Not all of human existence is adequately covered by what is in the law books or in historical precedent; there are such things as externalities.
In other words, some things may happen to be moral even if they are not legally required.
Other things are legally allowed, but they sure are immoral. Such as the corporate raiders and the Romney types.
You say that your comments don't represent social justice. Okay...what are they then (in other words, how am I incorrect in making that statement?
SJWs are as ruthless in their own way, as the corporate raiders; and, like the raiders, they don't seem to care who gets hurt as long as they get their way.
What I would prefer to both those extremes, is where the corporate executives stop listening solely to the bean counters: examples of this going *wrong* would be the internal memos coming out from Boeing about the 737 Max, and shaving costs and not allowing regulators to know about potential issues; or the classic case of the Ford Pinto where the problem which allowed fuel tanks to explode on rear impact, could have been fixed for $19 / car.
An example of it going *right* would be an instance of the Chick-Fil-A before the recent brouhaha in the news, where they remained closed on Sunday because of the owners' conscience, even though they could have made a lot more money being open on Sundays.
Now I'm a corporate raider? Tell that to all the employees I kept on when I didn't have to. The people I overpaid because they needed the money. The fact that I was always paid LAST after my employees.
Ah, so my concerns *are* valid. You are now pointing to the things you did which show that you don't just shaft everyone to get that last 0.000003 cents/transaction, net costs.
Why is you went so ballistic at first then at my attacking corporate greed? You could have led off with how you treat your employees, and either lamented your ability to affect the $5000 suits in LA and New York, or mentioned what you were doing to help persuade them to change their behavior.
(It comes to mind as I type this, that one difference is that Chick-Fil-A, and (presumably) your firm, are privately held; whereas many of the others are...well, no. The Bain Capital and other types, take companies private in ORDER to strip mine their assets. So it's then a matter of whether you are trying to grow your firm organically, rather than growing your own wealth through ...you know, legal fictions. The problem with using the law as the guide, is that in the famous words, "the law is an ass" ; and also, that the laws are written by politicians, who all too often are bought, lobbied, or blackmailed to favor those who have already made their packet, and have an engorged desire for even more wealth, or just to feed their pride.)
Case of pride was a famous battle over a piece of land which Best Buy in Minneapolis wanted for their headquarters; they tried to lowball the former owner of that land and his pride got hurt, so both sides ended up spending more than the sale price of the land, just in legal fees. There's no way in this world or the next, that that benefitted shareholders in any way, shape, or form. Or you can look at Jack Welch's retirement package ($2 million/year for life. That is raw, naked, unspeakable greed; and given how GE has fared since he left, it appears that a lot of their stock price rise was done by manipulating earnings in order to *just* beat Wall Street guidance; and by eating / hollowing out seed corn in order to focus on financial chicanery -- with its lower overhead -- than on producing products...oh, and by manipulating and stampeding politicians into the "need" for Green Energy like ...windmills.)
I don't work at McDonald's. I don't even eat there.
Changing the system is currently almost impossible, except for those who already have money and influence. The politicians will give you a form letter which does not even address the substance of your concern, unless you first give them a large campaign contribution; or lobby them, which means wining and dining and providing them access to sexual services on the side.
And you are clinically insane if you think I have even the slightest shred of Communistic tendencies.
The GDP figures compared to taxes and cost of living are not prattle. The bulk of the money has been taken by God-knows-who: if the GDP has quadrupled, and the population has doubled, but wages remain stagnant, then ceteris paribus wages should have doubled. But they haven't. That's not Communistic: it is not demanding government dictation of the means of production. But it is pointing out that the concentration of more and more wealth, in the hands of fewer and fewer, IS both greedy and immoral. I like how (for example) Microsoft, or Silicon Valley companies, demand that they cannot exist without H1-Bs to hold down wages: and yet Microsoft once had a $51 BILLION special all-cash dividend. That dividend, means, management didn't have any idea how to grow the business profitably with that money, so they might as well give it to shareholders (meaning, a disproportionate share to themselves, as executives tend to be awarded with stock options, and therefore, stock.)
But if they'd put that money into state bonds (Constitutionally free of Federal Income Tax), they'd have thrown off a billion a year in free cash flow: without touching the principal or jeopardizing cash flow from continuing operations. They could have paid ALL the US citizens' salary differential from that.
And the principal, still would've been in the control of the company, not dispersed.
(Did I mention the last time I checked, Microsoft had a profit margin of 57%? Coca-Cola, by contrast, is around 10%, and they compete just fine. Who else writes Office, Outlook, Powerpoint, Word, and Excel?)