"Don't get greedy" and similar variations assumes intent rather than what I see as the reality of how companies operate within the US--not a failing of individual virtues. If you're a public company, your shareholders will want stock prices to go up and are more than happy to use their shares to vote for whoever is willing to make that happen.

This is, of course, an exaggeration. Not all shareholders value profits above all else, but many big ones do. Ignoring what incentives (and disincentives) are put on a business drive it's behavior. If you want something contrary to those incentives, you need to change those pressures or you're doomed to be disappointed.

Is there a minimum percentage of voting stock you have to issue in US law? IIRC, google is split in half into voting and non-voting shares with a clause in their incorporation to buy back shares to keep their prices roughly equal.

There isn't. Snapchat went public by issuing only non-voting shares to the open market.

Valve is arguably a good example

Valve is also of course a privately held company.

Maybe B corporations?

Outside of the tech world, Unilever is one of the worst mega-companies in basically everything they do.

Yet, their ANZ branch is certified since 2022: https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp/company/uni...

B Corp enshitified itself, trying to get bigger, instead of staying true to its (supposed) mission

For anyone else wondering, there's an extensive list on Wikipedia. Many of the entries are really significant, though this one stands out the most to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever#Trade_in_Russia_amid_...