Ford May Close 5 North American Plants

WindsorFox wrote:

>
> OMG holy crap! I didn't know that. Where did you gleen this info? I
> want to know more. My opinion of China is at an all time low these days.

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.

"Kruse" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> WindsorFox wrote:
>
>>
>> OMG holy crap! I didn't know that. Where did you gleen this info? I
>> want to know more. My opinion of China is at an all time low these days.
>
> 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.

351CJ wrote:
>>
>
>
> 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,

In article >, fclaugus wrote:

> CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for poor
> performance.

Which is most of the time.

> If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
> their cut ?

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%.

In article <6BHkf.16763$_k3.15436@dukeread01>, WindsorFox wrote:

> OMG holy crap! I didn't know that. Where did you gleen this info? I
> want to know more. My opinion of China is at an all time low these days.

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:
> In article >, fclaugus wrote:
>
>
>>CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for poor
>>performance.
>
>
> Which is most of the time.
>
>
>> If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
>>their cut ?
>
>
> 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%.
>
>
>
>

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.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, fclaugus
wrote:
>
> > CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for
poor
> > performance.
>
> Which is most of the time.
>
> > If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive
> > their cut ?
>
> 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.

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 ****ed. 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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%.

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

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:03:17 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

><snip>
>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.
><snip>

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.

In article >, fclaugus wrote:

> 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.

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.

>> 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.

> 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.

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.

>> 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%.

> 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.

Thanks