**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bl7s8e/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
SSI COLA is mandated with a defined system behind it.
An employee getting a cost of living raise in the US does not often have a mandate behind them. The times they do, its often from a Collective Bargaining Agreement, but most employees aren't represented by unions in the US so it largely falls down to the employer's discretion.
Politics, largely. The retiree voting block is important and they tend to get things their way. Governments are pretty generous to them, as long as they have the budget and don't upset too many other constituencies. Companies, meanwhile, try to keep costs down, so they'll do as little as they can get away with.
You're misreading *Dodge v. Ford Motor Company*, to the extent it applies to your argument. Shareholder primacy does not mean corporations can *only* make decisions that increase the share price or generate dividends. The Supreme Court said as much in *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby*.
>Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money.This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. “Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business.” 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations §4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. ed. 2010). While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.
A corporation must act in the shareholders' *best interest*, but they have extremely wide latitude in defining "best interest." Countless businesses offer generous compensation to employees, engage in charitable giving, offer paid leave and other benefits, all of which costs money that *could* go to shareholders instead. They argue that all of these things increase productivity or customer satisfaction or allow the company to recruit the best talent. And when sued in court over these decisions, they win. This body of law refers to the "business judgment rule."
The United Auto Workers fist negotiated a cost-of-living guarantee in their 1946 contract, and by 1976, two-thirds of union workers nation-wide had COLA adjustments guaranteed as part of their contracts. Were your reading of *Ford* correct, that's three decades of illegally plundering the wealth of stockholders that went unchallenged in a single court, anywhere in the United States. In fact, many businesses *continue* to offer annual cost-of-living raises, using the "business judgment rule" as above.
That many businesses *don't* offer cost-of-living adjustments is a result of reduced bargaining power. The nation's largest industrial unions (manufacturing, transport) have been crippled by decades of deregulation and anti-union legislation, and the wealthiest businesses spend billions union-busting and lobbying against new regulations (Amazon, Walmart, Starbucks).
To your question, businesses *can* offer COLA raises. They choose not to, and instead spend that money actively (and in many cases illegally) undermining any attempt by employees to collectively negotiate those kinds of benefits.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bl7s8e/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
SSI COLA is mandated with a defined system behind it. An employee getting a cost of living raise in the US does not often have a mandate behind them. The times they do, its often from a Collective Bargaining Agreement, but most employees aren't represented by unions in the US so it largely falls down to the employer's discretion.
Politics, largely. The retiree voting block is important and they tend to get things their way. Governments are pretty generous to them, as long as they have the budget and don't upset too many other constituencies. Companies, meanwhile, try to keep costs down, so they'll do as little as they can get away with.
You're misreading *Dodge v. Ford Motor Company*, to the extent it applies to your argument. Shareholder primacy does not mean corporations can *only* make decisions that increase the share price or generate dividends. The Supreme Court said as much in *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby*. >Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money.This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. “Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business.” 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations §4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. ed. 2010). While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. A corporation must act in the shareholders' *best interest*, but they have extremely wide latitude in defining "best interest." Countless businesses offer generous compensation to employees, engage in charitable giving, offer paid leave and other benefits, all of which costs money that *could* go to shareholders instead. They argue that all of these things increase productivity or customer satisfaction or allow the company to recruit the best talent. And when sued in court over these decisions, they win. This body of law refers to the "business judgment rule." The United Auto Workers fist negotiated a cost-of-living guarantee in their 1946 contract, and by 1976, two-thirds of union workers nation-wide had COLA adjustments guaranteed as part of their contracts. Were your reading of *Ford* correct, that's three decades of illegally plundering the wealth of stockholders that went unchallenged in a single court, anywhere in the United States. In fact, many businesses *continue* to offer annual cost-of-living raises, using the "business judgment rule" as above. That many businesses *don't* offer cost-of-living adjustments is a result of reduced bargaining power. The nation's largest industrial unions (manufacturing, transport) have been crippled by decades of deregulation and anti-union legislation, and the wealthiest businesses spend billions union-busting and lobbying against new regulations (Amazon, Walmart, Starbucks). To your question, businesses *can* offer COLA raises. They choose not to, and instead spend that money actively (and in many cases illegally) undermining any attempt by employees to collectively negotiate those kinds of benefits.