Are you sure it was him who single-handedly caused a return to profitability? Are you sure it had nothing to do with America's biggest competitor in the car market, Japan, suffering a massive earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis? Do you think that had a tad bit to do with it?

Or are you saying that Allan Mullaly caused the earthquake? Because if he actually caused the earthquake then I agree he deserves every penny. In fact in that case I say we just all pitch in globally and give the man whatever he wants whenever he wants it.

Of course now that Japan's auto maker's are back online he might have to do that same trick again.

I am going to need to see his application.

I know what usually happens with small groups of people with disproportionate control in a large organization is they act selflessly and in the best interests of the whole and rarely, if ever, let their power corrupt them or enrich themselves unduly.

It's precisely why government is so pristine.

the best interests of the company are their interests or else they lose investors and their job too. not the same as government which we are guaranteed to have no matter how poorly its run and we have no alternatives to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Smith_(executive)

Read up on him. He got paid $7 million a year to run a company into the ground. Super high salary doesn't necessarily translate to a super performing company.

Heres an excerpt if you're too lazy to read the whole thing, but its full of little things like this when this CEO headed GM.

GM10 debacle

Smith's major new car program prior to the 1984 reorganization, GM10, has been called "The biggest catastrophe in American industrial history."[7] Beginning in 1982, and costing $7 billion, the plan was to replace all midsize cars produced by Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick. The plan was huge in scope, calling for seven plants that would each assemble 250,000 of the cars, or 21% of the total U.S. car market. It was badly executed from the start, but the 1984 reorganization wrought havoc on the program and it never recovered. By 1989, the year before the last of the GM10s were launched, GM was losing $2000 on every one of the cars it produced. When asked by Fortune why GM10 was such a catastrophe, Smith replied, “I don't know. It's a mysterious thing. I've said I'll take my share of the blame on all those things. I was part of the team.”[7]

Oh cool, an example! There have been some bad fast food workers, therefore all fast food workers are overpaid.

Yes but fastfood workers don't get paid 400x the yearly salary of the average American. Having a high salary does not translate into higher profits for the company or more jobs. I saw a graph recently that showed the more workers the CEO laid off, the better he got paid.

The term golden parachute means where a CEO makes off like a bank robber even though he ran his company into the ground.

In this graph I got the CEO's are getting paid way better than how their companies are performing. THe workers pay is completely flat.



Your thinking is what is leading this country into a plutocracy and 1% economy.

Gosh, I wonder how many applicants they would get for that job? Oh wait...

Sabotaging? They don't have to sabotage the company. They just pay themselves a ridiculous amount of the operating costs of the company at the expense of everyone else who works there and some of the profits.

The board of directors are largely all in the same club.

Of course it makes sense.

By the way... what is your experience and age? Just curious since you seem so certain that my 20 years experience in the workplace is invalid, I feel confident that you have some weighty experience and study of the world to back up your belief that, for instance, CEOs pay rising 300% while corporate profits go up 100% while everyone else at the company increases 4%... that this is justified.

i think a private company can justify paying however much they want to whoever they want. its not my problem if they run themselves into the ground with bad decisions

however, it is my problem when the government bankrupts themselves and forces me and other citizens to pay the bill

Well that banking mess became everyones problems because several companies had run themselves into the ground, and the tax payers had to bail them out. Once they were bailed out it was back to business as usual, exorbitant CEO and Executive pay and a suffering mainstreet.

The government bankrupted itself due to tax cuts paid with borrowed money. It does not make sense to borrow money, to devoid the citizens from paying taxes.

When Romney tells us about his tax cut plan, he is not running on tax cuts. He is running on forced future tax increases and spending cuts. The Bush tax cuts were not offset with a tax increase or a spending cut. THe debt more than doubled in his tenure as a result.

The government is bankrupt because Starve the Beast fiscal theory completely failed at lowering government spending to mee the reduced revenues from passing tax cuts not offset with tax increases or spending cuts.

This is one of the best articles I ever read informing me about the budgetary situation of the country, and how we found ourselves in this mess.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax...-bartlett.html

Mixed with this graph it made perfect sense to me.



What the graph shows it the country did not begin to have major debt problems until Reagan entered office. While Clinton did help reduce our debt problem it again got exacerbated under the next 8 years of Republican leadership under George W Bush.

THe problem with the debt is we pay compound interest on it. So if the debt is $10,000,000,000 at a 5% borrowing rate, withing 15 years we will owe $20,000,000,000 on it. Thats a rough example, but unless something drastic is done, it will run away from us, out of control similar to greece. While some Austerity is called for, we definitely need to throw out failed policies like Starve the Beast that brought about the problem in the first place.

Romney has a tax cut plan for this country, and he is hoping, HOPING that there will be exponential GDP growth as a direct cause of his tax cuts. If the GDP growth is paltry or non-existant with further tax cutting in place, like it was under Reagan and GWB, we can expect a mountain of debt bigger than Mt. Everest to be left behind by his presidency.

You're just jealous and angry nobody in the world would pay more than a few bucks for whatever you are capable of doing.

Don't assume others are like you. If I can hire a guy to lead my company and increase profits by 8.8 billion dollars, I'll easily throw 29 million at him.

Ford was losing 12 billion a year before Alan took over, now they posted 8.8 billion in profit without any bailout money.

29 million a year is being grossly underpaid.

This is a poker forum, why haven't you understood this simple EV math yet?

You willing to pay a firefighter 20 million a year to save your house from burning?

If my properties burn to the ground because there are no firefighters. I'll be very happy.

Insurance will cover me to rebuild a completely new property!

Yes.

Just read a book on Ford describing last 10 years, before and after Mullaly. There isn't many individuals on Earth on the CEO market capable of doing what he did.

I'd pay him 50 million a year and still go to sleep happy knowing he made me 9 billion.


Instead of resenting those that get paid 8 figures a year. Why don't you read about them and figure out objectively for yourself how they do what they do for someone to pay them that much.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Icon-...s=alan+mulally