>>21397476>>if we buy these shitty cucumbers from India, in the long term customers will stop buying our products and will shift to other brands fucking up shareholder value, so we'll stick with our more expensive supplierYes, you're free to tell the shareholders that at the AGM, with all the facts and evidence in the world to back it up, but:
>The shareholders are not required to listen to you.>The shareholders can vote you out and elect a board of directors who will implement the jeetification cost cutting measures they're demanding.and this is an inherent problem of the joint stock corporate model. It genuinely all comes down to shareholders in the end, who are well-diversified, compared to management, who have all their wealth and prestige tied up with this one company, and who want short-term gains to pump their portfolio, as opposed to management, who want long-term stability so as to be able to keep their jobs. So, even if managers know, and say, that product enshittification is harmful to the long-term health of the company, so long as it promises to make the shareholders that much richer, that is what the company will do, because, surprise surprise, the shareholders ARE THE OWNERS.
This generally leads back into your point of how privately/closely held corporations do better long-term than public ones, since, generally, the shareholders are either also managers or otherwise take a direct, long-term interest in the company, as opposed to the shareholders of public companies, who are either speculators and/or massive investment funds who generally view the company as a vehicle to provide them with wealth, not as a business which concerns itself with the manufacture of quality products.