<p>Richard Dauch founded the company so that was the path he chose. I’d like to see a history of his income since the founding. It’s probably out there but I haven’t looked at it. It would also be interesting to see how his income compares and has compared to like-size companies.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Management of the car companies ought to be blamed for being stupid enough to keep depending on the revenues from SUVs and Hummers in a world of inevitable increases in oil scarcity and expense. Where were the decision makers on this?</p>
<p>You must first realize that the primary purpose of a corporation is the enrichment of senior management. Once you understand that, many things that seem irrational start to make perfect sense.</p>
<p>BedHead - I agree but they were relying on the stupidity of the American public in continuing to buy them. Dumb and Dumber.</p>
<p>Cartera:</p>
<p>Well, they are getting a huge dose of “I told you so” from people who realized that more stringent fleet mileage standards would ultimately make them more competitive. This film has been played before. The Japanese started taking over the US car market because they offered inexpensive quality cars that appealed to Californians and not as much Michiganders (I have nothing against Michiganders, but California is much more of a trendsetter). Now they may prevail to see their American competitors go out of business because instead of engineering more fuel efficient cars, they went with things like the Suburban or the Hummer. Way to go, Detroit. </p>
<p>Ah, but of course, this is all the UAW’s fault.</p>
<p>[When</a> pickup sales dived, automakers changed plans - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_apocalypse]When”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_apocalypse)</p>
<p>
Huh? Explain that in lots of detail please. The only reason that the auto makers are still alive is because of trucks. If you had taken trucks out of their product mix 5 years ago they would already be bankrupt.</p>
<p>
Can you please illustrate the mileage differences between competing cars. The Chevy Silverado has better mileage than the Toyota Tundra or Nissan Titan…</p>
<p>How about you compare the Aveo, Cobalt, Impala, CTS, etc with their competitors.</p>
<p>If you are going to slam Detroit please do it in a way that makes sense.</p>
<p>
Maybe not the UAW’s fault, but certainly them being overpaid for 20+ years put US automakers in a situation that was unsustainable.</p>
<p>
The market responding to changing conditions? Hmm, isn’t this the argument <em>against</em> fleet mileage standards?</p>
<p>
Wow. I haven’t seen Monday morning quarterbacking of this magnitude in quite a long time. If they knew oil was going to go up…they simply would have bought oil futures and made money that way. They are an automotive company, not an oil & gas investment firm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious? You think a company doesn’t have responsibility for anticipating the shifting needs/tastes of its customer base? Individual consumers can’t hedge against the price of oil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their response is coming years too late. Have you seen the loss figures for GM and Ford?</p>
<p>Car manufacturers would have been better off accepting the cafe standards rather than lobbying for/ exploiting a loophole (SUVs) which now has put them at risk of closing down. They would at least have had a product mix more diversified in favor of higher mileage vehicles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they made crappy cars that had no style and that for many years lacked in quality. Rather than being forward-looking to a day when people would want smaller cars, that were passably stylish at least and had good mileage while being affordable, Detroit took easy money with the gas hogs (which they got the right to sell because they exploited a loophole).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I don’t doubt Tundra sales are going way down, but what’s coming into breach? Yeah, that’s right: the Prius. That’s my point. GM and Ford stopped going head to head against Toyota in difficult or forward-looking segments of their industry. Toyota’s product mix will turn out to be much more sustaining over the coming 5 years, I have no doubt.</p>
<p>
Well, in the case of GM they kind of did that. They will likely have the first plug in EV on the market. First full size hybrid truck. Good fuel economy for the passenger cars, just not a large hybrid lineup. </p>
<p>
They could have bought oil futures. I’d argue that it is far easier for a consumer to hedge against the price of oil than a large company.</p>
<p>
Rising fuel costs would hit the dominant truck makers no matter what. What would you propose, abandon that market segment before the oil price spike?!?!?!</p>
<p>
Explain this further please. Other than hybrids (which is still a relatively small market segment) domestic fuel consumption is pretty even with everything else. Fuel consumption is primarily a function of power & vehicle weight with a few other effects (aero, drive train losses, etc).</p>
<p>
And so would their competitors. You act as if Toyota has some magic sauce for fuel economy. Apples to apples, competing vehicles are the same in fuel economy! Many companies do not have hybrids, not just the domestics!</p>
<p>
Unrelated to the CAFE argument. I wonder if the UAW was paid less they could have made more competitive vehicles.</p>
<p>
Do you understand the fact that Toyota had billions of development money but neither of the domestics did not? </p>
<p>Even so, I think GM is going about this the right way, developing the Volt. Who knows though, maybe too forward thinking?</p>
<p>
Risk free prediction, no doubt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you for or against the following: [DOE</a> to give Big Three development money for plug-in hybrids | Automotive News Blog - Wide Open Throttle](<a href=“http://wot.motortrend.com/6257694/government/doe-to-give-big-three-development-money-for-plug-in-hybrids/index.html]DOE”>http://wot.motortrend.com/6257694/government/doe-to-give-big-three-development-money-for-plug-in-hybrids/index.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Too forward thinking? Aren’t these things supposed to be well thought out calculated bets? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A hell of a lot less risky than betting on the ability of the domestics to do well. Judging by the relative track record of these companies, I’d say it’s as close to risk-free as you’re going to get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not would – did. And it’s because they accepted the reality of fuel standards led by the need for conservation and built cars to suit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the 1990s and early 2000s, US automakers poured at least $1.5 billion of taxpayer money into the development of a highly-efficient Supercar. Thanks to the greed of US automakers and Washington politics, however, the project died an agonizing death. Ironically, the Japanese had asked to be part of this project at its inception, but their request was turned down. Because the Japanese didn’t want to be left in the dust by Detroit, they poured their own billions into the development of an ultra-efficient car. </p>
<p>The Toyota Prius was the direct result of this sad, sad story of American greed and politics:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Supercar</a> – chicagotribune.com](<a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-scoverview-story,0,3535916.story]Supercar”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-scoverview-story,0,3535916.story)</p>
<p>Thank you mapesy for a most informative read. I wonder if GM or Chrysler or Ford is taking out their begging bowls and asking for a handout pretty soon.</p>
<p>Wow, Mapesy, one does learn something new everyday. Detriot DID get government handouts for this and STILL didn’t rise to the occasion. Talk about all the evidence one needs for the stupidity of Detroit’s management. Remember this the next time you hear someone complaining that the only reason Detroit is on the ropes is because of the UAW.</p>
<p>I had meant to respond to this too:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, all those people out there with all their credit card debt could have easily gone deep into oil futures. That’s a practical expectation, to be sure.</p>
<p>I used to get calls from Phil Flynn at Alaron trading (you sometimes see him on the financial shows as an expert on oil prices) trying to get me to open an account. He suggested that I open an account with $25K to see if I’d be comfortable trading oil futures. The implication was that if I lost it all, then it probably wasn’t for me.</p>
<p>I’m pretty comfortable with stocks (long and short), etfs, some derivatives, etc. But futures trading scares the daylights out of me. I recall the process for getting approval for trading on margin for shorting and it took me about six months to get approval for that. Given that, I think that it may be quite difficult for the poor (who probably don’t have a spare $25K to potentially blow and who don’t have the trading experience in futures) to even open a commodity trading account.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060616176-post1.html]#1”>quote</a> …This is wrong on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin…</p>
<p>…Of course, Dauch’s family does not actually live in the real world. Dauch’s son recently left AA’s top management ranks for a lucrative position elsewhere … but another Dauch son joined the top ranks at AA around the same time. In other words, ss to be you … be hey, I’m okay*…
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060619501-post19.html]#19[/url]”>quote</a> …My H & I chose a path that did not lead to fancy jobs & riches, but led to us being very happy. We did not pursue the path to the top, because we are not comfortable with doing what it takes to get there (we hate moving, for one!). Not everyone wants to be the top dog at a major corporation. That does not preclude us from commenting on their performance … particularly when one of us has a pension plan that includes stock in the offending CEO’s corporation…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Either it "ss to be you"* or “I chose a path that did not lead to fancy jobs & riches, but led to us being very happy”. From your post, it appears that your happiness (“very happy”) is being diluted by Mr. Dauch’s negotiating skills; both on behalf of the company and himself.</p>
<p>Regardless, Mr. Dauch received his compensation through a legal process…a process that can be questioned by stockholders in the public company. In our capitalist system (the worst structure for an economic system…except for all the others) Mr. Dauch was offered his compensation because he delivered at least that much in value; at least to the board of directors.</p>
<p>Sorry, but legal & ethical are two different things. I fully understand how our capitalist system works, and I don’t have a problem with it. I DO have a problem with those who use the system to their own advantage as they simultaneously give the shaft to others. I am lamenting the lack of basic consideration for others in our society. I wish those at the top gave a d*** about those who work for them … since without them, there would be no company. Sure, they can cut pay & outsource … but eventually, who the heck is going to buy the stuff they sell? Oh, yeah … they’ll be retired or dead by then, so it isn’t their problem.</p>
<p>Yup, I want to live in a <em>nice</em> land that doesn’t exist. I wish that employers actually cared about their employees (yes, I know that some do). I wish that it was okay to do business with compassion. Call me out on this if you want, StitchinTime. I still get to be perturbed by the situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>kelsmom, you’re right, some do! The one that my H works for is one such employer. Last year, a mid-year compensation review (in addition to the annual review) was conducted for the lower levels of employees and all were given an increase in pay. This was as a direct result of the CEO’s belief that all employees should benefit when financial results are good. This is a large corporation with tens of thousands of employees and is a good place to work. Does the CEO, and his senior executive team, make lots of $$? Yes, but they are caring executives, which may seem like an anomoly in today’s world but I doubt that they are unique in that regard. :)</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060623846-post36.html]#36[/url]”>quote</a> Sorry, but legal & ethical are two different things. I fully understand how our capitalist system works, and I don’t have a problem with it. I DO have a problem with those who use the system to their own advantage as they simultaneously give the shaft to others…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There’s the rub…self-interest and altruism. Adam Smith’s [‘Invisible</a> Hand’](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand]'Invisible”>Invisible hand - Wikipedia) offers us insight into your frustrations:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Self-interest is ‘baked into’ the system. You structured your life and aspirations around **your self-interest<a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060619501-post19.html]“Not%20everyone%20wants%20to%20be%20the%20top%20dog%20at%20a%20major%20corporation”[/url]”>/b</a> and question Mr. Dauch’s pursuit of his self-interest. Why is Mr. Dauch’s self-interest open to question and not yours? </p>
<p>More to the point…Considering your educational background ([“I</a> went to school with quite a few people who ARE CEOs of large corporations.”](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060619501-post19.html]"I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060619501-post19.html)), couldn’t an argument be made that you [‘give</a> the shaft’](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060623846-post36.html]'give”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060623846-post36.html) to our society when you don’t maximize your potential by NOT pursuing the “top dog” position at a major corporation? Maybe at this very moment some company is going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs and the state and federal government will miss out on tax revenue because of your self-interest that kept you from being that company’s CEO.</p>
<p>It’s better to just live-and-let-live as long as the Golden Rule is the guiding principle.</p>
<p>
bz2010, John McCain has been in the US Senate since 1982. Since then, his political party has always controlled at least two of the three branches of government, and for a significant portion of that time, all three. Yet McCain hasn’t done a damn thing about “this sort of thing” in all that time. In fact, the past 25 years have seen the greatest expansion of the “this type of thing” that our nation has seen in any of our lifetimes.</p>
<p>What on earth would make you think that electing McCain would lead to anything other than a constant, increasing diet of more of the same?</p>
<p>
Am I against a 30 million dollar R&D payment towards battery research? Yeah, I am against that. That’s virtually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>
I’m not understanding your point. Research & design is probably one of the most difficult things to budget for…ever.</p>
<p>
I wasn’t being sarcastic.</p>
<p>
Other than Toyota & Honda who are you talking about? Furthermore, I’m not convinced that even having hybrids would alleviate the current problem with domestics. They were simply highly exposed to the truck market. Your argument suggests that they shouldn’t have been in the truck market to begin with! Clearly idiotic, considering everyone was clambering to get into the action with Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Lexus all expanding their truck lines.</p>