Apple: 514,000 US Jobs Created(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple: 514,000 US Jobs Created
http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/
26 comments
Standard accounting practice, developed by the US govt explicitly for this purpose.
Seriously, if you're a multinational getting static for your global manufacturing organization from miscellaneous congreesspeople who don't understand economics, what tabulation methodology would you choose to make your point?
Edit: note, obviously that they don't include all employees of the corps that make planes and deliver boxes, just the share of employees that exist to serve the volume of business that Apple creates. This is not RIAA style accounting.
Seriously, if you're a multinational getting static for your global manufacturing organization from miscellaneous congreesspeople who don't understand economics, what tabulation methodology would you choose to make your point?
Edit: note, obviously that they don't include all employees of the corps that make planes and deliver boxes, just the share of employees that exist to serve the volume of business that Apple creates. This is not RIAA style accounting.
>what tabulation methodology would you choose to make your point?
Having a headline about "Creating jobs" next to a map with a number that isn't actually the number of jobs created is misleading.
Having a headline about "Creating jobs" next to a map with a number that isn't actually the number of jobs created is misleading.
I disagree. The volume of business that Apple creates for UPS, etc, literally creates these jobs. That's neither dishonest nor misleading, in my opinion, but I agree that the first time I saw an "economic impact assessment" that included such a large number of jobs, I assumed the implication was that the company in question had these people directly on payroll.
It's more complicated than that.
It's more complicated than that.
>The volume of business that Apple creates for UPS, etc, literally creates these jobs.
By the same logic Foxconn could argue that it's creating jobs because it makes things that get shipped around as well.
By the same logic Foxconn could argue that it's creating jobs because it makes things that get shipped around as well.
That's simply not correct. Foxconn creates zero consumer demand. Consumer demand creates jobs.
And they forgot to mention the numbers the "app economy" destroyed/will destroy.
I'd like to see the research supporting these numbers.
I'm curious as to how they determine the number of jobs created via their app economy.
Many of the jobs they list do not belong to them and they may actually play a small part in the job itself. Unless they own the transportation company they can't lay claim to the truck driver's job since he's probably delivering stuff for other companies at the same time.
How did Apple create or support healthcare jobs?
People working to build their stores is a short-term deal. Similar to the truck driver example, unless they own the construction company they can't take credit for the entire job.
I'm not saying they cannot lay claim to a great deal of success because most of what they say is probably true. But unless they break the numbers down to realistic examples of jobs created and jobs supported then the numbers they provide is misleading. Especially when they just lump them all together into one big number that makes them look good.
I'm curious as to how they determine the number of jobs created via their app economy.
Many of the jobs they list do not belong to them and they may actually play a small part in the job itself. Unless they own the transportation company they can't lay claim to the truck driver's job since he's probably delivering stuff for other companies at the same time.
How did Apple create or support healthcare jobs?
People working to build their stores is a short-term deal. Similar to the truck driver example, unless they own the construction company they can't take credit for the entire job.
I'm not saying they cannot lay claim to a great deal of success because most of what they say is probably true. But unless they break the numbers down to realistic examples of jobs created and jobs supported then the numbers they provide is misleading. Especially when they just lump them all together into one big number that makes them look good.
This is beyond pathetic. Who exactly are Apple trying to impress with this?
To summarise, they highlight 514k US jobs created of supported by Apple. Now the two operative word in that sentence is "US", and "supported".
1. Direct jobs created for US citizens who are on Apple's payroll is a fraction of this. (47k), so about 9%.
2. They say US jobs, because do you realise how much they outsource?
I personally don't have a major issue with outsourcing. Go where ever the labour is cheap. (And in Apples defence they do try and stay as transparent as possible with Foxconn and employee treatment ethics).
Obama asked Jobs directly once, "what will it take to bring Apple manufacturing back to the States". That is never going to happen. But again, I don't have an issue with that, but spinning their profiteering into philanthropy is utter crock-shit.
Do you realise the jobs they are listing within their "supporting" grouping?
- Business Sales
- Healthcare
- Customer Sales
- Transportation
Who are they including in this? BestBuy employees? The 40% of private Doctors that now say they use as iPad professionally and the FedEx employees who ship the goods on overnight freight?
I'm just suprised they left off the pilots who carry the cargo. They could have squeezed another 400 jobs into that number for sure.
Ultimately, 99% of these people all had jobs before Apple. The truck driver delivered his goods. The healthcare professional was still practicing and the salesmen were still selling. (How by the way does Apple create healthcare jobs?)
Don't read this for anything more than it is. PR bullshit.
Do you know what Apple doesn't want? Some campaign runner trying to decrease US unemployment numbers by saying that the largest US technology company needs to start employing more people. This is a pre-emptive PR measure.
To summarise, they highlight 514k US jobs created of supported by Apple. Now the two operative word in that sentence is "US", and "supported".
1. Direct jobs created for US citizens who are on Apple's payroll is a fraction of this. (47k), so about 9%.
2. They say US jobs, because do you realise how much they outsource?
I personally don't have a major issue with outsourcing. Go where ever the labour is cheap. (And in Apples defence they do try and stay as transparent as possible with Foxconn and employee treatment ethics).
Obama asked Jobs directly once, "what will it take to bring Apple manufacturing back to the States". That is never going to happen. But again, I don't have an issue with that, but spinning their profiteering into philanthropy is utter crock-shit.
Do you realise the jobs they are listing within their "supporting" grouping?
- Business Sales
- Healthcare
- Customer Sales
- Transportation
Who are they including in this? BestBuy employees? The 40% of private Doctors that now say they use as iPad professionally and the FedEx employees who ship the goods on overnight freight?
I'm just suprised they left off the pilots who carry the cargo. They could have squeezed another 400 jobs into that number for sure.
Ultimately, 99% of these people all had jobs before Apple. The truck driver delivered his goods. The healthcare professional was still practicing and the salesmen were still selling. (How by the way does Apple create healthcare jobs?)
Don't read this for anything more than it is. PR bullshit.
Do you know what Apple doesn't want? Some campaign runner trying to decrease US unemployment numbers by saying that the largest US technology company needs to start employing more people. This is a pre-emptive PR measure.
You are not making sense. Apple sells more product outside the US, too, so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas?
The rest of your accounting complaints are simply not true. If Apple represents 1% of UPS delivery business, they can rightfully claim to have created 1% of the UPS delivery person jobs.
And of course it's PR. It's PR designed to counteract some clueless congresspeople asking for economic impossibilities from a very visible US success story. But it's honest PR. Such things do exist.
The rest of your accounting complaints are simply not true. If Apple represents 1% of UPS delivery business, they can rightfully claim to have created 1% of the UPS delivery person jobs.
And of course it's PR. It's PR designed to counteract some clueless congresspeople asking for economic impossibilities from a very visible US success story. But it's honest PR. Such things do exist.
You are right that its PR, but please don't argue about it being "Honest". The common use of the term "Creating Jobs" is only those "directly employed" by your company (i.e on your company's payroll). In this context, including other indirect jobs is misleading and hence dishonest.
( I would also argue that perhaps the right way to present information to congressmen requires one to have the patience to sincerely explain to them what the situation really is rather than deliberately misleading them)
( I would also argue that perhaps the right way to present information to congressmen requires one to have the patience to sincerely explain to them what the situation really is rather than deliberately misleading them)
This is the point, though.
I agree that the layman's interpretation of "created or supported" isn't necessarily the same as the formal definition of the terms by the US govt, but criticizing Apple for using the formal definition isn't reasonable.
The intent of the formal definition is to answer the question "what would be the impact on US employment if this business were to cease operation tomorrow?", and I believe that Apple has made an honest effort to compute that number, probably rather conservatively.
Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results.
In response to your point about how to present this data to congresspeople, I'd argue that while there are some legitimate economic dunces in elected office, there are few that don't comprehend the cascade effect of business activity and therefore employment. Furthermore, I doubt that any congressperson would consider Apple's use of "create or support" to be misleading, because it is absolutely the standard usage of the term in these sorts of assessments. That does not, of course, mean that some senator who smells television coverage won't take notice of the confusion and grandstand his or her condescension for his or her electorate. It might even be a successful strategy, but we don't have to help.
Obviously I haven't audited the numbers. That's a valid line of inquiry, but history shows Apple to be fastidiously circumspect in such matters. There's a new sheriff in town in Cupertino, but if anything he seems to be even more careful.
I agree that the layman's interpretation of "created or supported" isn't necessarily the same as the formal definition of the terms by the US govt, but criticizing Apple for using the formal definition isn't reasonable.
The intent of the formal definition is to answer the question "what would be the impact on US employment if this business were to cease operation tomorrow?", and I believe that Apple has made an honest effort to compute that number, probably rather conservatively.
Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results.
In response to your point about how to present this data to congresspeople, I'd argue that while there are some legitimate economic dunces in elected office, there are few that don't comprehend the cascade effect of business activity and therefore employment. Furthermore, I doubt that any congressperson would consider Apple's use of "create or support" to be misleading, because it is absolutely the standard usage of the term in these sorts of assessments. That does not, of course, mean that some senator who smells television coverage won't take notice of the confusion and grandstand his or her condescension for his or her electorate. It might even be a successful strategy, but we don't have to help.
Obviously I haven't audited the numbers. That's a valid line of inquiry, but history shows Apple to be fastidiously circumspect in such matters. There's a new sheriff in town in Cupertino, but if anything he seems to be even more careful.
>Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results.
That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't doubt Apple's contribution to the US economy in terms of the indirect jobs that it has created, but placing it in the same category as creating direct jobs is what I don't agree with (especially since the layman usually interprets it as the latter).
That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't doubt Apple's contribution to the US economy in terms of the indirect jobs that it has created, but placing it in the same category as creating direct jobs is what I don't agree with (especially since the layman usually interprets it as the latter).
I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do you really think they are trying to trick people with (standard) terminology? Direct employment numbers are in every quarterly report, do you think they were hoping the lazy Apple press would overlook a huge employment increase?
And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions.
Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)
And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions.
Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)
> ...so who's to begrudge them having a large percentage of employees overseas?
Absolutely nothing. I have zero issue with having overseas employees. I'm not even American. The point and issue I was trying to address is that they are trying to cast themselves in some golden light as being the crusader of US employment, when a vast majority of jobs which could be brought back to the US aren't.
I would love to agree in that it is honest PR, perhaps if the word hyperbolic was put in the middle that might be true. Because they have clearly stretched these numbers quite considerably. As one commenter adds below, why not include the farmer who feeds the cows, who feeds the truck driver?
Absolutely nothing. I have zero issue with having overseas employees. I'm not even American. The point and issue I was trying to address is that they are trying to cast themselves in some golden light as being the crusader of US employment, when a vast majority of jobs which could be brought back to the US aren't.
I would love to agree in that it is honest PR, perhaps if the word hyperbolic was put in the middle that might be true. Because they have clearly stretched these numbers quite considerably. As one commenter adds below, why not include the farmer who feeds the cows, who feeds the truck driver?
So UPS didn't create those UPS jobs just because sometimes, some of the boxes they deliver have Apple products in them?
One Jobs was enough, this is a nightmare.
"For example, this figure also includes... FedEx and UPS employees."
Well, I'm sorry to hear that FedEx and UPS are responsible for creating far fewer jobs than I previously thought.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that FedEx and UPS are responsible for creating far fewer jobs than I previously thought.
Apple doesn't want one of these presidential hopefuls to start campaigning on the platform that the second largest US company needs to start creating jobs in the US.
Americans should be thanking Foxconn for supporting more than 50,000,000 American jobs. Way to go foxconn!
how many jobs do they create oversea?
FoxConn has (apparently) about 920,000 employees. Assuming 1/3rd of them work only making Apple products then triple that number based upon the ancillary jobs supporting those employees (any sub manufacturing) like how Apple's website calculates I think it would end up being 920,000 people have jobs in China because of Apple.
http://www.outsaurus.com/2011/08/01/outsourced-apple-500000-...
http://www.outsaurus.com/2011/08/01/outsourced-apple-500000-...
1/3rd seems really high. FoxConn makes lots of other things besides Apple Products.
seriously, this is PR out of control, yet there are those who will look at this and say 'Apple employs 1/2 million americans'.
Note, they include the people who 'build the planes and trucks' (I didn't realize the page scrolled at first).