[heathrow83829]

the first responsibility of any company is profitability. they have no economic, moral or ethical obligation to keep employees (no matter how well they performed), if it doesn't help them be more profitable. this should not be news.

I think "low performance" is typically just a scapegoat. the real reason is they simply don't need that many empolyees to maximize profitability.

[CommenterPerson]

This is Milton Freidman hype and brainwashing. A company profiting in a society has a responsibility towards that society. In Germany, they accomplish this by having one union representative on the board. Profit at any cost leads to a society where workers are paid just enough to prevent starvation so that there are workers.

[heathrow83829]

I agree that companies who are monopolies (especially government granted monopolies) have a responsibility towards society. But this does not apply to companies that need to compete to exist. For example, if a restaraunt or airlines (highly competitive industry), did anything to reduce their competitiveness they would instantly loose marketshare. that doesn't work.

which one is Microsoft?

[riffraff]

It does not apply if regulation allows it, but this does not need to be the case, and has been debated for decades

> [the New Deal architect, A. A. Berle] argued that corporations should "serve ... all society" through legally enforceable rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berle%E2%80%93Dodd_debate

"profit is the only goal" is not a law of nature, it's the outcome of a specific system of laws.

[DrillShopper]

Yes, and who owns the politicians that make those laws?

It certainly isn't the worker.

[cloverich]

Its not brainwashing though, how to properly regular this is as old as Adam Smith right?

Union leader is one approach. But really if the US had a proper safety net, universal healthcare, and progressive taxes on capital accumulation, layoffs in OPs framing would not be nearly as bad.

The real issue here isnt the layoffs. Its that the top are pulling up profits, theres no quality healthcare for the unemployed (and getting worse), SFH are all levered up making the price unattainable for the average worker and high risk bc layoffs, etc.

The frustrating part is how dead simple the solution is. Universal healthcare. Progressive taxation that applies equally to capital gains. Block SFH investments (by investors and average joes alike). Maybe not emough, but light years ahead of where we are.

[UncleMeat]

Smith actually wrote against this very concept. The idea that a corporation's only responsibility is to its shareholders is relatively recent.

[cloverich]

I dont think you are wrong but i think thats leaving out a key, for me THE key take aways i got out of it. ie Smith didn’t imagine capitalism working without regulation. His whole model assumes a strong legal and institutional framework to keep markets fair and socially useful.

[dsr_]

Let me correct that for you:

corporations feel no moral or ethical obligation towards their employees.

Whether or not that should be the case -- and I think it should not be -- it is.

[triceratops]

> the first responsibility of any company is profitability

No that's what makes management the most money because they're paid in stock. So they want you to think it's legally required.

The first responsibility of a company is "act in the shareholders' best interests".

Is it in shareholders' best interests to have > 20% unemployment?

[cosmicgadget]

General financial health is a better goal.