So the classic argument of 'trickle down economics'. I"d wager that that $1k will just go into their bank account, like their bonus would.
Scenario: 1 month ago, you're an FB employee, and working, and you pay a nanny.
Today: you're an FB employee, and working, and you pay a nanny.
How is FB giving the FB employee changing anything at all? There's something I'm missing in this.
I suspect even if they're working from home, having a nanny/cleaner/etc at home isn't "no value" just "less value".
But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.
Because there's a pandemic going on and they don't want outside people in their house? Also, some of these services are now illegal in many cities including SF (Child/adult/senior care is still allowed. I'm assuming cleaners aren't.)
They are doing something positive in their locus of control. And of course people are upset about it because... reasons.
</sarcasm>
Bill Gates became (one of) the world's richest individuals via a monopoly and predatory capitalism, and destroyed many companies and individuals on their path to riches. Facebook's wealth derives from selling users' personal information that they should have never been allowed to obtain in the first place.
I realize someone like Gates or a company like Facebook is going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that our system is not even close to as fair as we're constantly told it is.
How do you define a charity?
Do you have a notion of who owes whom how much? Then please share.
I’m not making a policy argument, nor am I a proponent of trickle down economics.
This is about a specific, local situation in the midst of a crisis.