> I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company.
It's seen as sufficient, often, because:
(1) even if a civil cause of action is available, the cost of litigation far exceeds any plausible benefit to the company, and
(2) The company can't direct criminal prosecution and the high bar of proof and other competing prosecutorial priorities mean even if the conduct the company believes occurred which justified the firing would also be criminal, it often won't meet the criteria a public productor will apply before prosecuting.
> There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there is a correction to that circumstance which doesn't itself have social costs that outweigh it's utility.
It's seen as sufficient, often, because:
(1) even if a civil cause of action is available, the cost of litigation far exceeds any plausible benefit to the company, and
(2) The company can't direct criminal prosecution and the high bar of proof and other competing prosecutorial priorities mean even if the conduct the company believes occurred which justified the firing would also be criminal, it often won't meet the criteria a public productor will apply before prosecuting.
> There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there is a correction to that circumstance which doesn't itself have social costs that outweigh it's utility.