> In this case, the CEO was acting in a way that is favorable to his employees' interests, but detrimental to the interests of the shareholders. That's an iffy

> In this case, the CEO was acting in a way that is favorable to his employees' interests, but detrimental to the interests of the shareholders. That's an iffy assertion. You could argue that no corporation should pay above minimum wage for any position because to do otherwise is to eat into profits unnecessarily. But the reality is that for many positions you cannot attract or retain employees without paying them far above minimum wage. It's not hard to argue that it's in the best long-term interests of the company to pay wages that make it easier to attract the best employees and that make its employees very loyal. Whether those wages are $40k/year, $70k/year, or $200k/year is not objectively very clear.