I have Issues with this piece.
First, the term "billion" is chosen for shock value. Insert any other number - thousand. million. $936.12 - and the argument of whether someone "deserves" it changes.
That's a big red flag, right there. He's preying on us proles and our fantasy number of "a billion dollars" to get a knee-jerk reaction.
Second, Apple has 132,000 employees. Is it worth $1/month to each of them to have their job? Yes? Ok, then Tim Cook is worth at least $1.5m/year. What about $10/month? Then $15m/year. I'd be happy to pay $100/month to have a job at Apple again. That means I'm happy with Tim Cook being paid $158m/year, to continue providing me and my coworkers with jobs we love at Apple.
Are there problems with externalizing costs by manufacturers? Absolutely. The real cost of an item needs to be paid - including dealing with the detritus of its manufacture and eventual disposal - as well as the public services (power, roads, police, water, etc.) that allow the factory/office to exist in the first place.
But choosing "a billion dollars" is a cynical emotional ploy. Go back 25 years and it'd be "$100m". Go back 50 years, and it'd be "$10m". Go back 100 years and it'd be "$10,000".
The number is irrelevant, if the expenses are paid, and the value is mutually agreed upon.