|
|
|
|
|
by McDyver
960 days ago
|
|
Not necessarily. They can be profitable without being greedy. In this case they could have just said "we don't have capacity to fulfill all new demands, we can happily run at full capacity, and charge more if needed". Other companies could have taken up the slack, new businesses popping up, etc. Instead, they recruited people who prioritised this new job, just to be let go. |
|
Sure, but then they'll be overtaken by their competitors who will rake in more profits as they don't mind being greedy, and your shareholders won't appreciate that.
Greed and capitalism are basically synonymous, as the end game of capitalism is to accumulate as much wealth and market cap as possible, at the expense of your competition, until you own the whole pie.
Preaching to companies "just be OK with being a little poorer this time", while their competitors are using every dirty trick in the book to get ahead, will never work.
If you want a level playing field for everyone to not be greedy, it must come from regulations that hold companies accountable, not expecting companies to voluntarily act in favor of their labor force out of the kindness of their hearts, as that will seldom happen.