making a ton.
| hurril wrote:
| You construct the same kind of false dichotomy that is so
| incredibly common among the but duh rich and duh poor
| blahblah do.
|
| There are more categories than the ultra rich and the
| incredibly poor. Stop that.
|
| A lot of people can save 10-20% in stocks (such as via
| index funds.) A lot of people would rather not do this
| and still complain and point sticks at "the rich."
|
| What can you do?
|
| "The reason is that being a shareholder only matters for
| those already making a ton."
|
| Is simply wrong and nonsensical. I don't make a ton, I am
| not ultra rich, it matters a lot to me to be a
| shareholder. It matters because that way I get to make
| money when "they" do.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| What an unnecessarily combative response. Saving 10% of
| your paycheck doesn't make you incredibly poor, and
| saving 50% doesn't make you ultra rich.
|
| Making $50k and spending $45k versus making $90k and
| spending $45k.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| The article claims [0] they paid a whopping $45Bn over the
| "past 5 years alone". Wow Apple, that's ... yeah.
|
| [0] Not suggesting you didn't read it.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| I get where you are coming from but what needs to change is the
| tax code, no public company, hell no normal individual, is
| going to pay more taxes than legally required.
| SirensOfTitan wrote:
| Sure, but the immense amount of political capital Apple and
| other similar companies hold ensures that the tax code won't
| change.
| krferriter wrote:
| The problem is they use the money they have to lobby and
| influence in favor of those beneficial tax loopholes and
| policies. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that we need to
| break.
| meowface wrote:
| Yes, and for businesses it's additionally a typical arms
| race/coordination problem. If every company except yours is
| using a certain legal tactic to pay lower taxes, you're at a
| competitive disadvantage if you don't use the same tactic.
| Only law and law enforcement can prevent the inevitable
| outcome of everyone using it.
| gher-shyu3i wrote:
| It's the tax breaks that facilitate these sorts of investments
| and innovations.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Blaming Apple for governments letting them get away with paying
| low taxes is certainly a take.
|
| Ultimately it's the responsibility of politicians and the
| voters who elect them to fix this.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| How about nobody does instead?
| brigandish wrote:
| That might be enough to fix XCode.
|
| Might be.
| Decabytes wrote:
| > Apple is the largest taxpayer in the US and has paid almost $45
| billion in domestic corporate income taxes over the past five
| years alone.
|
| They just had to slip this in there. If they were taxed
| appropriately on the money over seas we would see an additional
| $10billion. Being the least scummy in a field rife with tax
| evasion isn't saying much.
|
| Also...
|
| > Apple's contributions in the US have significantly outpaced the
| company's original five-year goal of $350 billion set in 2018
|
| So it's only upping the amount it had already pledged. So they
| were already doing it anyway
| StandardFuture wrote:
| Tax evasion is allowed by the people you elect, and you know
| it. Any unelected corporation can only be bound by the laws and
| system that it is a part of.
|
| If you really want to change things then start speaking out
| against any and all politicians in bed with private actors (for
| ANY political party, btw) -- not overly-focusing on just "those
| politicians who disagree with you on abortion" or something
| else insanely and profoundly silly.
|
| Also, if you _really_ , and I mean _truly_ , despise the way
| things are then stop complaining on the internet and run for
| local office? Then if that goes well, run for a higher office?
| Just an idea. But an idea that the vast majority of us on HN
| never take seriously.
| yotamoron wrote:
| Well that's a surprise - the Biden administration cracks down on
| big tech, and Boom! Apple commits to invest 430B$ in the US
| economy!
|
| That's just a scaled-up version of pink-washing - Look, apple is
| so great, we can't dismantle it for being a monopoly! Now run and
| do something bad to the real villains like Amazon!
|
| They can start by honestly and fully paying their taxes.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| Surprised they didn't mention their upcoming i-car business
| nix23 wrote:
| It that more or less then the saved taxes? @Apple Hedgefonds are
| a good investment.
| Traster wrote:
| I kind of hate the way Apple phrases their business investments
| like they're performing some great charitable act. Also, I'll
| wait for an external audit of whether they're paying all the
| relevant local taxes before I would consider giving them credit
| for these "investments" in local infrastructure they're making.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I don't know, with so much of American business capital
| seemingly having gone to Asia in the past several decades, it
| is rather charitable to be investing in the U.S.
|
| I mean, I wish it were not, I wish it were normal for U.S.
| business to invest in the U.S., but here we are.
| fullshark wrote:
| Well that's the reality of our economy in 2021. A tech behemoth
| coming to your town and adding jobs + the human capital + tax
| base that comes with it can be transformative, and there's few
| other options for localized economic growth sadly.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Please indicate the phrases that imply a "great charitable
| act." I see normal, straight-forward corporate press release
| speak. If Intel or Google were making a similar announcement it
| would sound quite like this one. They are making significant
| investment. Would you "give them credit" if they were not
| making the investments?
| bhk wrote:
| For starters, they use the word "contribution" several times,
| which is a pretty weasely way of describing spending money on
| yourself.
| cromka wrote:
| I read it and also don't see any notion of charity. Op is
| really making it sound like something it clearly isn't.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hate the way Apple phrases their business investments like
| they 're performing some great charitable act_
|
| Why do you think domestic investment is so economically useless
| that it must be a charitable act?
|
| Cupertino is announcing spend. Spending here is better for
| people here, _ceteris paribus_ , than spending there. If they
| announced $430bn in new Southeast Asian contracts, there would
| be a twin top comment lamenting Apple's lack of domestic
| spending.
| nanny wrote:
| >Why do you think domestic investment is so economically
| useless
|
| GP never implied that it was "useless" at all. Your question
| (to use some more Latin) is a total non-sequitur.
|
| >there would be a twin top comment lamenting Apple's lack of
| domestic spending.
|
| Yes, different people have different opinions.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _GP never implied that it was "useless" at all_
|
| The announcement uses the word investment 17 times. Reading
| that as a charity pitch requires a few logical leaps.
|
| Companies announce foreign direct investment all the time.
| Nobody thinks they're trying to look like a charity.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| This is the exact same approach governments use when
| trying to go the other way: politically motivated hand-
| outs framed as "investments". It's a meaningless word in
| a PR statement.
| nanny wrote:
| >The announcement uses the word investment 17 times.
| Reading that as a charity pitch requires a few logical
| leaps.
|
| Again, a non-sequitur. Even if they read "investment" as
| "tea party" 17 times, they still never said or implied
| that it was useless.
|
| The Apple article is obviously trying to paint the
| investments as acts of goodwill. Not many people would
| expect anything else, it's just good PR. "Charity" might
| be an exaggeration, but can't you see why it could rub
| people the wrong way?
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| the subtitle of the article is
|
| >The accelerated commitment will fund a new North
| Carolina campus and *job-creating investments* in
| innovative fields like silicon engineering and 5G
| technology
|
| other pull quotes from the article
|
| >Apple is doubling down on our commitment to US
| innovation and manufacturing with a generational
| investment reaching *communities across all 50 states*
|
| >Apple is the largest taxpayer in the US and has paid
| almost $45 billion in domestic corporate income taxes
| over the past five years alone.
|
| > designed to prepare students for careers in hardware
| engineering and silicon chip design -- to engineering
| programs at *Historically Black Colleges and
| Universities* across the country.
|
| >bringing *clean energy and high-paying jobs to local
| communities across the country*.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| If you're a regular at a restaurant, and you point out to
| you friends that you've supported said restaurant, you
| are not claiming a charitable act. You are pointing out
| the consequences of your actions.
|
| If someone wants to see that as charity, it speaks more
| to them than anything else. (And claiming your patronage
| was an act of charity would be rightfully seen as a
| diminishment of said business.)
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| i have no idea what you're saying but you're bending over
| backwards to contrive some sort of hypothetical that's
| completely ignorant of corporate PR in general and
| apple's PR (with its "we're removing cables for the
| environment") in particular.
|
| >If someone wants to see that as charity, it speaks more
| to them than anything else.
|
| what does it say about you that you're so intent on
| absolving a corporate entity of its own disingenuity?
| like do you work for apple?
| jrwoodruff wrote:
| Not an article, a press release from Apple. Of course
| their PR team is going to spin it as positive as
| possible, that's their job. Used to be, reporters would
| pick this up and do their best to take the spin off, do a
| few interviews and provide additional context.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| None of that sounds like charity or even framed as
| charity. They need workers to work at these factories
| they are building. US workers don't have those skills. So
| they need a training center for their business investment
| to work out.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| man you people are coming out of the woodwork to simp for
| apple; if what you're saying were true then the language
| wouldn't be so topical and timely (eg alluding to hbcus).
| ABeeSea wrote:
| Comments like this are evidence that HN is turning into
| Reddit.
| Stupulous wrote:
| Why do you think this is happening? I've noticed a recent
| decline, but people have been saying this place isn't
| what it used to be for years. I've been attributing it to
| a change in myself.
|
| I wonder if you could do some analytics on comments and
| measure whether things have actually gotten worse.
| Finding a metric might be difficult. I suppose you could
| measure what percent of comments are from newer users
| over time, which is probably correlated.
| dominotw wrote:
| > Why do you think this is happening? I've noticed a
| recent decline, but people have been saying this place
| isn't what it used to be for years. I've been attributing
| it to a change in myself.
|
| I would say users likes anon_tor_12345 are more of an
| exception on the HN but they are they rule on reddit.
|
| > I wonder if you could do some analytics on comments and
| measure whether things have actually gotten worse.
|
| HN is really good at flagging bad actors. Curious to see
| what % of posts get flagged and compared to historical
| trends to see if things are really declining.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| One potential reasons is that a lot of things are more
| expensive in the states - including hiring.
|
| If they did their massive campus in Eastern Europe they would
| get a lot of cheap smart talent, cheap building and probably
| a favourable tax treatment (if they needed even more of
| that).
|
| Replace with Canary Islands, Cyprus or Malta if you want
| somewhere with nice weather.
|
| This is part PR, part gaining political favours.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| >Why do you think domestic investment is so economically
| useless that it must be a charitable act?
|
| that's not what op (the person you're responding to) is
| saying at all. they're simply saying that apple disguises its
| infrastructure spending as charity and that that's off-
| putting. in fact it's not charity and furthers their own
| goals.
|
| it'd be like me claiming to be a philanthropist because i had
| to a build a road connecting my factory to my mine that
| incidentally connects towns along the way. note this is
| example is right on the nose because this is exactly what
| corporations do.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _apple disguises its infrastructure spending as charity_
|
| Except it doesn't. It uses the word "investment" 17 times
| in the announcement. If someone reads this as a charity
| pitch they're doing mental gymnastics.
|
| Apple is not even doing the whole "Made in the USA"
| schtick, where companies imply they're taking patriotic
| pain for the good of the country. This is fully pitched as
| a competitive play. An investment to yield returns.
| plater wrote:
| To continue as a company they have to invest just like
| any other company. As Apple is so big, of course the
| investments they make are big. But not necessarily bigger
| than what any other company invests in percent of revenue
| or profit.
|
| This announcement makes it sound like it's something
| amazingly special they do. But in fact, any company
| throughout history has invested a certain percentage of
| their revenue, just like Apple is now doing.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| And pretty well any company throughout history has made
| sure the public knows about its investment.
| gumby wrote:
| It's a press release. What else would you expect?
|
| They aren't claiming to be investing more or less than
| anyone else. They are simply advertising their plans.
|
| I think Apple's "amazing" infomercials are over the top,
| but this press release seems anodyne.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| lol i responded to your other comment. you either didn't
| read the press release or you're being disingenuous - it
| is rife with allusion to munificence
| jdmoreira wrote:
| It could never be charitable because Apple is a publicly
| traded company and investors want returns.
|
| People talk about companies the same way a hunter-gatherer
| applies animism to trees for example. Companies are not
| people, they can't be cynic nor greedy they just are what
| they were created to be. Profit machines.
|
| Apple is extremely good at being. High returns on invested
| capital, huge moat, etc...
| alexfromapex wrote:
| I don't like how the local government is courting these
| businesses. It just reeks of corruption when they're getting
| special tax breaks and treatment.
| gher-shyu3i wrote:
| Taxes will be payed purely by virtue of hiring the 20,000
| employees they want, which will stimulate the economy. Let's
| not dumb down the conversation by claiming that companies
| lowering their tax expenditure is somehow bad.
|
| Tax breaks stimulate innovation and investments.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Why investments should be like charitable act? Investments are
| suppose to be win-win, because they are investments, not
| handing out money ...
|
| Also, it is a very low level misconception that paying local
| taxes is how you contributing to the local community. No.
| Investing is already contributing to the local community. The
| business will build campus there, and hire people there, and
| also increase other local businesses surround the campus. And
| those people work for them pay income taxes there and also pay
| consumer taxes there. Every local government understand these,
| that's why they want to attract investments and give their tax
| breaks, because investments alone bring benefits to the local
| community.
|
| It would be extremely stupid for any local government to say:
| Hey we don't you invest hundred millions in our community,
| unless you pay full taxes. Lol.
| pydry wrote:
| >Why investments should be like charitable act?
|
| That's the point. It isn't. The OP was asking why it's
| therefore being sold as one.
| [deleted]
| nix23 wrote:
| >>Apple phrases their business investments like they're
| performing some great charitable act.
|
| Phrases....
| MAGZine wrote:
| You've just described trickle down economics but for society.
|
| Companies are more than welcome to make themselves at home
| iff they pay their dues, and should not be welcome if they
| don't.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| This comment touches a personal nerve with me. I am not
| against it, but I have seen it so many times traveling in
| developing countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia. When
| (South) Korean and Japanese companies invest in a
| developing economy, it is with head, heart, and wallet.
| They go 100%. How many times have a seen Korean or Japanese
| business people on a local flight study local language from
| a book or try to practice local language with staff? Too
| many to count! I makes me proud, and I am neither Korea nor
| Japanese. This is how it should be. And, (for the most
| part), they are welcomed by communities. To be fair: I feel
| the same about Volkswagon's recent commitment to Rwanda to
| build their first plant in Africa. I am suspicious of
| UK/US/AUS/China firms that show up with the "resource
| extraction" mindset. Five or ten years later, there are
| terrible environment consequences or social unrest. Almost
| never, do I see that with (South) Korean or Japanese firms.
| (Yes, I have seen it first hand in SA/SEA developing
| nations.)
| temp8964 wrote:
| How is economic growth trickle down for the society? It is
| not. Strong economic growth is the best thing to level up a
| society.
|
| What is really trickle down for the society? The dead loop
| between more taxes and economic stagnation.
| MAGZine wrote:
| Do you not see the similarities between "give rich people
| low taxes and they will create economies around them,"
| and "give rich corporations low taxes and they will
| create economies around them?"
|
| Companies will seek the lowest taxes in an area that
| suits them. If they're building in America, it's because
| it behooves them to build in America. There are lots of
| places they can go to lower taxes, but they're not
| competitive.
|
| So you still have companies who are VOLUNTARILY building
| industry in places with high taxes, because it behooves
| them. Can you see how a race to the bottom in this regard
| is damaging? They're already committed to paying high
| taxes, its just a matter of how high. So--do you really
| want to be the place that cheats yourself out of the most
| income, for a company that really doesn't care if they
| settle in your county, the next one over, or the one
| across the country?
|
| The minute you become noncompetitive, the company will
| move, and your countrymen are the people who paid for it.
| The real winner? the company, who got to hang onto more
| of their vast profits. :-) Apple committed almost $100B a
| year. And places are fighting over... how much tax
| revenue? there's plenty of room for fair taxation.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Good reasoning. So just stay poor, and don't let the big
| companies make money, this sounds like a great advice to
| local communities.
| tamcap wrote:
| NC just announced they will give Apple close to a $1B tax
| break... (granted, over up to 30 years)
| OliverJones wrote:
| Arrgh ... never give a sucker politician an even break. RTP
| is a fine place to put this project, good enough in fact that
| the state doesn't have to bribe them to do it.
|
| This tax-break-if-you-locate-here thing is a longstanding
| scam against politicians by companies.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/corporate-
| tax...
|
| These tax incentives should be structured as follows:
|
| 1. Do your payroll and pay your payroll taxes (FICA, Federal
| and State unemployment, whatever).
|
| 2. Submit your payroll tax receipts to the state incentive
| operation.
|
| 3. Get a rebate of some percentage of that payroll tax.
|
| In other words, no tax-break payments until people get
| actually paid.
|
| This incentivizes the company to do what the state wants:
| employ people in good jobs. If the company gets a "better
| offer" from some other place and moves, then the state
| doesn't get completely screwed over.
| geodel wrote:
| Well that's the way everyone is doing. When individuals eating
| some good food nearby call it "supporting local African-
| american business". Why wouldn't Apple or any other company
| make a virtue out of necessity.
|
| > I'll wait for an external audit of whether they're paying all
| the relevant ..
|
| They will be paying minimum legal taxes possible not maximum
| possible. If this is something one need to feel outraged they
| can start early and not wait for reports/audits.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| How many people did Apple have to hire to make the new Apple
| campus? You can directly see the impact that had. Compare that
| to Amazon or Foxconn. At least they actually seem to hold a
| large majority of their promise.
| tracer4201 wrote:
| I'm curious if you could quote what exactly in this news is
| written as if it's a charitable investment on part of Apple.
|
| If this announcement was in India or China, folks would be
| grabbing pitchforks that Apple is sending jobs overseas. So
| they're bring net new tech jobs here, and your response feels
| like "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| I'll wait to see the halo effect of high paying tech jobs in a
| community.
|
| Any community with half a functioning government should give
| tax breaks to get these kinds of jobs from such a reputable
| company.
| delfinom wrote:
| >I'll wait to see the halo effect of high paying tech jobs in
| a community.
|
| Increased homelessness from rapid gentrification
| mrits wrote:
| What you are saying is not possible at Apple with quotas in
| their hiring process.
| gruez wrote:
| Seems like you can't win. If you stay in bay area you get
| accused of concentrating wealth in the bay area and not
| spreading it. If you move to other areas you get accused of
| gentrifying the area and pushing poor people out.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Seems like everyone needs to come up with new solutions
| to this dilemma.
| tapoxi wrote:
| "Oh shit, how do we dodge potential antitrust regulation?"
| failwhaleshark wrote:
| "Spread money around. Get behind 'job-creation,' 'artisanal,'
| and 'locally-made.'"
| tck42 wrote:
| Right, and also - did they really "commit", at least in the
| "pledge" or "binding promise" sense of the word? I think
| "commit" might be too strong of a word. Maybe "plans to" would
| be better.
|
| They can announce this now and change their mind as they
| please, right? I'm not sure about Apple's track record on
| things like this, they may be good, but they could just slowly
| pull or decrease funding, and we probably won't even hear about
| it in the future, or am I missing something?
| hesdeadjim wrote:
| Timing is a wee bit suspicious isn't it.
| boringg wrote:
| It's a forever on-going negotiation.
| ttul wrote:
| "Let's sprinkle a few billion dollars into each important
| senator's state so they can't shutter our operation."
| ulimn wrote:
| Whatever the reason, I think this is a good thing.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Nice! I wonder when we will all start living inside campuses.
|
| They definitely look nicer than most public cities.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| I've been postulating privately that we will move towards opt-
| in private governments, with private cities, that people get
| citizen scores and have no privacy, and that we will _choose_
| to do that, because it will be a utopia inside those walls.
|
| Your suggestion here solidifies that in my mind. We will live
| on private campuses owned by the corporation for which we work.
| It will be a utopia in there. And we will have no privacy. And
| we will be rated. And we will love being quantified. And
| outside those walls the world will decay.
| mcphage wrote:
| > we will _choose_ to do that, because it will be a utopia
| inside those walls
|
| Companies have tried their hands at being the government in
| the past, and the outcome has always been.... something less
| than utopian.
| Covzire wrote:
| It's surprising to me that $430B doesn't include plans for
| Apple's own fab(s).
| gruez wrote:
| Owning your own fabs is a great way to end up being stuck on a
| node, like intel.
| osugunner wrote:
| Intel is already pivoting and opening up their fabs to other
| businesses. It's been a long time coming but Intel Foundry
| Services seems like a good move.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/23/22347250/intel-new-
| factor...
| simonh wrote:
| This is almost right, but TSMC is a fab operator yet they
| seem to have transitioned to 5nm just fine.
|
| However you are correct in that TSMC still owns and operates
| its older node fabs. Today's cutting edge fab is tomorrow's
| legacy fab producing no-longer cutting edge commodity parts.
| This is why Apple won't buy any fabs or fab operators
| themselves.
| Covzire wrote:
| Still they could sell foundry services for any spare
| capacity, or sell them to another company when it's no
| longer using them for cutting edge. I'm sure there's a very
| good reason they're not going that route but I can't help
| but think the whole world would be better off if the
| players that can afford it would operate their own fabs.
|
| I guess as long as Apple thinks they can remain the highest
| bidder at TSMC and China doesn't invade there is no reason
| to think their supply is threatened.
| simonh wrote:
| But who would the be selling that legacy fab capacity to?
| It would most likely be their competitors, at least in
| part. I just dont see Apples management being all that
| enthusiastic about any of that as a business. They put a
| huge premium in being as focused as possible.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| If this is true, I'm bullish on real estate in Elk Grove,
| California. Elk Grove is a suburb of Sacramento that is about 1.5
| hours from San Francisco. Apple used to have a major
| manufacturing presence here before they expanded their
| manufacturing in China. After Apple moved their manufacturing
| overseas, Elk Grove became a sleepy suburb where engineers from
| the Bay Area moved their families to get affordable homes and
| better schools.
|
| Ever since telecommuting for work took off, the house prices have
| been spiking.
|
| Disclosure: I have been looking at Elk Grove, Folsom, and other
| Sacramento suburbs as a possible place to relocate my family and
| team ... my team and I are not happy with the cost of living in
| SF, and we can get a lot more bang for buck by moving away.
|
| You can get a 4 bedroom, 2500 sqft house in Elk Grove for about
| 750,000 now (six months ago it was 500,000). The schools are also
| quite diverse ... over 30% Asian and Indian.
| seahckr wrote:
| Interesting. How do Apple's investments outside near LA and
| other parts of US help Sacramento real estate?
| troelsSteegin wrote:
| So, that's potentially about $85B per year in US spending vs 2020
| global revenue of $275B. Would it be fair to say then that two
| thirds of Apple's planned net "investments" are outside the US?
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _$85B per year in US spending vs 2020 global revenue of
| $275B_
|
| $57bn of that was income [1], so about 40% of spend. Which
| lines up with the 41% of revenues Apple gets from the U.S. [2].
|
| [1]
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY20_Q4_Consolidated_Fin...
|
| [2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/10/apple-reports-
| fourth-...
| 55555 wrote:
| Can anyone break down what the $430B is going towards?
| perardi wrote:
| Every news story I see if pretty much a rephrasing of this
| press release, so I don't think there are much in the way of
| more details out there.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Lobbying.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Good question. It sounds like employee compensation is included
| in the figure so it really could just be "all projected US
| expenditures in the next 5 years".
| 55555 wrote:
| That's what I assumed. I couldn't see any other way this
| would be even remotely possible.
| thiago_fm wrote:
| You know the old Apple is dead when they are making statements
| which look more like a 90s IBM press release.
| ldbooth wrote:
| This is highly ranked on HN? Here is your sign... Hacker PR.
| imtringued wrote:
| I don't care why they are doing this, but it should have happened
| a long time ago. The cynism here is disappointing.
|
| If companies start investing their money domestically then excess
| savings will fall, deflationary pressures will be gone and the
| economy will start growing quickly again and that means wages
| will grow too.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| My money SHOULD be worth more tomorrow than it is today.
| Tomorrow the economy is just a tad bit more productive, so my
| dollar should go further... Why is deflation a curse word
| nowadays? I feel one of governments only role is to ensure that
| the dollar is not being debased and slowly losing value of time
| or atleast at a rate that is known. When the FED prints an
| unlimited supply of money, it breaks down the social contract
| or useful fiction that we all accept about our money.
|
| i've read some rhetoric somewhere that deflationary money is a
| terrible thing for the economy since it reflects in asset
| prices and makes you more concerned with saving. From my
| perspective, that's a very good economic consequence and would
| stop all these boom bust cycles that we seems to be creeping up
| at irregular intervals of massive spending.
|
| A better system of stock trading would be bonding. When i buy a
| stock, the money is locked into a contract that is reimbursed
| to me after the purchase period. say i buy $100 worth of Tesla
| for a 1 year stock period. At the end of that lease, i will
| recieve my $100 back and Tesla may reward me with a % based on
| the performance of that year. I have no liquidity but my only
| 'Loss' is the loss of other rewards i could have gained by
| betting in another industry or company. Everything being
| completely liquid allows for HFT and the banking industry to
| drain our economic fecundity by placing it in the realm of
| fairy-land instead of investments in infrastructure, energy
| generation and manufacturing.
| Jommi wrote:
| If your money is worth more tomorrow than today why would you
| spend it today?
| hungryhobo wrote:
| deflation is bad for the economy because it discourages
| spending.
|
| Just for illustration, imagine if you know that you can buy 2
| rolls of toilet papers 2 months later for the price of 1
| toilet paper today, and you don't have an immediate need for
| toilet paper, then most likely you'd wait.
|
| Spendings is what drives the economy and it's the circulation
| and liquidity that help the economy becomes more productive.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rmah wrote:
| Having money worth more tomorrow than today is how you get a
| stagnant economy and misery for everyone but the very rich.
| It's how you depress consumption and investment. It's how you
| destroy a nation.
|
| Money is not wealth. Money is a tool. The goal, at a macro
| level, is not to have people having big piles of money.
| Because money, in and of itself, is not that important. What
| matters is how the money is used. And the more it's used, the
| better. Money being used is consumption and investment.
|
| What you call "a better system of stock trading" is called a
| "bond". It's debt and works similarly to how you described
| except the reward % is typically fixed.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > My money SHOULD be worth more tomorrow than it is today.
|
| It is very simple why this is not a good policy.
|
| Let's say you are a software engineer working on some
| software product/service. You are working hard on that
| software, adding features, fixing issues, maintaining it,
| etc. The buyer pays you $100 today for that software.
|
| Tomorrow you release a new version, with lots of upgrades and
| new capabilities. The buyer for this software says "my money
| should be worth more tomorrow than it is today" so they offer
| only $80 for the new version. Boom -- your work is worth less
| every day!
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Very good point and I think your right. Maybe deflationary
| pressures on the economy would only lead to more
| centralization of assets than we already have today. One
| pedantic point to make though; Technically, that $80 is
| worth more today so it's not like "Your work is worth less
| every day". it's the same exact thing in your example.
| StandardFuture wrote:
| > One pedantic point
|
| Your point is not pedantic at all and in fact completely
| negates the other commenters counterpoint made to your
| initial argument.
|
| The buying power of the entity you are exchanging in has
| changed -- for everyone. This absolutely does not
| diminish your work. It is literally equivalent to being
| paid in many more bitcoin in 2012 versus today.
|
| I am sure there are valid critiques of allowing
| deflation. But, as of yet a solid one has not been
| provided in this thread.
|
| It would be interesting to see if anyone can offer other
| sources or arguments against this pro-savings, deflation-
| allowable, economy.
|
| Allowing natural volatility into the value of any asset
| that is traded, including the USD, likely resolves to a
| more natural equilibrium in the economy, no?
| pram wrote:
| Deflation causes many problems. For starters at a
| macroeconomic level it reduces money velocity and
| investment. If people will make a better return just
| holding onto their money, then they will be more averse
| to spending it obviously.
| StandardFuture wrote:
| > reduces money velocity and investment
|
| Yes, this is because of the interchangeability of the
| value of an asset declining and the fact that no one is
| buying it. No different than a stock price in free fall.
| Why is it in free fall? Because no one wants it.
|
| Artificial infinite inflation takes away from the buying
| power of especially younger generations (but average
| people in general). It inflates the supposed price of
| assets (in terms of the inflated exchange asset, e.g.,
| USD) which makes it much more difficult for newcomers to
| gain access to the necessary amount of buying power
| otherwise.
|
| Think of it like inflating bitcoin. True, bitcoin is
| worth more. But, it takes a lot more work and time to get
| more bitcoin. This actually causes deflation to people's
| labor value and thus their buying power and leverage.
|
| And not all assets will inflate equally. And some assets
| will receive government subsidies (this is an increasing
| phenomenon due to the inflating economy) because they are
| considered "critical" to society e.g., gasoline, milk,
| and green energy.
|
| Overall, allowing things to deflate and inflate more
| naturally actually increases volatility which is
| _actually_ what will increase economic velocity. Trading
| will increase, and interest will increase because of
| profitable trading, and thus investment will increase.
|
| So, no, the current artificial and centralized system
| that thinks it can outgame game-theory is just stupid.
|
| It's just Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative hippie baby boomer
| nonsense to concentrate wealth and power into an
| aristocratic elite empowered by trillions of dollars of
| managed retirement portfolios. They simply do not want to
| allow for natural volatility so that _their_ managed
| assets are _always_ increasing. It 's absolute insanity.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Not that my above comment was perfect, but let me attempt
| to be more succint.
|
| > Monetary appreciation only helps
|
| Appreciation of an asset only helps the holders of said
| asset. But "appreciation" is always an exchange rate.
| Appreciated relative to what?
|
| > A deflationary environment explicitly benefits
| creditors.
|
| And this is where my contention lies. This dogmatic
| condemnation of deflation ever being allowed to happen.
| Temporary deflation or even deflation for some extended
| period of time is _not_ a bad thing.
|
| Economic velocity runs on _volatility_ and not what one
| currency or asset is doing relative to another. Inflating
| and deflating exchange rates only _increase_ volatility.
| But, truly, only if _both_ types of relationships are
| allowed and are not artificially snuffed out by
| government and /or central bank intervention.
|
| And you assume that creditors are the only ones holding
| an asset? Credit is only one kind of exchange. Spending
| is another. Stock trading is another. They all depend on
| volatility.
|
| Thus, I am not arguing for inflation or deflation. I am
| arguing for the greatest amount of allowance for natural
| volatility.
|
| > in your proposed monetary environment.
|
| I see that you assumed that I was arguing for constant
| monetary appreciation. I was arguing that there is
| nothing wrong with monetary appreciation.
|
| It seem that you and others are deadset on arguing that
| all deflation is immoral.
|
| My above comment mentions the common root of such views.
|
| > Much like it's difficult for newcomers to buy large
| amounts of bitcoin.
|
| Yes, I should clarify my bitcoin comments. Bitcoin is
| deflationary relative to USD (where most "newcomers" are
| coming from).
|
| BUT, to add substance to my point it should also be noted
| that there are coins that outperform Bitcoin and are thus
| deflationary in their relationship to Bitcoin. A newcomer
| holding these would actually have _more_ purchasing
| power.
|
| I clarify this to stress that at the end of the day:
| consumer spending, loans, credit, etc. are _all trading_.
| And trading is what makes the economy go around.
| Volatility is good.
| pram wrote:
| I'm not really sure what you're arguing, I didn't say
| "infinite inflation" is good lol. Monetary appreciation
| only helps the buying power of people who already have
| money. A deflationary environment explicitly benefits
| creditors. It would be very difficult for a newcomer to
| get buying power, leveraged or otherwise, in your
| proposed monetary environment. Much like it's difficult
| for newcomers to buy large amounts of bitcoin.
| StandardFuture wrote:
| Not that my above comment was perfect, but let me attempt
| to be more succint.
|
| > Monetary appreciation only helps
|
| Appreciation of an asset only helps the holders of said
| asset. But "appreciation" is always an exchange rate.
| Appreciated relative to what?
|
| > A deflationary environment explicitly benefits
| creditors.
|
| And this is where my contention lies. This dogmatic
| condemnation of deflation ever being allowed to happen.
| Temporary deflation or even deflation for some extended
| period of time is not a bad thing.
|
| Economic velocity runs on volatility and not what one
| currency or asset is doing relative to another. Inflating
| and deflating exchange rates only increase volatility.
| But, truly, only if both types of relationships are
| allowed and are not artificially snuffed out by
| government and/or central bank intervention.
|
| And you assume that creditors are the only ones holding
| an asset? Credit is only one kind of exchange. Spending
| is another. Stock trading is another. They all depend on
| volatility.
|
| Thus, I am not arguing for inflation or deflation. I am
| arguing for the greatest amount of allowance for natural
| volatility.
|
| > in your proposed monetary environment.
|
| I see that you assumed that I was arguing for constant
| monetary appreciation. I was arguing that there is
| nothing wrong with monetary appreciation.
|
| It seem that you and others are deadset on arguing that
| all deflation is immoral.
|
| My above comment mentions the common root of such views.
|
| > Much like it's difficult for newcomers to buy large
| amounts of bitcoin.
|
| Yes, I should clarify my bitcoin comments. Bitcoin is
| deflationary relative to USD (where most "newcomers" are
| coming from).
|
| BUT, to add substance to my point it should also be noted
| that there are coins that outperform Bitcoin and are thus
| deflationary in their relationship to Bitcoin. A newcomer
| holding these would actually have more purchasing power.
|
| I clarify this to stress that at the end of the day:
| consumer spending, loans, credit, etc. are all trading.
| And trading is what makes the economy go around.
| Volatility is good.
| dgs_sgd wrote:
| This assumes the new version of the software has no added
| value from adding new features and fixing bugs, etc.
|
| Even with your assumption suppose you accept their offer.
| The $80 received should in turn be able to purchase
| something that was worth $100 dollars yesterday. The
| nominal value may have gone down but the quantity of goods
| and services you can buy with it is the same.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| If you need a concrete example of why deflation is crushingly
| terrible for an economy look no further than Japan after the
| asset bubble burst in the 90s.
|
| Deflationary thinking meant everyone expects prices to be
| lower tomorrow, so no one spent money on needed items and
| simply waited to make purchases to save money. This slowed
| down the economy into a death spiral that they still are
| climbing out of. Mortgages became crushing. You can't get a
| raise. Interest and deflation work together to make debt
| nearly inescapable.
|
| The point of money is to be spent, i.e. facilitate the simple
| transfer of value. An excellent example of the direct
| damaging effects of deflation is bitcoin. No one spends it.
| It has utterly failed at its goal to become a primary
| mechanism to transfer value. Everyone expects its value to
| keep increasing so it is almost never transferred (to the
| point that hodling and never spending became a meme). Slowing
| down the exchange of money is what kills an economy.
| zeusk wrote:
| But inflation is also no good if salaries don't rise with
| it.
|
| The way inflation is calculated is quite flawed from my
| understanding (they don't include rent/mortgage payments or
| college tuition - prices of which have exploded in the past
| two decades).
| laurent92 wrote:
| Most of Apple's money is made abroad. Is there a reason why it
| should come back to the US at a loss for the stock holder?
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > why it should come back to the US
|
| They are a US company, reaping the tax benefits of that
| nexus. If they'd been an EU company, they would have paid a
| lot more in various taxes (including higher wage taxes) over
| the last 40 years. IOW, they would not be as wealthy a
| company today.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| The US is one of the only countries that taxs worldwide
| income.
| eliseumds wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| That is true now but has not been true for all of the
| last 40 years that Apple has been in business. And you're
| ignoring wage taxes and employee benefits, which are
| significantly higher in some other nations.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| It's way more complicated than that.
|
| Tons of countries tax worldwide income.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| They also pay EU (and many other) wage taxes since those
| are all paid in the location of employment. This cash
| discussion is all about corporate tax.
| wu_187 wrote:
| They need to pay their taxes
| tolbish wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it the funding going into all
| of these office spaces means remote working at Apple is more or
| less impossible in the future for the vast majority of employees?
| arthur_sav wrote:
| I see it the other way. Choose to live anywhere in the US and
| you get a Hub for your team meetings / office space.
| kshacker wrote:
| Absolutely. Cupertino, Vancouver, Austin, Research Triangle
| and many more I guess.
| [deleted]
| fguerraz wrote:
| Also, with many trillion dollars of money printed recently vs 0
| CNY, it is very likely that the value of the USD will slide
| significantly compared to RMB.
|
| It is not that far-fetched to think that in a not so distant
| future China consider the USA (and Europe) as sources of cheap
| manufacturing.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| I am confused by this comment. "[M]any trillion dollars of
| money printed recently" -- are you talking about the US Federal
| Reserve? That isn't money printing; it is quantitative easing
| -- now also practiced by European Central Bank, Bank of Japan,
| and Bank of England. It does not cause inflation. If anything,
| weirdly, it appears to cause deflation. Money printing is
| Weimar Republic (~1920s) or Zimbabwe (2000-2010). If there was
| out of control "money printing", we would see unprecedented
| inflation. Do we see that? No. Please correct me if I
| misunderstand your comment.
|
| "0 CNY" -- Do you not consider expansion of credit by state-
| owned commercial banks equivalent to "printing money"? I do. It
| causes inflation through rising housing costs. (All major
| central banks now include housing costs in their inflation
| figures.)
|
| The more likely scenario of the future of "cheap manufacturing"
| is (near) total automation in highly developed countries with
| (near) zero-cost green energy. That means their carbon
| intensity will be very low. Thus, carbon (import/export) taxes
| will be very low. Why sew socks in a country with very low
| labour costs, but coal-generated electricity? A machine/robot
| can sew the same socks using green energy in a factory located
| 100km outside a major city in a highly developed country. As an
| example: Look at Fast Retailing (Uniqlo, etc.), headquartered
| in Japan, but truly global as a retail brand. They are a world
| leader in highly automated manuf. of clothes. (Same for Zara.)
| I can imagine they will be one of the first to aggressively
| "on-shore" from developing countries to Japan, where clothes
| will be (near) 100% robot-made. I have heard much the same
| about Adidas and re-shoring shoe manuf. to Germany with (near)
| 100% automation.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Yes - we do and are seeing rapid inflation.
|
| We see rapid asset inflation across the board. Check recent
| commodity prices across copper, lumber, food, water etc.
| Everything has been rising dramatically during the period
| that the world has been practicing what you call
| 'Quantitative easing'. Inflation isn't just related to Forex
| if all the worlds currency's are inflating, albet just maybe
| faster than the USD. And the only reason the US is not
| inflating faster than the rest of the world is because the
| IMF is based in USD.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| To be clear, you wrote "rapid asset inflation". For middle
| class and below, that can only mean buying a house. There
| are no other economically significant assets they own.
| (Cars are a stretch!) For _all other_ items, is there
| significant inflation? No.
|
| "IMF is based in USD" -- Are you not familiar with special
| drawing rights (SDR)? Please explain if I do not understand
| your comment.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Although the middle class may not own futures for metals,
| plastics, lumber, etc they do own consumer goods. These
| are the inputs for consumer goods and thus my argument
| was that consumer goods inflation is soon to follow.
|
| >Are you not familiar with special drawing rights (SDR)
|
| Not really to be honest? but i don't get your point in
| bringing it up. I know the US has the highest SPR weight
| by far and that the IMF was created by the united states
| after we got off the gold standard. My point was that the
| US has a massive influence on a standard thats supposed
| to be 'International' and thus controls the Forex and
| thus 'relative' Inflation. (Our inflation in regards to
| other currencies as opposed to some real meaning of the
| word inflation)
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| "consumer goods inflation is soon to follow" -- Review
| this comment in a year (or more). Inflation Bears have
| been wrong for more than thirty years now. They are
| forever talking about "inflating is coming soon", yet it
| never does. Show me inflation (CPI) figures in any highly
| developed economy that demonstrates serious inflation in
| the last five years. It does not exist.
|
| To be clear about SDR: US has 42%, EU has 31%, China has
| 11%, Japan has 8%, and UK has 8%. Is 42% > 31% "highest
| SPR weight by far"... ? All the non-US majors combined...
| US does not looks so big. It has been falling for decades
| as the world economy re-balances.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Yes - we do and are seeing rapid inflation.
|
| No, we aren't.
|
| > We see rapid asset inflation across the board.
|
| "Inflation", without modifiers, refers to consumer price
| inflation (final goods and services). Asset inflation is a
| different thing, as is monetary inflation. Monetary
| inflation can contribute to both asset inflation and
| consumer price inflation, but those two outcomes are
| somewhat in tension; asset inflation isn't pent up
| potential for consumer price inflation, but an explanation
| for why consumer price inflation isn't happening and isn't
| likely to happen without change in the fundamental economic
| processes.
|
| Specifically, monetary inflation driving asset inflation
| but not consumer price inflation is a sign that the money
| is going to people is marginal use of additional access to
| money is to invest rather than spend, absent changing the
| distribution, the outcomes aren't going to change.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Well, yes - You're right. Consumer price inflation does
| lag behind raw material prices by a couple years since
| most companies have pricing agreements in place. Just
| because this lag isn't happening yet, doesn't meant it's
| not happening and will continue to happen in the future.
| totalZero wrote:
| Consumer price inflation measurement lags because the
| basket composition changes. True inflation is likely far
| higher than CPI inflation because of this market basket
| recomposition problem. BLS doesn't update the market
| basket instantaneously; it lags by about two or three
| years. Thus, when discontinuous shifts in consumer
| behavior aggressively drive spending out of certain areas
| (eg airfare, tuition, elective surgery, rent) and into
| other areas (eg autos, fuel, new construction,
| computers), those shifts are underrepresented because
| deflation of the former is weighted more heavily than
| inflation of the latter.
|
| Any time there is price dispersion within the goods and
| services of the market basket, it's likely that the
| basket composition itself is changing too. CPI has no way
| of responding quickly to this change.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| have you seen the prices of housing, healthcare,
| childcare, education and retirement for over the last 5
| years?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > have you seen the prices of housing, healthcare,
| childcare, education and retirement for over the last 5
| years?
|
| "retirement" isn't a good or service.
|
| Childcare has inflated slightly faster than general
| inflation over the last 5 yeara (2.22%/yr vs. 1.86%/yr).
|
| Health _care_ has inflated a bit faster (medical care @
| 2.46% /yr, hospital and related services @ 3.89%); health
| _insurance_ , has been notably higher (in large parts due
| to the federal government failure to follow the law on
| the ACA) @ 5.98%/yr.
|
| Education has inflated much more rapidly than general
| inflation, @ 29.15%/yr.
|
| So, what? That's how aggregates work. Obviously, we could
| just as easily find a list of consumer goods and services
| where inflation is _lower_ than general inflation. That
| wouldn't prove that inflation is even lower than
| reported, and neither does higher inflation in some
| sectors prove that inflation is higher than reported.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| This. peoples see that the prices of a dozen of eggs or
| meals don't go up and say: "No inflation! See!". All this
| while all assets are getting more expensive, the prices of
| housing, healthcare, education, retirement and even top of
| the line electronics (flagship iPhone price now vs 10 years
| ago) are getting more expensive.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| But entry-point Xiaomi and Huawei phones are much cheaper
| than 10 years ago. How do you explain that? That feels
| like deflation. Using the Apple iPhone as a proxy of
| inflation felt by middle class (and below) is dubious.
| That product is essentially a Veblen good (Wiki says: "a
| type of luxury good for which the demand for a good
| increases as the price increases, in apparent
| contradiction of the law of demand"). Look at the price
| of desktop computers, laptops, Raspberry Pi-equivalents,
| and flat-screen TVs: It is shocking how much prices have
| fallen (vis-a-vis price/performance) over the last 10
| years.
|
| "The price of eggs." What next: Will you talk about low
| interest rates "punishes savers"? What portion of wages
| do highly developed countries spend on food? (Exclude
| [South] Korea and Japan, which are extreme outliers.) The
| answer: Vanishingly small amounts. And, it continues to
| fall each decade.
|
| "[P]rices of housing, healthcare, education, retirement"
| -- is this true in socialist market economies in
| Continental Europe, like Germany, France, Italy, Austria,
| Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal,
| Sweden, Finland, Denmark? No, it is not. I will admit:
| Life for middle class (and below) in the UK is surely
| worse in the last decade for all of the above that you
| mention.
| cryptica wrote:
| If the reserve bank money printing continues, soon there won't be
| anything to eat but at least we'll have plenty of smartphones!
|
| The big market distortion is coming. Get prepared for absolute
| insanity.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| This is very good news. I would love to see pro-capitalist
| policies enacted to bolster this. Things like repealing labor
| laws that grant unions with extra-contractual privileges that
| come from suppressing employers' rights - like being able prevent
| companies from replacing them when they strike - in order to
| restore contract liberty and re-institute a national free market
| in labor, scaling back and streamlining EPA regulations, and
| totally abolishing the OSHA, would do wonders for inviting more
| manufacturers to return to the US, and create strong network
| effects in supply chains.
| Aissen wrote:
| It's a long road from Steve Jobs' "Those jobs are not coming
| back" to Obama.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| This looks to me like it's high skilled jobs, specialist
| manufacturing.
|
| Jobs was talking about cheap manufacturing jobs in China.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-26 23:02 UTC)