In defense of the parent poster, they're making an altogether different point.
Their point, as I take it, is that investing in future welfare at the risk of current welfare rarely makes sense to people's minds, and in fact often jeopardizes future welfare as well as current, due to the fact that any harm it causes now may in fact carry over into the future.
What you're talking about, on the other hand, is about corporate greed and indifference. Very different scenario.
E.g. A struggling parent buying cheap bread for their kids today rather than starving them for a month to save money and feed them more nutritious food later, is not the kind of decision one would attribute to MBA driven obsessions. Nor is this parent a worse parent than a more affluent one who can afford such an investment without starving their children.
Their point, as I take it, is that investing in future welfare at the risk of current welfare rarely makes sense to people's minds, and in fact often jeopardizes future welfare as well as current, due to the fact that any harm it causes now may in fact carry over into the future.
What you're talking about, on the other hand, is about corporate greed and indifference. Very different scenario.
E.g. A struggling parent buying cheap bread for their kids today rather than starving them for a month to save money and feed them more nutritious food later, is not the kind of decision one would attribute to MBA driven obsessions. Nor is this parent a worse parent than a more affluent one who can afford such an investment without starving their children.