Really the thing that does this is market concentration. You have only three major companies in an industry and they can play "conscious parallelism" games to avoid competing with each other while pointing to the others as ostensible competition to fend off antitrust allegations.
Then because they're not actually subject to competitive pressure, they stagnate, and as soon as anyone else shows up who hasn't forgotten how to satisfy the customer, the incumbents start to crumble.
It isn't a coincidence that the article is about something similar happening to US Steel, the infamous former monopolist.
Once those matured, the new stuff quickly caught up. But it needed time.
What makes you think it was the increase in executive or shareholder comp that caused the degradation in quality? Do we even know if there was a degradation between a 1960 ford and 1985, or is it because the Japanese and German automakers raised our standards?
This is a situation where a lot of narratives fit the evidence.
The cost difference is small but it's indicative of a larger issue of disposability. One of the reasons Japanese vehicles started to dominate was that they lasted longer. This is due to better tolerances, more efficient engines, and more robust component design.
The Toyota production method, lean and just-in-time were mostly methods for rationalizing better systems to eliminate waste within production and to minimize inventory. Such methods don't inherently make a better car though they leave more io the table to spend on coatings, quality parts etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
The wiki has this line that sums it all up perfectly:
In 1982, Deming's book Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position was published by the MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, and was renamed Out of the Crisis in 1986. In it, he offers a theory of management based on his famous 14 Points for Management. Management's failure to plan for the future brings about loss of market, which brings about loss of jobs. Management must be judged not only by the quarterly dividend, but also by innovative plans to stay in business, protect investment, ensure future dividends, and provide more jobs through improved products and services. "Long-term commitment to new learning and new philosophy is required of any management that seeks transformation. The timid and the fainthearted, and the people that expect quick results, are doomed to disappointment."
I refer you to the movie Roger & Me.
I know because I've driven cars from both eras. GM and Ford cars from the late 50s required a lot of maintenance by modern standards and they guzzled gas and they would kill you if you had a crash in one. But they were built like battle tanks: Lots of steel; very little plastic.
By the end of the 1970s, US cars were built mostly out of plastic. The issue was not that they required more maintenance. The issue was that they fell to pieces on the highway. If you left one sitting in the sun for a year, it would turn into dust. They were utter, unrepairable crap.
They didn't just forget. They rejected approaches that would have helped them improve quality.
Deming tried to convince US industry for quality, but was rejected. He, however, was embraced in Japan.
Double-huh, almost every market I see is a cartel or monopoly.
Hm, the conservatives never talk about free markets anymore.
I'm sure it's a coincidence.