[robertlagrant]

That seems a jaundiced viewpoint though. Stock prices are a proxy for the business's value going up, which businesses should in general strive for, unless they have it so monopolistic that they don't need to compete with anyone else. This is just as true in a business without stocks even being available.

[nine_zeros]

I'm not claiming that companies shouldn't strive to raise value of business.

All I said was their activities are designed to boost stock prices, given the prevailing economic conditions. Stock prices may be related to business value or financial engineering or whatever. Doesn't matter how they get there. Their goal is to just keep stock prices rising.

With this in mind, if it ever comes to choosing between employees, customers, product, or anything versus the stock price, they will choose the stock price.

[robertlagrant]

I don't think there's any point saying this in this way, though. Not every company will do anything it takes to hit a stock market goal, even financial engineering. Many will just work on fundamentals, and either go broke or get outcompeted or succeed.

And there are plenty of companies that aren't public companies with any stock to buy.

It just seems far too simplistic. You seem to be critiquing the times that some company use slightly dodgy financial engineering to boost their stock price. But that's not many companies, and not all the time - it's never a permanent fix. There's certainly no need to attach stock price reason to these layoffs, which are much more likely just cost-cutting measures designed to save the company a load of money it thinks is more valuable than the work of those people.