I’m confused. So it’s the CEO’s fault?
Stick options makes him/her a shareholder.
From a purely economic standpoint if it makes sense to send labor overseas you could argue that not only should the CEO do it but he is REQUIRED to do it as part of his job.
Even if it’s douchbaggery, if it’s legal than you could argue it’s his/her fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company, including the CEO.
If you’re talking about the lack of ethics, see #1 above.
Damn auto correct. That’s STOCK options.
But economics are not divorced from the larger culture: rule of law, equitable courts (bribery not required), functioning infrastructure, reliable electricity, sound money, honest bankers, and all that.
The facile explanation you give, ignores the contributions of all those factors to the success of the corporation to the first place; as well as national loyalty.
The other thing, is that corporations which to privatize the profits, while socializing the costs: e.g. welfare payments for those laid off and unable to get another job, social costs from breakdown of those families (drug use, petty crime, unwed pregnancy) and in the case of importing Central Americans, all the higher costs for dual languages in schools, emergency room usage for primary care, and the like.
It's utterly dishonest and craven.
And, at that, unspeakably selfish. Even the robber barons of old used to endow works for the great public of the US, such as libraries.
Whereas Bezos -- the wealthiest man in the history of the species -- will not even pay health care premiums for all of his own employees.
For an economic refutation of "comparative advantage" and the lie that is The Wealth of Nations, see for example Vox Day
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/nationalist-economics.html