[ranger_danger]

> teaching how to increase shareholder value in the short term

Problem is this is quite often a requirement for a public company, to maximize company value/profits above all else.

Also execs who are more right-wing are typically not interested in helping the larger society in general.

[Kamq]

This is BS. A shareholder lawsuit against the CEO/board/executives for investing in the employees in the hope of long term profits would never succeed. The idea of a fiduciary duty doesn't mean that. It means the CEO can't take actions that intentionally hurt the company.

And there are very few large public companies with active enough investors to oust a CEO over this, and even fewer that have both active and activist investors that would be interested in such a thing.

[ranger_danger]

There can be other valid perspectives than your own, especially when one makes sweeping black-and-white generalizations without any evidence.

> the CEO can't take actions that intentionally hurt the company

And who gets to define what "hurt" means?

[Kamq]

The government.

You'd have to prove that the CEO knew that it would hurt the company and still did it or that it's so ridiculously negligent that any sane person should have known.