Hummer is now Chinese....just doesn't sound right.

[MikePA]

Originally Posted by riptides

...perhaps productivity would increase.

Riiiiiight.

[MossRoad]

Originally Posted by MikePA

Riiiiiight.

HAHAHAAHhaaaa!!!!

[riptides]

Originally Posted by MikePA

Riiiiiight.

You want to offer some thoughts or insight into your word?

[jdbower]

Some more numbers just for fun! In 2007 the GM CEO had a total compensation of $14.4M. The 2008 numbers show a total of 266,000 employees. This means that if the CEO had a $0 compensation package each employee would get an extra $54 for the entire year. How much more productive would you be for a $54 bonus? If you take the top 5 people at GM you'd end up with a $146 bonus, a little better but after taxes you could probably take your wife out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant. If you don't drink alcohol. But more importantly, if you only paid the senior execs whatever you feel is reasonable (let's say $250,000 a year), then why would anyone competent head up GM when Ford, Toyota, Fiat or just about any other company would pay a lot more? This altruism would pretty much just draw in incompetence and we'd be building The Homer. Or they could pull the Iacocca publicity stunt and take no salary but pay himself in stock options and bonuses to compensate. FYI, Wagoner's salary was only $1.5M of that $14.4M package.

[MikePA]

Originally Posted by riptides

You want to offer some thoughts or insight into your word?

Thinking productivity might increase just because a C-level executive got a pay cut/bonus reduction is really a reach to find a 'benefit' in what is more often than not simple class envy and a severe case of schadenfreude.

[MossRoad]

Originally Posted by MikePA

Thinking productivity might increase just because a C-level executive got a pay cut/bonus reduction is really a reach to find a 'benefit' in what is more often than not simple class envy and a severe case of schadenfreude.

O.K..... I had to look that one up!

[2manyrocks]

Found it elsewhere, but ain't in my Webster's collegiate dictionary.

Waiting for Bird to say "big words are a prohibited topic on TBN."

My point was that some CEO's are so insulated from the reality faced by the common guy, that they too easily make decisions that mess up lots of other people.

[MikePA]

Originally Posted by 2manyrocks

...some CEO's are so insulated from the reality faced by the common guy...

Some 'common guys' don't have any idea what it takes to run a company and think the only purpose of a company is to provide jobs. I also believe this 'CEOs don't understand the 'common guy' is nothing more than thinly veiled class envy and makes people who believe it susceptible to anyone who promises or proposes 'get even with 'em' policies.

Originally Posted by 2manyrocks

...that they too easily make decisions that mess up lots of other people.

Some do, most don't. They are human beings, too and you have no idea whether they make decisions easily or with great difficulty.

Back to my original post, having CEOs suffer some kind of financial setback wont put a dime in your pocket.

[MossRoad]

Originally Posted by 2manyrocks

My point was that some CEO's are so insulated from the reality faced by the common guy, that they too easily make decisions that mess up lots of other people.

That can sometimes be the case. However, the workers in the auto industry, union, to be specific, need to take some of the blame for the current problems in the automotive industry as well, not just the CEOs. They get paid way more than average wages and priced themselves out of the market. I mean, really, you have some guys with nothing more than a high school education doing repetitive tasks earning big wages. Then you throw in incentives to do your job correctly and show up for work, etc... things that would get normal folks fired for not doing them, and the job bank that had tens of thousands of union laborers collecting wages while not working, and you have to blame both the labor and management for the failure of the industry. Labor wanted it and management gave it to them.

The same thing caused the failure of a 100+ year old well established company back in the 60's. It was called Studebaker.

[riptides]

Originally Posted by MikePA

Back to my original post, having CEOs suffer some kind of financial setback wont put a dime in your pocket.

Executive pay and packages need to be more closley aligned to company performance in general. It might not put a dime in the pocket of the workers, but it will put cents in the shareholders pockets.