@QasimRashid
I immediately thought ot the typical counter-argument: "But they create jobs!"

However, immediately under this was a post about layoffs by a mega-corp.

@hosford42 @QasimRashid
Even that's limited. The primary mission of a corporation is to serve the interests of its shareholders. If a company is young and expanding, that creates jobs. But if revenue isn't increasing as quickly as shareholders demand, the usual recourse is to cut expenses, including jobs.

Increasing demand creates jobs. Companies may or may not, depending on demand.

@geobeck @hosford42 @QasimRashid

Who made up the rule that the purpose of a company is to enrich the shareholders. It’s not a law. (Hint: it was shareholders, and the economists they employ.)

How about a new rule? The purpose of a company is to create jobs. Full stop.

@HeatherH @geobeck @QasimRashid Sadly, it is a law. #FiduciaryDuty

The issue is, *somebody* has to decide what the right course is for a company. We call people who have the right to make that determination "shareholders" or "owners". These folks can only be counted on to make decisions in their own best interest. (Altruism exists, but try asking a random person on the street for money and you'll quickly learn it's far from universal.) So the law is designed to work within that constraint.

If you really want companies to do right by the average worker or consumer, the owners/shareholders of those companies have to be the workers or consumers, not third parties. Then the shareholders screwing the workers or consumers becomes the shareholders screwing themselves, and nobody will be on board for that. Like magic, making the oppressed and the oppressors be the same group makes the oppression cease.