HollywoodZro

> people in charge of these companies to act ethically and not try to squeeze everyone around them for every cent of profit possible

That's our stock market though. If Walmart isn't squeezing on costs, then it needs to make that up in gross revenue otherwise the stock will suffer.

Is it possible to be "ethical" in how you define it, when the financial market performance of the company is largely dependent on this?

I saw a POV documentary on PBS about kids from undocumented families and some of them are US citizens since the kids were born here.

But there were many instances where these kids work nights, then try to go to school during the day. It's the life they have to live to try and help support their family.

It's a terrible situation, but almost always better than what they faced in their home country.

It's a gesture, but the issue is that salary and bonus are often a smaller part of executive compensation.

The equity grant that they receive is often millions more than the salary and the company performance bonus.

I think forgoing the equity and instead adding it to the severance pool would be truly owning up to the decisions made by executive management.

The big thing would be for Mr. Yuan to forgo his equity grant for FY23 and also take his equity grant from FY22 and distribute that as severance for the employees who lives are impacted negatively due to the decisions of executives in the organization.

That truly means "taking ownership" of what happened.

The individuals leaving were not the ones who hired or authorized the hires without the evaluation of long-term viability for the organization. They were just doing their jobs.

I think an executive who REALLY means it should forgot EQUITY GRANT and distribute that as compensation to the departing individuals.

For some orgs it can mean millions more in severance for the individuals whose lives are impacted because of the decisions of those company executives.