Apple Claims 514,000 Jobs in U.S.

| News

Apple has posted the results of a study that found that Apple is responsible for creating and/or supporting some 514,000 jobs in the U.S. alone—in other words, this figure does not include the hundreds of thousands of people who actually make Apple’s products in Asia. The U.S. jobs figure includes Apple’s own employees, the app economy, construction jobs for Apple’s building projects, and jobs at Apple’s U.S. suppliers and transportation partners.

Apple Jobs Graphic

Apple Jobs Graphic

The data is based on a report from Analysis Group, whom Apple commissioned to conduct the study. That study found that Apple was directly responsible for 304,000 jobs in the U.S., with another 210,000 jobs being generated by the so-called “App Economy.”

Apple said that it is employing full time employees in all 50 states in the U.S.—the company didn’t mention the District of Columbia, but it does have Apple Stores in the District, as well. All told, Apple claims 47,000 in the U.S. and 257,000 jobs at other companies that support Apple.

“This figure includes workers in Texas who manufacture processors for iOS products, Corning employees in Kentucky and New York who create the majority of the glass for iPhone, and FedEx and UPS employees,” Apple said.

Of Apple’s 47,000 direct jobs in the U.S.—those people who can call themselves Apple employees—27,350 are U.S. retail employees. That makes some 19,650 jobs in engineering, software development, management, sales, support, and other corporate jobs.

The company said it added 7,800 jobs in the U.S. on 2011, while 19,500 positions have been added since 2008. Going back to 2002, Apple said it employed only 10,000 people in the U.S.

Another interesting tidbit from the report is the fact that while Apple has 47,000 employees in the U.S., there are another 50,000 people working for companies that directly support Apple. These positions include construction jobs, catering, consultants, and other services the companies looks to third party companies to perform.

Apple also bragged about the jobs it has kept in the U.S. to provide support to its customers. The company said it maintains 21 call centers in 15 states, and that it employees 7,700 “AppleCare Advisors” to provide that support, and another 2,000 home-based Advisors.

“Relocating our call centers overseas to places like India would reduce our costs by 50 percent or more,” Apple said. “But we keep these jobs in the U.S. because it helps us deliver a better customer experience. It’s also an important reason why Apple’s technical support has led the industry for more than a decade.”

Apple’s Numbers at a Glance

304,000 current U.S. jobs supported by Apple

  • 47,000 jobs at Apple
  • 257,000 jobs at other companies, in fields that include:
    the development and manufacturing of components, materials, and equipment
  • professional, scientific, and technical services
  • consumer sales
  • transportation
  • business sales
  • healthcare

The App Economy

  • 210,000 iOS app economy jobs in the U.S.
  • 248,000 registered iOS developers in the U.S.
  • 5000+ iOS developer jobs available now on job search aggregator
  • $4 billion paid to Apple developers from App Store sales

Jobs at Apple

  • 70,000 employees worldwide
  • 47,000 in the U.S., two-thirds of worldwide headcount
  • 7800 U.S. jobs created in 2011
  • 19,500 U.S. jobs added since 2008
  • 7000 construction jobs projected to build Apple’s new Cupertino campus
  • 50 states with full-time Apple employees

Apple Retail Jobs

  • 27,350 U.S. retail employees
  • 246 U.S. stores in 44 states
  • 100+ locally hired employees per store on average
  • 4000 retail employees in the Greater New York area
  • 3500 U.S. retail employees who have worked at Apple stores for more than five years
  • 20,000 construction-related jobs created to build Apple stores in the U.S. since 2001

U.S.-Based Customer Support

  • 7700 U.S.-based AppleCare Advisors
  • 21 U.S. call centers in 15 states
  • 2000 home-based AppleCare Advisors
  • 600 advisors working for Apple while earning their college degrees





I think a number of additional jobs should be added: anyone, like myself, who makes a living in graphic design, website design, and search engine optimization.

When I was in high school in the early 80s, I worked for the school newspaper as both writer and layout artist. Back then, cut and paste was, literally, cut and paste. The tools of the trade were X-Acto knives, waxers, and rubber cement.

During my freshman year in college, the year hit 1984, and the Mac was born. Four years later, in 1988, I was renting Macs at a Kinko Copies and making brochures for my dad’s place of work, using MacDraw and a LaserWriter via a Mac Plus. I hit grad school in 1989 and was still doing work for my dad. By 1991, I was starting my second Master’s program and has used up my student assistantship. I needed money. With no car, I walked to just about every office on the campus that I thought might need a “desktop publisher,” as I then saw myself.

Thanks to Apple, I struck gold. It seemed wherever I went, boxes of brand-new Macintoshes were being unpacked. (This was Miami University of Ohio, FWIW.) By the time I finished grad school, I’d worked for the Office of Alumni and Parent Programs, the Office of Recreational Sports, the libraries, the art museum, the literary journal, a local non-university screen printer, other local businesses including a wine shop (with great perks as you might imagine), the Minority Professional Leadership Program at the university, and I’m sure others I’m forgetting.

It was pretty crazy running from one job to another, but it paid the bills, and so much more: I went from knowing how to use MacDraw to PageMaker, then Quark Express. SuperPaint gave me the ability to create original graphics, then I got my hands on Adobe Illustrator and have never let go. All of this on Macs. And all because of Apple.

They created a whole industry—desktop publishing—then re-defined the graphics industry. And while the world wide web might have been created on a NeXT—close enough to Apple, don’t you think?—would that even have been possible without the Mac paving the way?

I am one of the lucky ones. I love what I do to earn a living. But I owe so much of it to Apple. I build websites. I do SEO. I do 3D animation. I do graphics and Photoshop and page layout with InDesign. I’m typing this on my beloved 3.04 GHz iMac, the best computer I’ve ever used. I’ll be using it tomorrow to begin building a new website for a former website client of mine.

How many others out there share my story? How many wouldn’t be where they are today had the Mac never come along? It changed the world, and gave me—someone always torn between science, engineering, and the arts—a very happy place in it.

I end on this note: In 1982, I saw the movie TRON. At the time I was learning rudimentary computer graphics on my TI99/4A. I watched the light cycle scene and was so blown away, that I dreamed of one day doing something similar. That day finally came a few years ago when I got to create an original 90-second animated video for my main client. No one at PIXAR will lose sleep over this, but It was the culmination of decades of dreaming.

Created using Cinema 4D, with assists from the Adobe Creative Suite. On several Macs. With animation programmed in on the Mac I’m using right now. And original music created via GarageBand. Vocal narration recorded via GarageBand. Final video put together using Final Cut Pro. It’s not on my best website—I’m re-designing it—but the video is the proudest thing I’ve ever done:

And I owe so much of it to Apple. How many more out there share a similar story???


I think a number of additional jobs should be added:

Not to mention organisations like TMO and a host of podcasters, bloggers, pundits, e-publishers (I know, sensitive that), tech-watchers, etc, etc…and the markets that go to support them (servers, microphones, monitors, etc, etc…). Some of these are whole industries that, until the iPod, did not even exist.

As difficult and diffuse a list as this would be to compile, it would give pause to critics who claim that Apple have primarily shifted jobs overseas (an act, too, that is not as black and white as some depict).


What they don’t say is how many jobs Apple has eliminated from the US economy, not only by moving its manufacturing and parts-sourcing to Asia, but also by decimating such competitors as RIM, HP’s webOS team, and third-party Apple retail.

Capitalism being capitalism, of course, there’s nothing inherently bad about one business succeeding by bringing another business down ? it’s a dog-eat-dog world, after all. But it is important when looking at “jobs created” numbers to keep in mind the number of jobs that were eliminated to support the ones created.


Capitalism being capitalism, of course, there?s nothing inherently bad about one business succeeding by bringing another business down


That is certainly one way of looking at it, but it is not a mainstream take on capitalism. In the hurly burly of competition, you either win in a niche, adapt to another one, or die. No tears, no excuses, and no sympathy for those who cry ‘Unfair, they outcompeted us’. Indeed, doing so blames consumers for making choices in their own best interests, as ultimately, success or failure depends on consumers. Consumers are under no obligation to pay for inferior products if they believe something better and within reach is to be had. Choice is good, and the richest choice comes through competitive vetting.

Moreover, truly adaptive entrepreneurs are those who, if they lose one competition, reinvent themselves, up their game, and engage in a new one. If they succeed, then, at least by the numbers if not the self-same individuals, they create yet new jobs and support yet new industries. Those who cannot do so, should probably be working for someone else.

On all of the above, the winning, the losing and the reinvention, Steve Jobs and Apple are a case study.


That is certainly one way of looking at it, but it is not a mainstream take on capitalism.

So wab95, when the Dept. of Labor reports “250,000 jobs added in the past 3 months” but fails to mention that 90k jobs were lost, balancing out to 160k net actual jobs “created”, you defend that position because “it is not a mainstream take on capitalism” and we live in a capitalist society?

Hey, buddy, Think Different. Don’t conform to the “mainstream take” - think outside the normal framework that is imposed on you. Or, just be another fanboy pal. Whatever.


So wab95, when the Dept. of Labor reports ?250,000 jobs added in the past 3 months? but fails to mention that 90k jobs were lost, balancing out to 160k net actual jobs ?created?, you defend that position because ?it is not a mainstream take on capitalism? and we live in a capitalist society?


The comparison you make is apples and oranges (no pun intended).

You are correct, the US Dept of Labor and similar labour ministries worldwide need to know and report the difference between total job gains and job losses as one of the indicators of economic growth and a metric of economic health. But these are simple aggregated data, even when they are stratified by sector (e.g. construction).

That is a far cry from a report by a corporate entity of either its financial performance or the number of jobs associated with its products and services. And yes, it is not the standard that when a business reports the number of its employees and allied workforce, that it is asked to offset that report by losses among competitors as a result of its performance. Nor for that matter, can most analysts do so, at least not without adequate surveillance data.

And for several good reasons, two of which I will describe.

Unlike a labour statistic of net job gains/losses, which is a simple balance sheet, a report of collateral damage to ones competitors in terms of labour force is a correlation, and implies causality. That simply is not straight forward - attributing causality in any discipline requires a very high standard of data integrity and analysis, and usually must pass peer review before it is accepted. This is further complicated when you want to make correlations among very different types of businesses and business models. For example, people love to compare Microsoft and Apple or Google and Apple. All three are in very different businesses and have very different corporate models, even when they compete on a specific front. Should one or another lay off a segment of its workforce, attributing this solely to one competitor without hard data to justify this, risks what scientists refer to as ecological fallacy (correlating two events that share a temporal relationship and then assigning, incorrectly, causality).

No business or corporate entity is held to this standard, and although it would not be the first time that Apple are held to a standard that other corporations, including their competitors (e.g. employee conditions at Foxconn), are not, however just the standard may be in principle, is unfair - the parties are not being treated equally. If you want to hold Apple to that standard, then hold everyone to that standard.

The second reason is, in a competitive market, the competition between businesses in the marketplace is actually indirect, as the real focus is the consumer. Ultimately, the quarterly performance of a company is determined, not by the performance of its competitors, but by consumer behaviour - were people willing to pay for what the company offered. You may just as well blame consumers for the declining fortunes of a business as you would their competition, as the relationship is even more direct (some politicians do this - e.g. chastising one’s countrymen for not buying the national brands). It has the virtue of being more accurate than blaming, say Toyota, for GM’s woes (now happily reversed - if you are GM).

But the core of this second reason is corporate leadership. Stockholders and Boards are far more likely to assign causality for poor performance to corporate leadership, or the lack thereof, than they are to the competition per se. After all, you really cannot blame another party for producing a better widget than yours. You can blame your corporate leadership for failing to be more innovative and keeping pace. After all, this is why these leaders are rewarded as handsomely as they are - they are supposed to lead the company and its investors to the ‘promised land’ of profits and prestige (as indicated by stock prices and market cap).

All of the above can be reduced to a single concept; evidence. In assigning causality you require evidence. It is exceedingly difficult to blame your poor performance on another party in the best of circumstances. It is far easier to look closer to home for the cause of one’s own poor performance.

And no, it is not the standard in business or in life more broadly, in the hour of one’s success, to provide an account, accurate or otherwise, of how you may have adversely affected your competition.


What they don?t say is how many jobs Apple has eliminated from the US economy, not only by moving its manufacturing and parts-sourcing to Asia, but also by decimating such competitors as RIM, HP?s webOS team, and third-party Apple retail.

You’re kidding, right? Apple is successful, another company not so much, and because Apple is successful, they are responsible for the not-so-much company cutting jobs?

Apple employs X number of people.  Apple Corp. activities leads to the employment of Y people. X+Y=number of people employed by Apple.

HP cuts Z jobs because people prefer Apple’s products.  And so Apple is suposed to subtract Z, because you hold them responsible for HP cutting jobs.  That is about as convoluted thinking as I have ever seen.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account