Ford (new) CEO Alan Mulally made $28M for four months work

What does this guy do that is worth $43,750 an hour?

 

Okay. Make that $61,093.75 an hour.

Or maybe the difference is "overtime"?


Sorry, but I won't buy any of the whining and complaining about Union wages or cost of healthcare when this guy is putting away more in an hour than his workers make in a year.

I'll bet at GM it's worse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Apr 6 2007, 03:53 AM) [snapback]418676[/snapback]</div>

Heck ... I could lay off all the hourly folks, loose millions on my 1st months on the job, with MORE millions schedueled to be lost . . . for that kind of scratch. And then folks wonder why we buy Toyotas.

 

We need maximum wage laws. Nobody is worth that kind of money. Nobody. It's just another kind of legalized theft, and another example of how our legal system is designed so that the ways rich people rob poor people are "legal" while the ways poor people rob rich people (of much less money!!!) are illegal.

 

I think what we need is to reform the ways that the Board of Directors of public companies are constituted. The Board is charged with setting executive compensation so that the company is served well. Right now, they are filled with cronies and buddies of the CEO who make the case that to attract good talent you must pad the salary with signing bonuses and stock options.

So he earned "only" $666,667 in salary for the quarter ... HEY, that's only ONE DOLLAR more than the "Double Anti Christ"! (Sorry, couldn't resist). But $7.5 million in a signing bonus and $11 million to compensate him for what he lost by leaving Boeing. He received $7.8 million in stock options (which, unlike the stock options offered to workers, are simple gifts, without a base amount the option is worth).

But get this ... the company even makes his 401K contribution for him! I guess so, it would be so hard for him to part with the $15,000 maximum he can contribute in a year while only earning a 20-some million in cash this year! AND, they paid his TAXES on the money!

I think that's the way you attract con artists and feather bedders. This guy will ride the normal swing up that Ford will take in the next few years, and then bail out to more millions in whatever golden parachute we don't know about.

Find an agressive, hand's on manager who will take the job for a million a year, with stock options with a base of today's stock price, but a redeemable date 5 years in the future. Give him 28 million worth, if you want. Each year, give him more stock that can be redeemed in five years. Make these guys take a long term view, not the short term view these kinds of deals generate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 6 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]418935[/snapback]</div>

I agree, but it would best be done with a top income tax bracket of something like 75% over 10 million dollars (with state income taxes, it would be about total tax rate of 80-84% in most states). Then, there would be little incentive for the company and their executives to pay more than that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 6 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]418971[/snapback]</div>

I own something like 2 shares of US Bank (my wife works there) and there is a shareholder referundum about having shareholders have a say in executive compensation this month. The CEO and board of directors sent out a letter with the proxy voting card about how if passed US Bank would be at this huge disadvantage and would lose talent, etc. etc. etc. Nevertheless I voted for it.

Concerning how Board of Directors are filled with cronies - you couldn't be more correct. Look at any board of directors list and see how many are CEO's or high-level executives are at other companies, and then look at those company's board of directors and there will most likely be the CEO or other high executive of the first company on there. It is a web of favoritism, and the only way that these huge salary and bonus schemes are approved. It is a sham on the workers of this country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 6 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]418985[/snapback]</div>

It goes beyond Corporations.

I've been hearing about the same sorts of things happening with Universities now.

In one, the person in charge of student loans would make a list of prefered lenders. To get on the prefereed list, the lenders gave this guy stock and/or kickbacks.

Then there was the person in charge of scholarships giving scholarships to friends and family. Same with hiring, etc.

It has to do with how these people get hired. And accountability.

And no, I don't think making a high tax bracket for the überwealthy is going to accomplish anything. Read the thread on Cheney's tax return. The überwealthy will always find a way to pay no taxes, or at least less than anyone else. They have the money to hire the lawyers and accountants to see that they don't pay their fair share.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 6 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]419002[/snapback]</div>

I heard about the student loan lender thing recently too .

I read about Cheney's tax return and am mixed about it. Giving millions to charity isn't exactly indulging yourself. It isn't like he is using the charity money for his own enrichment. The way I read it is that he and his wife kept almost 2 Million of their earnings and paid over 500,000 dollars in taxes. Just because money went through him to charities doesn't make it criminal (though I am interested to see what charities benefitted, and I think that government could have used it on some level to benefit all of us too). I have a lot of hate for Cheney, but I will hate him for the right reasons. No doubt that tax loopholes and other taxes need to be worked on, but a top tax rate at 75% or so on earnings over 10 million or so would put a sort of cap on what these CEO's make. If they still decide to pay a CEO 60 million dollars but he gives 50 million to charity, it isn't like the CEO is really making himself wealthier (though he might become more smug of his 'generosity'). The idea is that the company would pay 10 million dollars, and the rest of the money goes to workers wages or benefits, or even to shareholders (who are mostly well off, but I don't care so much).

 

I saw a study once that said no matter what the top tax rate is, the average that wealthy wage earners pay is about 22%. We did have a rate way up there prior to 1980, at something like 70%, but almost no one paid that.

If you put in a 90% tax rate on compensation, they will get the money in some other way (stocks, etc.) Or the buddies on the Board will simply increase their wages to the point where the 90% rate doesn't matter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 6 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]418971[/snapback]</div>

I agree completely. Where's the incentive to do anything? As usual this guy will bail with millions and he'll screw over thousands of wage types in the process. It's really nauseating. The system is broken. Who would invest in a company like this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 6 2007, 11:29 PM) [snapback]419282[/snapback]</div>

That is a problem. When the majority stock holders are nameless, faceless pension plan managers who make all their decisions on the basis of technical analysis and the prospect of profit in the next quarter, then you know you don't really have a voice in changing the direction of the company.

Although, there is a guy who owns a minority interest in Home Depot ... less than 10%, IIRC ... and he is effecting some real change in that company. They even kicked out the CEO, and are changing some of their practices, including getting out of the wholesale supply business. I guess the minority stock holder is able to leverage his influence since the "technical analysts" at the pension funds will listen to him, and the Board is scared of that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Apr 6 2007, 04:52 AM) [snapback]418689[/snapback]</div>

LMAO. Do you think the CEO of Toyota works for free?

This is a free market economy boys and girls. If he wasn't worth what he earns, why would anyone pay him that? Seriously, I love it when people say things like "nobody is worth that blah blah blah" obviously, they are or people wouldn't be fighting over them the way they do. Football stars, CEOs, they're all the same.

LMAO again. There are countries you can go live in where there are maximum wage laws. Those countries don't have nearly the economy countries with free market economies have. Maximum wage laws and capitalism simply do not coexist. In a free market economy things are worth what people will pay for them, people are a commodity just like wood or milk. If someone will pay this guy $40 Million a year, who are you or anybody else to say they aren't worth that kind of money? Something is worth what somebody will pay. Ford is a stupid company, and if he can get them to pay him $40 Million, good for him shut em down.

Go live in one of those other countries, don't change my country to make it what you want when what you want exists elsewhere.

 

Hey, the guy did save the president of the US from blowing himself up:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../704070338/1148

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Apr 9 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]420410[/snapback]</div>

The next chapter in this tradegy will be Ford whining that they have no profits and no money for R&D so the union and other nonunion workers will need to take a pay cut. This guy's photo should be on the wall of the Post Office with the other theives and scam artists. For that kind of money he should be able to turn straw into gold.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Apr 9 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]420410[/snapback]</div>

They pay him that because of buddy-buddy arangements, and overlapping boards of directors, where they all pay each other obscene amounts of the stockholders' money in a big mafia-like family circle. It's called theft, only it's legal, because they write the laws also.

So why don't the stockholders kick them out? Because they themselves own enough stock to keep control. It doesn't take a majority interest, when most of the stock is spread out around an enormous number of smaller stockholders.

So why don't the stockholders sell their stock and invest in other companies instead? Because all big companies are run the same way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 05:35 PM) [snapback]420528[/snapback]</div>

So this car will explode if you stick the electrical cord into the wrong spot??? Great design, Ford. Of course, after the Pinto, I'm not surprised.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]420528[/snapback]</div>

Well...everybody makes mistakes

As for all this CEO stuff, arguing with you guys is pointless because you've already made up your minds. Highly paid people are evil, simple as that. You don't truly understand the way business works in the first place, so I'm gonna move on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Apr 6 2007, 02:53 AM) [snapback]418676[/snapback]</div>

This is also not what it appears. He drew no salary, but he did make $11M in options and bonuses.