> laying off workers to make the business competitive results in having your salary clawed back for three years. If the company goes out of business due to ine

> laying off workers to make the business competitive results in having your salary clawed back for three years. If the company goes out of business due to inefficiency - then the market will supply another one that can treat workers and investors well. And maybe it should be clawback against all assets and profits earned in the CEO's lifetime. That will give them motivation to pay off the spurned employees the fired, then start earning more for themselves. Since this is all about free markets and scale, we need to have optimistic forecasts. There's a credit against the CEO to pay off the employees due to management failing, but the CEO can always try again in the future to pay off their newly accrued debt by making better decisions for investors and employees. Imagine - if all management decisions were binded 50% to the welfare of the employee and 50% to profit? Bound by the law? Or face strict liability, financial penalties and possibly criminal charges for causing jeopardy to the workers? That's absolute genius. It's all about how we define competition. What if competition is redefined to imply responsibility and obligation to caretake for workers, and every business on Earth is subject to it? What's wrong with that?