Ram moving back across the border?

otrfun wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

otrfun wrote:

As a CEO working with reduced profits what would you cut first? Wages? Salaries? R&D? Stockholder returns?

Management pay would be the first place to start! The real workers have not had any real pay raises for over ten years and some have had their pay cut. Just not the clowns that have caused this problem. As I posted above you can't take hundreds of millions off the top and think you are going to remain profitable and that is just what is happening to American companies now. Without good paying middle class jobs we are not going to have sustained growth and the economy will (not might) tank again!

Or maybe it's the Russian's fault!

Don

For some, excessive CEO and management compensation may be a valid concern. I'll say this, if a company's own financial well-being isn't enough incentive for it to correct a real or perceived "problem", then I say let the company fail, flounder, or flourish (in the media or literally) on its own merits.

One thing's for sure, I certainly hope we don't start regulating private sector compensation in some way to make the process seem more "fair".

Interesting you mentioned the Russians. I seem to remember they had their own way of regulating "fair" compensation before the wall came down.

However, back to my original point. Goducks10 claimed manufacturers should simply accept lower profits in order to move manufacturing back to the US. In today's climate that may be a good political move, but it certainly doesn't address any of the core, economic disparities at play.

Well, maybe a private car company could choose to just make less profit but a public one, eg share holders, not a chance. People will drop their stock like yesterdays news if company A is going to make more than company B. Unless of course the president wants to make up the difference to the share holder.