The OP listed a number of social-justice related goals that s/he felt Google should strive for. That seems like an even greater non-sequitur to me; wouldn't you agree?

I responded by pointing out that Google was formed here, in the USA. The US is a country in which those values don't generally prevail and -- in any event -- where corporations are not responsible for upholding them.

I asked, more or less rhetorically, if there was perhaps a reason for that.

The OP responded by citing some counterexamples that more or less agree with my point, which I thought was an interesting way to argue. Skype was purchased by Microsoft (and let's not talk about Nokia, right?), while the founder of Mojang is living like a king of old Arabia in one of the most expensive homes ever sold in the US. We're apparently doing something right that those other countries are not.

Congratulations, you live in a country where a few wealthy shareholders are capable of extracting value from the large majority of laborers. I guess that makes you great?

No, but like just about everyone else in the US, I have more to lose from a class war than I would ever stand to gain.

You are measuring the country over what the successful, rich people can do or have. What about the vast majority of the population?

They're too busy playing Minecraft and yakking over Skype to care.

More seriously, it's pretty clear by this point that a rising tide lifts all boats, even under conditions of inequitable income distribution. I don't see anyone from the US trying to break into Cuba or Venezuela, do you?