[siglesias]

The interesting fact that is often left out of these Gates-as-philanthropist v. Jobs-as-salesman arguments is that Jobs has 1/10 the wealth that Bill Gates has, if that, even though Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. So if this is a simple comparison of allocation of wealth we find that Jobs simply hasn't taken the money (look at his paycheck v. Apple's cash holdings for crying out loud). And socially how effective is charity relative to giving it to the market? I'm not sure, but it's open to debate.

So does two decades of merciless greed followed by a decade of giving some of that money away constitute heroism? To an extent, yes. But I think we ought to give simply taking a lower cash holding a better look also.

[qq66]

Jobs' wealth is lower than Gates because Apple raised more money than Microsoft did early on, and because he sold all his stock when he left Apple and is now compensated in stock options rather than in founders' stock.

[siglesias]

He sold his stock in protest over being fired--again, for principle, not money.

With $46B cash and short term holdings in the bank, I'm sure shareholders wouldn't bat much of an eye if Jobs compensated himself with a little bit more than $1/year, as Ellison and many other tech execs do. Jobs doesn't take that cash.

The last point I'm going to make is that it's probably immaterial to the argument the exact cause of the disparity. The fact that people point at Jobs and accuse him of not being more philanthropic indicates that they are ignorant of his cash position.

[kenjackson]

Selling your stock over being fired is not a principled stand. At least not in the conventional way of thinking about it.

Plus he has on occassion been labelled the highest paying CEO in the world, due to his stock options. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/12/lead_07ceos_Steven-P-Job...

And in any case, most CEOs don't make a HUGE salary. Jobs would probably get paid $750k. The fact that he doesn't make this money is (a) hardly a dent in his wallet and (b) doesn't really make any effect on wealth allocation.

[qq66]

He sold his stock because he thought that Apple stock without him was worthless. He was right.

Now, Apple is trying to convince the market that the new Apple can function without Steve Jobs. People want to believe, but it's far from certain.

[siglesias]

I agree with you in principle, that his leaving ultimately doomed the company, but the stock price did go up when he left, and stayed up for many years.

[pavs]

> And in any case, most CEOs don't make a HUGE salary.

You should check out the banking industry.

[tsycho]

Actually, even in the banking industry, most CEOs have a salary between $0.6-1 million/year. The real money is in the bonus.

[pavs]

I think they accept such salaries because they know that the total compensation is much much higher. If there were no bonuses they would not accept such salaries. http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/

[Encosia]

Don't worry too much about Steve Jobs. Take a look at how much Disney stock he owns and the dividends that stock has been paying out.

I'll take that actual wealth over valuation on paper any day.

[mtts]

"And socially how effective is charity relative to giving it to the market? I'm not sure, but it's open to debate."

Generally speaking this is true, but if you look into the kind of charity work Bill Gates does, you'll find a lot of it is investing in setups that will be able to support themselves after a while and even pay back what was invested in them initially.