Today's PSA: (because, apparently, this is shocking to people). It's OK for corporations to make less money. It's OK for shareholders to receive less value.
No, they don't have to raise prices on their consumers. No, they don't have to cut wages or benefits. They're choosing to.
If your perpetually ascending profit model only works because you exploit your labor, then your profit model deserves no sympathy, fretting, or hand-wringing.
You can, and should, make less profit.
@Manigarm There is the problem that corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. For publicly traded companies they will be hearing from lawyers if they intentionally leave money on the table. This problem doesn't go away until the profit motive goes away.
Update: I have been corrected on whether or not that fiduciary responsibility is legally enforceable. Fine. They will still hear from their investors if they intentionally leave money on the table, and the problem still doesn't go away until the profit motive goes away.
@edyother @Manigarm whether shareholders would have a case seems to be questionable:
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/
I think there's a difference between profit-motive and profit-motive run amuck. If private equity firms have shown us anything, it's that often the things that maximize profit in the short-term threaten the long-term sustainability of the firm.
The whole notion of investment implies the passage of time, so I think there's a legal case that a fiduciary responsibility to investors implies not being super short sighted.
@TonyaCanning @edyother @mmby @Manigarm the whole notion of investment implies profiteering.
Think about it: no business ever gets private funding unless it can convince a group of already-rich people that investing in the business will make those people even richer. The upwards transfer of wealth is woven into the very fabric of our society.
Dr. Holly Walters
Ed Yother 
mmby
Tonya Canning
sleepfreeparent
nerdybutcute