Nobody does it because the incentives make it impossible. If you do this, then you just lose. Because everyone else will be doing it, so you’ll get pushed out.

Think of it this way: if slavery was legal, would anyone be running a fair labor farm? Maybe, for like a week, before they’re out of business.

Or, consider this: at any point in time, any of the tobacco company could have made nicotine-free cigarettes. But they never did. Why not? Because it’s a fundamentally impossible position to hold.

Now, this is very reductive, I admit. There is a niche for appealing to people’s conscience. But that niche is a luxury, and luxury goods don’t perform well in a tight economy. And, luxury goods will never have the breadth of the staples.

> I...remind you it's completely legal and simple for you to go and start a company that does equitable distribution of company profits. More people should do it instead of complaining that few people do.

No. Instead of doing that, the effort should go into making all companies act that way.

IMHO, what you just did is part-and-parcel of one angle of the "propaganda to justify and obscure it" that I referred to above (e.g. "Don't like it? Then I say your only response should be this ineffective and limited-scope action I specify that strictly adheres to the status-quo").

And it would be ineffective. Building a little oasis in the middle of the status quo would only help a few and is unlikely to resist the tendency of things to eventually revert to the mean. The mean needs to change, and the best path to that is probably through regulation, other kinds of social standards-setting, and increasing the power of the exploited groups (e.g. through unionization).