Tackling long-term problems and externalities must be done by someone outside the market.
The problem is that most business owners and shareholders are cut from the same cloth and only care about maximizing short term profits.
Well, laws and regulations forbid the obvious contracts that would help you fix these things.
But eg no one has sued Google management for giving company resources to charity. And in general, companies can have all kinds of goals, as long as shareholders are ok with them.
Going on a tangent: it's usually safe to assume that investors want money, because you can further most goals you care about with money. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence for an AI flavoured take on the same topic.
> To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
When a company pays for training and education of an employee, they risk that the employee jumps ship and takes that investment with her. Contractually, you could use bonds or contract penalties to curb that kind of behaviour, but there are limitations on what contract terms are enforceable or even legal.
After all, if there's no chance of employees being trained anywhere else because nobody else is doing it yet, why would you decide to start training employees? The exchange wouldn't be equivalent in any way, there's a real possibility that you would never benefit at all. You'd be the only source of training, so anyone who bounced off from you could never have been someone who bounced off to you.
In the bad old days, Adam Smith already complained about how apprentices were treated.
Btw, Ford famously raised wages to 5 USD a day, because he had crazy high turnover. Workers weren't all that likely to stay than nowadays.
I'm not quite sure what the latter half of your comment is arguing for or against. Are you saying that it is in the best self interest of individual companies to train workers? Or are you saying that training workers is something altruistic?
Or see how Bosch is set up.
Sure there is, market forces quickly push the person making 6% out of business, because the one making 8% can lower their prices, or use that extra capital to buy up more resources.
Why spend excess to train when you can do it somewhere else for a lot cheaper? Cheap energy subsidized often by taxpayers is the real issue, and instead of those subsidies helping those paying for it, it's just moved capital upwards.
Indeed, the last decade of business has been all about businesses preferring higher margins over more efficient markets.
How so? See how eg Amazon's shareholders were famously patient with them. Similar for Tesla, and lots of other companies. Including both public and private.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50068391 for a bit more nuance aside from the universal statements.