Do a google search. Chevy Equinox has: Chinese made engine. Japanese made tranny. Assembled in Canada. And a previous poster wanted Americans to buy "American" vehicles. And you wonder why all the American assembly plants are closing. I'm wondering how the stock holders allow the huge executive salaries.
All new Daimler Chrysler Dodge Rams are built in Mexico. All new Daimler Chrysler Dodge Hemi engines are built in Mexico.
Interesting. I test drove a Charger SRT-8 the other day. WOW! I don't care if the parts were made in Timbuktu...it's a very fast/fun car to drive at an extremely reasonable price for what you get. Fit and finish seemed to be top notch too. When I get tired of my twin turbo A6, the SRT-8 might get the nod for the new "family sedan." 8-)
For the impractical "fun" car, I'm still looking at a Mustang GT + supercharger + Shelby eye candy.
Cheers,
Which is most of the time.
Shouldn't an engineer who does the same get his?
I saved an major US corporation I worked for aproximately $12,000,000. What was my cut? 0. Zero. I would have gotten my salary and bonus by just leaving the crap design I inherited in place and making it work, without creatly a vastly less expensive and more reliable one.
Such a performance arguement makes best sense if it's used across the board. If people just get their salary / wage and some convouted bonus based on company wide performance, that's all the CEO should get. If the CEO gets paid for specific actions that effect the bottom line in a commission type basis, so should everyone else.
If you really believe in the performance arguement I should have had a least 1% of what I saved the company. I am sure the CEO got more than 1%.
It's old news that GM is making engines in china. I've heard it from a variety of sources.
CEO salaries for what they really do make me sick and is hurting the creativity in the US. I am really surprised that not very many CEO get killed from upset employees. CEO's salary should be no more that ten times the average of the working employees which is reality is still to high but at least would cap it somewhat and would also increase at 10 times the rate of the working employees.
Brent P wrote:
as someone who can remember what it was like when the first Mustang was introduced in Spring of '64: what a difference!
as I recall, they knew they'd sell well, but were surprised at the demand......but they reacted quickly, switching over additional plants to meet the demand.....and setting all those sales records.
now.....they knew the old 'Stang was still selling over 150,000 a year....and had to have some idea of what the demand would be for the new style.
so they relegate assembly to 1 plant (the Ford/Mazda Auto Alliance facility) with a limited capacity........now running about 4400 a week. if they could make more, they could sell more......but apparently they'd rather sell fewer at a higher mark-up....and lower overhead by closing plants that could be used to make popular models.
Meanwhile, Mazda6 production has to be limited to make 'Stangs.........but they gleefully produce near-identical Fusions-Milans-Zephyrs in a Mexican plant so they can pay lower wages with fewer benies. (and this the company that chided GM for "cookie cutter" cars).
Total FoMoCo North American car/truck production is off about 200,000 units so far this year........that they could make-up by producing more 'Stangs.....but they'd rather bust the union's balls by crying wolf and moving production out of the US.....sad.
Chrysler doing the same thing: US made Neon sedans were still hot sellers (despite no promotion) but discontinued. The PT Cruiser (a Neon plaform with another body) still going great guns....produced in Mexico.
You have a good point. And this would be different if you had this built into your contract, not that your company would agree to this, however. They perfer to pay you a flat salery for your services.
A good ceo is hard to get, and companies are willing to pay large high sums if they believe it gives tham a competitive advantage. If paying a better ceo 5 million more makes the company 100 million in profits, isn't he worth the extra money ? The problem is, many executives are overpaid. And if I worked for a company that had to fire me to save money and still paid their ceo millions, I'd be pissed. Mad that the ceo makes more money by reducing costs, which happens to be my salery. But little can be done... Stockholders need to hold executive pay in check.
A lot of perfessions would perfer to work for a salery rather than comissions or performance bonuses. While thay might get paid more, their pay will fluctuate more with too much uncertainty.
I believe employees should be paid according to their impact on the bottom line, and I do believe you deserved some sort of bonus for your efforts, more than 1%, imo.
Fred
I agree. I believe that years ago a number of companies implemented an employee "suggestion box" that paid a percentage of net profits to the person suggesting it. (if I recall GM had it in place for a while) which worked rather well.
You should have gotten a cut, you may well have even done so if you had documented what you had done, shopped out your services to establish what you were worth to the company or others and asked for a raise or gone to a company more interested in your services (i.e. willing to pay more).
Shortly after I left high school I worked for a company that refused to pay their top performing salesman above their maximum level regardless of what he produced. He left, a year later the company folded. He got his raise, the companies owner got the shaft for being an idiot.
Unfortunately many CEO's wages are "determined" by a board stacked with their friends. Makes it hard to constrain pay. However Enron, World Com, Tyco and others have inadvertently done their part to bring Board members into line. Watching Conrad Black of late has brightened my days.
Sure... like the decisions the one of my now former employer made. He's still got a job as do all the executives and senior management. (Today was a surprise sacking day, about ~1/4-1/3 of the company I figure and half my group gone and I was in the half that's now gone.) And that's what gets people miffed. There is one senior executive who is mostly retired who is still drawing a 80% of his salary (as I heard) from before he did semi-retirement and wasn't sacked. His pay could have left probably 4-5 of the junior engineers in jobs or a couple of more senior engineers and caused no impact to the company to have him just finish his fade out.
CEOs don't just work for performance. They have base salaries. If CEO's just worked for bottom line performance there may be less of a backlash. I'd like that same deal that is always trotted out as an excuse for huge CEO pay scales. I'd like a bonus that was actually tied to the dollar amounts I added to the bottom line.
Another reason I believe it's valid to complain about CEOs is that they have the power to manipulate things in the company to their own personal favor and often do, sometimes at great cost to the rank and file.
Thanks :)
You are correct, I've never been much of a braggart or one to do the self promotion, more one who lets the work speak for itself and it cost me politically in that environment.
That's a nice difference between a publicly traded company and private one. On a publically traded company it's almost impossible to shaft someone like that.
That's another factor that ticks people off about it that I had forgotten.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.