this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
803 points (99.0% liked)
People Twitter
10395 readers
1434 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely, but that's not something you fix at company level.
Am I the only one old enough to remember when we still had homemade products competing with chinese cheap products on the shelves? Consumers picked the Chinese version over and over, until the local plant shut down (or was delocalized in China…).
You could have had exactly the same speech about CEOs at the time: if your market is western consumers (at the time, China was not yet rich enough to have a significant local demand), who are you going to sell to when everyone has lost their job because of delocalization?
Answer is indeed: that's not my problem to solve. It's a systematic issue, it should be addressed through regulation.
CEO's job is not to address that, it's too maximize values for shareholders. If laying off everyone and use AI does that, then executing is just them doing their job right. If regulation bans or adds a high enough penalty on such a move, they won't do it.
This is something I think people forget too often. When you build and tune a system to incentivise anti-social behaviour, don't be surprised when you get anti-social people doing anti-social things. We currently legally demand that management always maximise shareholder value, so that's what they do, and that's the sort of person who makes it to higher levels of management. If we changed that goal, the outcome would change too. Unfortunately the lawmakers who would have to make those changes are too invested in the current system for it to happen easily.
CEOs don’t have a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.
I should say that I'm referring to publicly traded companies here, private companies have different incentives.
Directors, including the CEO, don't have a mandate to increase shareholder value, no, but under UK, and as far as I can see, US law, there are many rules around things like "actions prejudicial to a minor shareholder" and what is actually in the company's interests, that the shareholders can, and do, sue both the directors and the companies for actions that do not increase shareholder value, especially as companies often hold their own stock on their balance sheets. They can do this because of the way both statutory and case law has formed. If statutory law, at least, made it that companies had a duty of care to their staff, could not lay off or reduce payments to more than some small percentage per year, and had to pay the costs of remidiating their environmental and societal damage as they inflicted it, these cases would largely vanish, and directors would be incentivised to optimise for those things instead.
Basically, if you make getting rich as a shareholder or CEO easier to do without screwing people over than by screwing them, CEOs and their boards will be less willing to screw everyone over in their pursuit of wealth.