Ram moving back across the border?

John & Angela wrote:


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.

There is not that much difference from a private corporation and a public one. Particularly when discussing larger companies. They both have shareholders and directors to answer to. Maximizing business value is the same regardless of the legal organizational structure. Even smaller family owned businesses answer to someone and are just as susceptible to to the same pitfalls as larger corporations. I cannot tell you how many family companies we have contracted with that paid themselves too much of their free cash flow during good times and built up a certain "standard of living". And when things get lean they cannot afford to cut back on their earnings and everything snowballs.

You can get things done with a stick or a carrot, but sometimes both have to be applied. There is usually more than one tool in the box that can accomplish the task.

The political bashing needs to stop. Maybe one of the reasons Trump was elected was due to how supporters of the opposition behave? I served under Presidents that I elected and ones that I did not while in the military, but I always gave the Commander in Chief respect. I expect the same from the losing party this round.

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.

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.

It's not the truck.. it's the movement of a plant back to US.

tomman58 - what in the world are you talking about? Treason? WTF.

Where's the source of this kool-aid?

Mike

How did a dodge truck turn into a political statement for Trump? judging what the news is saying today, he and his golden showers may be history soon. Treason is not what we need.

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Flying this flag in a 55 up RV park in SoCal since October. You would be amazed at the amount of Canadians that have came to me saying "I sure like your flag" or "I am from Canada but I am sure he will help our Country also".

The positive business environment and the positive attitude of the average joe will make North America prosperous again.

Trump talks "fair trade" big difference compared to "free trade".

Keep this civil, it may stay open for a while!

Very nice... :C

Thanks!

Proposed changes in Corporate tax policies and rates will likely make it more attractive for companies that sell primarily in the United States to return production to the United States. What may very well happen is a company will decide it is advantageous to build a new US plant that maximizes automation versus a foreign plant that relies on cheaper labor. This may mean the US gets a plant with 1000 workers while Mexico loses a plant that employs 3000. I really don't know if that is good or bad for the world, but it will be good for the US in the short run for sure. Long term, who knows, because the largest new markets for US products is the developing world. If we slow that development, we slow those emerging markets. Is GM better off selling one expensive Cadillac in America or 5 super cheap Chevrolets in Mexico? I really don't know. That is above my pay grade.

If we take a step back and think about it, who would you want to take control and build the US industrial and business base back up? Someone who has built highly successful and profitable businesses or a political guy? The fact that Tillerson has a golden parachute, while I don't like the excess at the expense of the workers, that was a BUSINESSES decision on what THEY (Exxon) felt THEY needed to do for THEIR business.

I want the best minds in the business to fix our economy and bring jobs back to the US. You can't argue with the success that Trump has had, or those he's bringing on board. You may not LIKE it because Tillerson got a golden parachute of enormous proportions, but hey, if he's able to command that level of compensation, fine. I don't expect him to turn against business, but I expect him (and others) to improve the trade relationships such that these businesses thrive. I want every business in the US to make as much profit as legally possible. I want every CEO to be a greedy bastard and strive to improve his or her's company value and profit at every opportunity. That means growth, and that means more jobs for my fellow citizens.

In terms of Trumps son-in-law.. who cares. He can seek advice from anyone he wants. And I like the idea that he is bringing in people who have diametrically opposite points of view than his. It helps make sure he sees all sides and makes an informed decision.

Mike

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