this is the REAL reason why american car makers are struggling..

[clips]

i know all companies are guilty of this, but if you want to try and recoup some of those losses from foreign firms, you don\'t do stupid s**t like this...they give people like this crazy money then turn around and say to the hard working employees.."uh we haven\'t been making any kind of serious revenue this quarter, so we have to let some of you go"...:rolleyes:...pathetic...make better vehicles and stop doin stupid s**t like this...and maybe toyota and crew won\'t be whoopin\' that ass.


http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/companies/ford_execpay/index.htm?cnn=yes

I agree that it\'s completely stupid.  The Ford Motor Company board would tell you that the whole system is screwed up, and they HAVE to pay their CEO that kind of money to attract and retain a "top level" executive.  
 
Maybe that\'s true, and maybe it isn\'t.  However, even if they did hire a lesser manager and paid him less, once he succeeded in the job, naturally he would demand this kind of compensation.  If HP and Wal-Mart and Boeing and Wells Fargo are paying their CEOs $xxx,xxx,xxx million, and he\'s running FORD MOTOR COMPANY, should he be paid an equivalent amount or more?  If he was really successful, he could write his own ticket at any other transnational corporation.
 
If he wasn\'t successful, the board would fire him, and it would be that much harder to hire someone else in the same position.  No one wants to risk their career being branded as the guy who destroyed Ford, without even getting a massive golden parachute out of the deal.  I\'m sure you know that in America, it\'s ME FIRST.  Pay ME what I deserve, so I can make all the shitty decisions you don\'t want to make.  Then when everything blows up, I will retire to Bermuda and play golf for the last 20 years of my life.
 
That\'s corporate america for ya.

More power to him, I say.

More power to him, I say.

I wouldn\'t go that far.  I wouldn\'t say the guy actually did enough real work to warrant that kind of pay rate, but whatever.  That\'s the way the system works, and he\'s taking advantage of it.  I\'m not sure what I would do in the same situation.

In the old days, the powerful men in a company got big bucks because they were heavily self invested in their companies (Lindberg, ford).  Now these guys get millions regardless of performance, and they can just move onto another big company after they run one into the ground.

CEO\'s seem to feel that they\'re \'entitled\' to these amounts because of the work and the amounts of money they have to control, but it\'s unjustifiable.  28 million in four months, even at 12 hours a day, 7 days a week is nearly $20,000 an hour.  Even making a more (lol) \'reasonable\' 4 million a year works out to 1000 dollars an hour with those working conditions (2K an hour for a more standard 42 hour workweek)... and you can\'t possibly be \'working\' at that level.

unjustifiable or not that\'s the way the system is.  it wasn\'t built overnight; it took years & years to get where it is today, getting tweaked and adjusted along the way to be a working, flexible method that produces results.  it seems like a scandalous deal to us, but his decisions will make or break the company.

i like the stock options idea.  basically the only way he can cash in on all that stock is if he raises it 4%+.  So it\'s up to him to decide what his salary bonus will be.  a good way of keeping a CEO in check

[clips]

 Pay ME what I deserve, so I can make all the shitty decisions you don\'t want to make.  Then when everything blows up, I will retire to Bermuda and play golf for the last 20 years of my life.
 
That\'s corporate america for ya.

i see we\'re you\'re comin\' from with that remark....before i was outsourced at my last job in jersey, the ceo that was in charge stepped down because, the chairmen of the boards wanted him to outsource and basically strip down our workforce...now mind you the company i worked for quarterly profits was almost always in the field of 240 - 350 million a quarter!....but when the chairmen asked the ceo to hand down the layoffs, he quit and stated that he did not want to be a part of it...so they hired some guy from general motors, who came in and almost instantly started cleaning house....

i remember our manager in out IT dept went to higher ups with a plan to save the dept over 9 million a year...*this was an attemp to keep us from bein outsourced* but the guys in upper management even rejected that!....a savings of 9 million? and you still push for the outsourcing?....i can see if the company was in the red as far as profits and earnings are concerned but trust, they were making tons of money every quarter.....the word greed comes to mind....



i also wanted to add that when they did hire the new ceo from general motors it was no-where near what ford paid this clown,...it wasn\'t 28 million, but he got paid a nice 7.1 million just to come thru the door...

In the US, there is a MAJOR problem with the system.

It is ILLEGAL for a company not to try and maximize profits.  They CAN be SUED for this by their shareholders.  This takes humanity, decency, and morals out of the equation for business.

- Outsourcing cheaper?  Fire long time employees.
- Dumping into the ocean less expensive than the fine you pay for the damage?  Screw the environment.
- Monopolistic patent behavior makes more money?  Nuts to the American dream, one company should own everything.

Any publicly traded corporation could face shareholder revolt over not taking such steps, REGARDLESS of whether or not they\'re 200 million in the black in a year or not.  Until that changes, and morals come back into business, big business will be a breeding ground for the people in the world with no inner compass.

[Titan]

American motor companies seriously need to get back to their roots. A lot of stuff is outsourced and they try to play the ticket that they are truly American. If it is so American, why is Paco piecing my engine together at a whopping 30 cents an hour?

- Outsourcing cheaper?  Fire long time employees.
- Dumping into the ocean less expensive than the fine you pay for the damage?  Screw the environment.
- Monopolistic patent behavior makes more money?  Nuts to the American dream, one company should own everything.

Just playing devil\'s advocate here but:

1) Why should you care if a lazy american loses his or her job because someone in a poorer country is willing to do it better & cheaper?  so an american loses thier job and gets welfare checks while messican petey is able to put frijoles on his family\'s table after landing a decent position doing easy work.  what\'s so unfair about that?

2) i am not sure how much this practice you described goes on but it sounds heinous.  this is something the EPA should be regulating, not shareholders...  one may think, though, that maybe dumping stuff in the middle of the ocean isn\'t as bad as you think.  chemicals yea, that\'s bad.. but stuff that rots and biodegrades is a different story

3) ehhh no one likes a monopoly but i\'m struggling to think of companies other than the obvious one that fits your description.  just about every product i can think of has an alternative.  not saying monopolies don\'t go on... but the free market will create competition if there is use for it

[Jumpman]

In the US

Location: Ontario, Canada

Where do you learn this stuff? Seems like obscure knowledge to me.

[GmanJoe]

American cars suck.

Trucks kick ass though.

I might be fiercely Canadian, but I still like to have knowledge aboot things going on around the world... and the US is an important one to know aboot.

THX:

1) If you truly believe in a non-nationalistic way of life, there\'s no real issues.  But I believe in nationalism as well as self-preservation.  If you look at the consequences of constant outsourcing on a national/local economy, such things will have an effect on your life at some point.

2) It\'s very common.  The problem is that the EPA DOES regulate, but for example, Carnivale cruiseships pays a 25 000 dollar fine every day for dumping bleach and dry-cleaning chemicals into the ocean from all it\'s ships... the reason being that it would cost them more to do it safely.  Companies must choose the most cost effective things to do, as long as they don\'t knowingly commit felonies, they can break rules/regulations/bylaws all the time.  New laws/fines/regulations have a hard time keeping up with the pace of growth for many mega corporations.

3) There\'s the big obvious one, but there are many others.... There are companies that patent as much as possible, and don\'t develop it, but use it in the future to get money out of companies later.   Remember the whole RIM/Blackberry thing?  Often times the same companies are all owned by the same mega corporation.  In Canada, for example, a Beer company, Molson, owns all the Molson brands, and more.  Corona, Creemore, Mick\'s, Canadian, Fosters, Heineken, and Pilsner are all their brands of beer here, but they also own Dempster\'s group of breads (which has about 40% of the bread market in Canada under various names), they own 20% of the Montreal Canadiens and sponser 8 other hockey teams, 50% of brewer\'s retail (beer store Ontario), and a bunch of other food-product companies.  Molson themselves are owned by or partnered with Coors US, who own a lot.

1. yes they do have an affect on my life right now... cheaper prices on products.  More availability, and maybe even better quality.  Call me a traitor if you want but when it comes to business the almighty dollar (for lack of a better term) is the bottom line.  It\'s the great equalizer, which can be both good & bad, it makes perfect sense to me and I don\'t think this should change.  People should work to keep their jobs and be a contributing member of society.

2. ok so there\'s tons of soap in the ocean.  well what if this is only causing $10,000 worth of "damage" to the sea?  So the EPA gets a check for $25k, which is enough to help preserve natural habitats elsewhere, plant trees, and then some.  Many may consider this a fair tradeoff.  I guess I\'m assuming the EPA charges steep fees to help recoup damage done to the environment, which I\'m pretty certain neither of us know the answer.

3. a little confused with this one.  so molson purchased the rights to sell Corona in Canada.  Why should I be alarmed?

Again I don\'t necessarily agree 100% with these statements.  I just like to think objectively when it comes to politics and criticisms of big business.  It\'s easy to complain, hell it\'s what Americans (and Canucks ) do best.

Id just like to see these CEO\'s earn some of this moeny instead of taking "business" trips.. millions in stock options..huges bonuses and salaries all for doing next to nothing.

How much work did this guy really do. He took a pay day. I know I would do the same. It just makes no sense to me as to how its allowable when they lose so much money in a year but can afford to pay a person for bascially nothing.