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/

The Shareholder Value Myth

Shareholder-value thinking dominates the business world today. Professors, policymakers, and business leaders routinely chant the mantras that public ...

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
@mmby @Manigarm I can grant that. But I still don't know how a company keeps investors if they're not maximizing profit. Even if not for legal reasons, I don't see how this problem goes away as long as the profit motive is the reason for investing.
@edyother @mmby @Manigarm shareholders ostensibly invest for share value, which is not necessarily correlated w profitability (see: almost every major tech firm in the last 20 years). in fact, they often invest for a variety of non-financial reasons, up to and including bragging rights.