I believe your position is overly simplistic. It is quite clear that the power structure of the country (U.S.A.) is not concentrated in the working class. It's not simply a matter of 'change the law as a voter'. Besides, voters do not change laws, the elected representatives do. They often renege on their promises.

(2) is what some of think is wrong with the country and capitalism (as it is popularly thought of). Such a belief leaves unresolved the issue of negative externalities. Indeed, the problem with a degradation of workers' rights is one such negative externality.

The capacity of the American worker to vote against their self interest is quite high. Should the trend continue long enough we may find ourselves unwittingly in a rather unpleasant society.

With regards to (1), I'll leave this here: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

The vast majority of people who are effected by this in a negative fashion do not have the money needed to get their officials to listen.

Two great books on this topic you may have already read - Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" as well as Supercapitalism by Robert Reich. Reading these two works has really shifted my view on regulation and govenment in general from "something other people do" to something I think about in a more participatory way.

Putnam especially makes the point that an entire generation of Americans is growing up (I include myself here) treating government and politics as a spectator sport -- the province of party hacks -- rather than something ordinary people do during their off-hours. I'd highly recommend reading both in case you haven't.

What's a shareholder's best interest?

It's a meaningless phrase and simply an excuse for acting like a dick.

Well, it is always in the shareholder's interest to give the management sky high bonuses.

This made me laugh and is totally true. Defining your timeline seems like a necessary first step to using that phrase.

>(2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law.

is profit-maximization a law? because i don't see why for example a company can't be formed for the purpose of "betterment of humanity" and if it earns some profit on the way - great - and if not - it is ok too. As long as shareholders agree to that, ie. buy shares of such a company.

There are actually at least two such companies at the moment - Tesla Motors and SpaceX. For both the profit and market position is secondary to, respectively, electrification of transport and making humanity interplanetary. Elon Musk explicitly said on many occasions that in case of Tesla profits are secondary and they don't care if in next decades they'll be top player or disappear completely, as long as everyone is driving electric.

How many companies are you putting money into month after month that aren't turning a profit or providing you any sort of return?

I say month after month because if the company is not turning a profit, someone has to keep the lights on.

Not maximizing profit doesn't mean you need to be in the red. You could break even, or just profit less. You still keep the lights on yourself, or even turn some profit, without 'maximizing' profit.

> is profit-maximization a law?

If we are talking about Public Companies, yes. Privately owned ones can do whatever they want, but in practice the ones that do'nt care about the bottom line tend to be driven out of the market by those who do.

> because i don't see why for example a company can't be formed for the purpose of "betterment of humanity"

Those are called NGOs.

> > is profit-maximization a law?

> If we are talking about Public Companies, yes.

Please cite the relevant law.

Companies have what is called fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/corporate-fidu...

This would work until you get some douche "Activist Investor" like Carl Ichan to buy up a bunch of shares and get all pissed because the company isn't working to maximize profit, despite it's stated goal that it wants to do something else. Because all that matters is that he can make money, and the thought that he could simply not buy shares in the company never occurred to him.

Do they have an obligation to ignore the law because it's very difficult for citizens to enforce it? Because that's closer to what the parent is describing.

Laws don't help if industry has the power to hamstring the organization responsible for enforcing it.

(Assuming you accept the sinister premise that industry is behind defending of the IRS)

yeah... if I could vote for a candidate that would do anything _remotely_ like this, I would. But the primary filtering is how much money the candidate can raise. The candidates might not be corrupt, but the electoral system is corrupted.