Actually Ford, GM, GE etc are defined as public companies, because their shares are traded on a public stock exchange. Enough semantics.

The problem with top level corporate compensation is that we have put the Dogs in charge of the kennel. A Board of Directors reports to the shareholders of a company- that is a clearly established legal principle. But they cosily vote on each others compensation packages, with absolutely no consultation to shareholders. Finally, some large institutional shareholders are getting up in arms about this practise and insisting on a wider consultation process with regards to senior corporate remuneration packages, and rightly so. In many cases, they are just obscene. I would even argue illegal, at Board level, due to a Directors legal duty of care with respect to Shareholders and their interests.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is little or no correlation between Senior executive remuneration, and performance. The Directors of Ford and GM for example stuffed it up badly. In an atmosphere of obviously rising oil prices, what were they marketing and shoving down the throats of their customer base? Gas guzzling SUV's. Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota were continually enhancing their competence in much more fuel efficient cars. The outcome was obvious, and now GM and Ford are being outsold by Toyota and Honda, who are making profits while their US competitors are making losses and downsizing. As a final irony, even the best selling luxury car in the US is the (Toyota) Lexus. I do not believe that justifies an obscene compensation package, or a generous retrenchment payout.

On the other hand, some of the most succesful companies pay their senior folk little or nothing- their remuneration is dependant on appreciating share prices and dividend income. Three examples spring to mind-
Warren Buffet is paid no salary, at all. He is also the second wealthiest man in the world.
Bill Gates is paid a pittance, compared to executive packages in the US. He is the richest man in the world.
Costco is a well managed, profitable, strongly growing US retailer. It's CEO is paid a fraction that of what the CEO's of such struggling retailers as KMart are paying themselves.

I am not coming from a position of bemoaning wealth differentials. I have nothing against people becoming rich. But too many Corporate executives are enriching themselves and their Board mates at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders, such as employees, with little or nothing to justify it in terms of performance.