The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It is to make money by providing valuable services to society.
Yes, it is good governance to cut unproductive jobs.
Yes, it is good governance to cut unproductive jobs.
If cigarette companies could cause 5% less cancer by selling 5% fewer packs of cigarettes (resulting in 5% lower profits) do you believe they would do it?
You might say that companies have strayed from the Platonic ideal of a corporation and that cigarette companies have strayed from their “purpose” but the reality is that purely prosocial companies have never been the norm.
You might also suggest that the very fact that people are purchasing cigarettes demonstrates that they are providing “valuable” goods/services but this is to water down the definition of value to the point of meaninglessness.
The truth is that a corporation is a sort of alien entity that almost entirely operates to maximize profits. I say “almost” entirely because it is possible in extreme cases for their leadership to face personal responsibility, but it’s pretty rare.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
That usually means making money, but it's not a certainty that's what the primary purpose will be.
There is no problem here then, is there
It definitely used to be considered as such. There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years.
I think you mean "by providing anything anyone will pay for" in this universe you describe. There are a ton of companies that provide zero or even negative valuable services to society.
And what you describe is unbridled capitalism. That's not what most people consider viable. A company is not a logical entity that satisfies "if company, then capital at all costs", although there are the few (the super wealthy) that would like it to be that way. A company is part of a complex system and thus it needs to satisfy a wide variety of conditions.
And note that my comment is reacting to the idea that firing the CEO is some sort of crime against humanity.