In our modern state of stockholder supremacy, that doesn't tend to matter much. But I think it should matter more.
I think you did adroitly mention down thread that there are labor market frictions to consider. And I definitely agree with that. Obviously stable employment is definitely one social consideration. And certainly long-lived companies make for more stable labor markets.
But all in all, I still think that overall most people would prefer faster rather than slower turnover among large firms. Younger companies (as in those founded more recently) tend to be more innovative, deliver better customer service, have more satisfied employees, engage in less lobbying, and have fewer environmental and safety issues.
It might be a less efficient allocation of capital. But it could reduce a lot of friction in the labor economy, and incurs less overhead from building an organization from scratch.
And, for example, I don't want coal companies try to stay relevant. They have coal managers and coal workers who know how to run coal mining.
I'd rather they give the money to shareholders, so that the shareholders can invest it in a different venture, or consume it.
In practice, companies are run for the benefit of management and other insiders.
> Whilst doing stock buybacks and dividends is best for the stockholders, it isn't best for the employees. Nor is it good for other stakeholders in the company.
Stockholders can invest the money returned to them again in more profitable ventures.
To go to an extreme, look at It's a Wonderful Life. Something like a community bank in the early 20th century was not run aggressively for the sole benefit of shareholders, there was a notion of community involvement. If anything financialization since the 70s has created the fiction that corporations are soulless machines designed to optimize profits at the expense of all others.
I'm not even objecting to the fiction. But more that American unit banking was extremely weird. Basically, many states banned banks from having more than one branch. The result was the world's most fragile financial system.
See https://www.alt-m.org/2015/07/29/there-was-no-place-like-can... for a comparison of 19th / early 20th century Canadian and American practices.