GM is going to support Michigan like it or not

[Cincinnati_Kid]

[quote=Relayer76;182864]

If *any* company starts bleeding money, they are going to lay off employees. It's basic economics. If you can't afford to pay everyone, you are going to get rid of some people. If you hired someone to mow your lawn and you got laid off, would you continue employing that person just to keep him employed or would you mow your lawn yourself to save money?


True, but a bit simplistic. You can also reduce costs in other areas - like execs making $500,000 a year plus bonuses. Globalization also accounts for a large part of the problem. You can't export jobs and expect people in your own country to be able to afford the goods that you produce. Unless of course you then lend them money at low interest rates so that they can buy the goods that you produced oversees for pennies and resell to Americans at a huge profit on credit. It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed.

I totally agree. Executive compensation is off the charts. CEO's and Vice President's getting major cheese to make bad business decisions and run companies in the ground, then they get a bonus when they're booted out the door.

[JBMcB]

You can also reduce costs in other areas - like execs making $500,000 a year plus bonuses.

Execs are definitely overcompensated considering their performance, but if a plant isn't being used and the company is strapped for cash, it should go, as well as a few execs who aren't needed to oversee those operations as well.

Globalization also accounts for a large part of the problem.

Neither here nor there. Either US companies outsource to cheaper labor pools, or they get their clocks cleaned by cheap imports. I'd rather have some US labor outsourced than have entire domestic industries collapse.

[JBMcB]

Yes, but if I have the choice between two otherwise equal companies, putting out quality products, and the only difference is that one fosters community growth, while the other prevents it, or shows indifference, I will choose the former.

Good luck making that value comparison. Which is worse: laying off a thousand workers and devastating a town, or dumping toxic sludge into the lakes? All companies screw up - as they are comprised of people, as you state.

Your obligation to be a decent human being and to make positive contributions to society always trumps making money and serving shareholders.

If you are a publicly traded company, by law, serving the shareholders trumps all else. I guess you should only patronize privately held companies, then.

[Bearinabox]

Good luck making that value comparison. Which is worse: laying off a thousand workers and devastating a town, or dumping toxic sludge into the lakes? All companies screw up - as they are comprised of people, as you state.

Most "screw-ups" are easily avoided--the problem is, it's often cheaper for companies to risk an occasional screw-up than to keep it from happening. After all, it isn't the corporation that will suffer as a result of the lake being full of toxic sludge, it's us.

The trick to preventing these sorts of "screw-ups" is to get a system of oversight and enforcement in place that gives companies a serious incentive to put effort into avoiding them. It's the sort of thing that would work a lot better if the upper echelons of government weren't largely populated by former and future high-level executives in the industries they're supposed to be regulating.

If you are a publicly traded company, by law, serving the shareholders trumps all else.

Which is why we, as a society, need to make sure that what's good for the shareholders isn't catastrophic for us. It's stupid to expect corporations to act in the public interest out of the goodness of their hearts. If we want them to stop destroying things, we need to take the profit out of it.

[Hermod]

[quote=Cincinnati_Kid;182903]

I totally agree. Executive compensation is off the charts. CEO's and Vice President's getting major cheese to make bad business decisions and run companies in the ground, then they get a bonus when they're booted out the door.

Yes, and aging .230 hitters get paid millions by baseball teams

[Hermod]

The trick to preventing these sorts of "screw-ups" is to get a system of oversight and enforcement in place that gives companies a serious incentive to put effort into avoiding them. It's the sort of thing that would work a lot better if the upper echelons of government weren't largely populated by former and future high-level executives in the industries they're supposed to be regulating.

How is Mayor Bing doing on forcing the Packard Motorcar Corporation to clean up their factory in Detroit?

[Bearinabox]

How is Mayor Bing doing on forcing the Packard Motorcar Corporation to clean up their factory in Detroit?

I can't figure out what your point is. Are you saying that trying to hold long-defunct companies responsible for what happened to their properties decades after they sold them to someone else is futile and kind of ridiculous? If so, I agree, as I imagine most sane people would, but I'm not entirely sure how it relates to the post you quoted.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

[quote=Hermod;183545]

Yes, and aging .230 hitters get paid millions by baseball teams

True, but what does this have to do with GM or any other big corporation?? Nothing.