But consequences do flow toward power. When a CEO lays off people, it is usually to preserve or grow value to the shareholders. There is a reward for layoffs, o

But consequences do flow toward power. When a CEO lays off people, it is usually to preserve or grow value to the shareholders. There is a reward for layoffs, otherwise they wouldn't happen. The confusion is in the nature of the consequences: detriments tend to flow toward the least empowered, benefits to the most. I think what the author is trying to say is that the CEO should bear some cost for layoffs that were caused by mismanagement. But one person's mismanagement is another's calculated risk gone bad. A decision that turns out to be wrong in fact can be right in principle, in which case you would be punishing the CEO for doing the right thing. The imbalance in power referred to in the article is an inextricable feature of capitalism. It cannot be removed, only countered. Theoretically, the more economic equality that there is generally, the more leverage employees will have in the marketplace. There are structural changes that can be made to core capitalism to achieve this, but trying to second guess layoff decisions is not a good solution.