Pretty simple, US subsidizes an industry the C levels find the best way to extract as much value for themselves and the shareholders. China does this, and whether its “moral” or not, the Gvmt forces the C levels to use that money somewhat efficiently otherwise they go straight to the salt mines.
When US motor companies complain about unfair Chinese competition I always look at the C level bonuses for US companies since 2008 compared to their Chinese counterparts, its basically C levels taking tax money for themselves and then being sad they dont have the funds to compete
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Who do you think approves remuneration bonuses in public companies?
Which specific companies did you look at, besides Tesla, where executive compensation was meaningful (>1%) relative to revenue?
US comp is a lot, but its usually insignificant relative to total payroll or company revenue.
CEO salaries have 2 commas. Chinese subsidies have 3 commas. They’re not even close to the same level.
The issue I have with this assessment is I believe you are misattributing what is happening. In the US it’s true that c suite often misappropriates funds for themselves and is often corrupt. In China the same thing doesn’t happen but this is because in China the corporations are subservient to the government while in the US it’s more often the government that is subservient to corporations. The most egregious corruption isn’t by the c suite in China it’s by government officials because that is where the real power is.
Most of the compensation that Chinese directors CEOs and Directors get are informal. Bank of china discourages high salary and bonuses so they are fulfilled in informal ways. Houses bought and resold to them people at fraction of the cost, private jets that are owned by the company but leased out for decades for pennies, all family (included extended family) cost being considered at part of expenses (don’t think chauffeur, think international university tuition fees and lavish housing for the children) preferential shares and equity that are hid behind red tape that allows them.
However, the difference in USA and china is that china for its draconian laws makes it so that ceos can’t be openly horrible as they can be in USA.
GM Ceo made 29 million last year. The company brought 187 billion in revenue. His pay makes no appreciable difference in the long run.
The effect that competing with China is in the billions. Its not comparable. Your logic underplays* the scale of these industries
Accountant here. I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say, but I’ll do my best to sift through it.
CEO compensation is determined by the board of directors, several of which are required by law to be independent directors (aka not working for the company) for publically traded companies. There aren’t many people who can run a large company well, so the pay is quite a bit.
I do not know how CEO pay hurts US based companies since it is typically a fraction of what the company is making.
If you’re a shareholder of a publicly traded company, in every proxyvote, vote
If you read all the explanations from the Board to vote against the shareholder proposals, you’ll find that they are all the same excuses about how the company is already doing enough. If that really is the case, then you have to ask why is the world still so screwed up?
These proposals request that the company address environmental as well as social concerns that are so much of a problem around the world. They even ask for transparency in reporting that the Board rejects.
You should then realize that the Board and the executives are the class of people that enable the top 1% and to lobby politicians to do nothing or the least to address environmental and social concerns.
If executives are paid top dollar because they have to attract talent, then their talent should able to have their company continue to be profitable while being socially responsible too.
This isn’t even an opinion. It’s just incorrect. China subsidies are so large and targeted at specific industries that they are equal to the total profits of large businesses and more. Whole CEO bonuses in the US are too high they are absolutely tiny by comparison.
It’s not hurting US companies as a whole. US companies have by far the largest market capitalizations in the world. The American system allows corporations an inordinate amount of power in policy making, which creates these vast corporate empires. Comparing the US to China is like comparing a warlord-centric system to one that’s more feudal.
In the case of the US, the corporate warlords are competing within the wealthiest territory, getting some help from the king, but in a lot cases they’re calling the shots and bickering amongst each other. In the China, the king holds more power and the warlords are more beholden to the his policies, and in return they are backed by a more robust state apparatus.
Dude you need to work on your writing skills.
C-Levels are positions, you mean C Suite. I think I get your point though.
C Suite does not just get a big check from the government and BONUS time!!! They get a subsidies for a program and use it for the program. C Suite bonuses are almost always performance based: good quarter, good bonus.
The issue here is that this incentivizes short term profits. But no one is sucking up subsidies and then giving it all to themselves.
Wait til you realize it’s a circle jerk.
Blame Ford V Dodge.
Any specific examples……? Orr…..?
I think you need to learn how such things work before making a post like this. A CEO doesn’t have the power to give themselves an insane bonus, that would be the decision of their board.
If there’s anything that’s popular on reddit, it’s definitely CEOs who get big bonuses.
Subsidies or not western CEOs are reaping millions ofdollars a year in company shares ontop of their salary. I feel like people really try to stretch the truth on how their salary is justified when modern cars are riddled with endless mechanical problems, terrible engine design and planned obsolescence. Most management play their political game at the expense of technical advice given to their engineers and/or the customers, eventually driving these workers out of the company. These problems most often are not even financial-based problems but a political one. Sometimes just plain ingenuity and common sense will solve many of the mechanical problems.
While chinese cars are cost competitive, they are mimicking modern designs and have a lot of the same technical problems as modern cars as well as quality components. In terms of competitiveness its easy to overtake them in terms of design and sheer quality improvements. But that is not the political game management play today.
I think that’s a lot of statements combined into one.
Maybe let me know if these are the right summary:
If someone else gets a benefit that you don’t get, how does that hurt you
Sure it’s not fair but it doesn’t HURT you, does it?
CEOs don’t give themselves bonuses, that is decided by the board of directors
I had a friend in college who’s dad in China had a whole neighborhood of empty houses he built just as a collection. I think there are some individuals in China who make a lot of money.
CEOs don’t give themselves bonuses, the board of directors do. They put a value on success with metrics, if the CEO hits them, they get a bonus.
In most of the HUGE cases.
Unpopular opinion ❌
Uneducated opinion ✅
I doubt, but in any case this is an economic question which should be based on facts and not on opinions. This requires scientific economics knowledge and proper analysis, not a Reddit sentimental answer
In 2024, GM spent $7.6B on shareholder compensation and $10.8B on capital expenditures while BYD spent ¥12.5B on shareholder compensation and ¥97.4B on capital expenditures. These companies are allocating available capital to obviously different proportions.
This is not an unpopular opinion.
In a long line of ridiculous and uninformed business takes by 19 year old communists in this sub, this is probably the worst haha
Your opinion is pretty popular. I’ll counter with an unpopular one: American citizens are more expensive to hire than Chinese citizens.
unpopular misinformed guesswork idea…an opinion needs more insight really.
you are comparing numbers that are simply not even close to the same ballpark as each other. in fact. in fact, we should not even entertain such a discussion.
but it’s the internet and i wanted to be a bit of dick to make a valuable point to people like you