Are you saying the CEO really wants to pay for high quality local software engineers but due to external factors behind their control they really can’t.
It's a selection problem. Public companies must make number go up no matter what, so they hire CEOs that do so. The CEOs that might focus more on sustainability eventually get filtered out of the system, much like an engineer that complains a bit too much about lacking security protocols.
That's why CEOs that have a history of destroying companies and making bad decisions keep getting hired. Because what they're good at is extracting wealth in the short term which is the only thing that matters.
I wish people wouldn't spread this nonsense. Public companies can care about whatever they want until their shareholders sack the CEO, which is an extremely high bar. It seems extremely improbable to me that there would be a shareholder revolt over "hi, we'll be increasing COG by a tiny amount to improve quality of the METAL BIRDS PEOPLE PAY TO BE PUT IN".
your blithe blackpilled acceptance of sociopathy is wrong and unhelpful.
Alright guy, I'll bite. Why do _you_ think that Boeing off-loaded manufacturing burden to 3rd party companies? Their executives have effectively gutted the company over the last 20 years. Now we're left with a bailed-out husk the government literally _cannot_ afford to let go out of business.
The shareholders choose the CEO to improve returns, not to improve safety, until safety safety impact returns (which it did for Boeing). Which is fair, we live in a capitalist world, capital is thus by definition deciding power and wanting to have more of it is a decent want.
