Which is why companies can "grow" in accounting terms while actually being hollowed out as going concerns with a future.
Likewise with the planetary economy, which appears to be growing financially while in ecological terms it's almost literally eating its own seed corn.
A better approach needs a revolution in accounting. Current accounting practices are built on so many false assumptions they cannot possibly produce lasting long term opportunity, except for a tiny minority of exceptionally and unhealthily privileged people.
Few giant American companies have been as consistently successful as Intel. I can think of only Microsoft, one or two energy conglomerates like ExxonMobil, a telecom or two like Verizon, and maybe a bank like Goldman Sachs.
Something about staying in your lane while increasing opportunities in that lane seems to be a good long-term formula.
But overall, giant companies with 30 year runs of knockout growth and/or dividends like Intel are Cinderella stories. Google will be the next one to qualify in a few years I suppose.
Agreed, but a gradual erosion can occur over the course of several years. PEGs and the operating company's management team have massive incentives to hit their growth metrics. If decreasing 401K contributions helps management hit their EBITDA target, many would argue that they should do exactly that. However, the impact of these decisions accumulates over time and can eventually derail a company's performance.