Microsoft held an invite-only concert for execs, 1 day before announcing layoffs
This is the kind of stuff I don't understand.<p>On one hand: "Corporations are bound by fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit"<p>On the other hand...private concerts. Could an argument REALLY be made that Microsoft execs are <i>so valuable</i> that if they didn't have this concert, the execs would leave and the company would suffer more losses than it spent on the concert? Why does it seem like executives are the only areas that aren't ever subject to cost cutting? Shouldn't the march to profit necessitate a steady downward trend in CEO salaries? Do I just not understand what fiduciary responsibility is? Why can't shareholders sue over this concert?<p>I was never a fan of the "corporation maximize profit legal responsibility" argument, but it doesn't even seem consistent with itself...