Read up on some IT chat boards about people's opinions of how Apollo has managed Rackspace before you buy into this IPO IMO.
A lot of them end up collapsing under the debt a few years later, plus the heavy cutting of capital expenditure (“capex”) leads to a long term declining revenue as they are no longer investing in new products.
In my experience whether you think that PE is lawful neutral or flat-out lawful evil tends to come down to your opinion on the most brutal forms of capitalism...
Private equity has a reputation of splitting up companies, firing tons of people, and then selling the parts to the highest bidder, often while taking advantage of a reputation which is based on social capital the brand built before being acquired.
Some will say this is a good thing since the company was often failing in the first place, but there are plenty of counter examples where the only motivating factor in the move to PE is greed.
Greed isn't always good, even in the context of the boardroom.
So if you agree private ownership is not the devil, then nothing stops a private group from acquiring a majority stake in a company and running it the way they see fit. And if what they want to do is to fire everyone skilled and run it into the ground - so what? If the need is still there, a new company will arise. If they were too bloated, then cost cutting is good. And if they just middle along doing poorly, then they can’t spin it back out to the public markets and earn a huge pay day (unless the public markets are irrationally exuberant from free money printed by the government, but this is a 2020 phenomena).
Maybe the previous owner should've known better, but they made a conscious decision after evaluating the situation. Maybe the new owner should've acted more responsibly, but they made a conscious decision after evaluating the situation.
Can you say the same for the people who are told they're fired? They made no conscious decision but are the ones who will have to pick up the slack (until such time that a new company arises, if ever). And, funnily enough, the people who are all for private ownership tend not to be the same people advocating for better social safety nets.
If the company was in decline before the purchase, then the end effect could end up being the same. But willfully creating the situation is hardly fuzzy morally.
There is almost no way to affect another person's life by what you choose to do with an apple.
This logic is anathema to some people, who wish that the same stodgy old conglomerates exist in perpetuity like a government agency. But this would be suicidal.
Going back to your apple - the requirements for society to gracefully handle an apple's owner allowing it to rot are nothing. For handling a large company failing gracefully, they are very significant.
A society that is happy to let this happen should recognise this difference and set aside resources to prepare for it - on a scale that recognises the relative difference.
If I was a shareholder in a company that underperformed the market, and a professional turnaround firm decided to take drastic action to improve the value of my ownership stake, I would approve.
My preference is to work for and invest in companies that try to make me the most money possible. I donate to non-profits that try hardest to improve the world. For-profit companies and non-profit organizations have different goals.