Musk cuts Twitter’s parental leave from 20 weeks to 2
nypost.com
nypost.com
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1529097667858546689
He says that we need to "celebrate having kids" and if we don't then civilization will be sterilized.
Musk says he's "sort of worried that hey, civilization, if we don’t make enough people to at least sustain our numbers, perhaps increase a little bit, then civilization’s going to crumble":
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
Cutting parental leave doesn't mean Musk is an incoherent, inconsistent flake whose actions don't match his words, does it?
That said, workers have the right to choose the best situation for them. People might be willing to deal with a pile of bullshit in a startup where they have some theoretical direct ownership stake: but it's a bit harder to justify some of this stuff in a privately owned company where you won't necessarily have a chance to cash out big.
Why should twitter’s employees have to suffer from their employer reckless destruction of their company? The ones still there didn’t sign up under those conditions.
Better to be bankrupt than inhumane.
Buuut… bankrupt and inhumane includes inhumane, so just bankrupt is still better
Here's his contribution to the conversation:
"Being a Mom is a real job that deserves major respect"
Less charitably, perhaps his ideals are pretty flexible (assuming they exist at all) and within some bounds he’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear and do whatever he thinks serves him best.
Perhaps a combination of both.
I can give you the donation links for a bunch of reputable organizations that try and deal with child hunger
Will you give every last penny you have to them?
Not donating would be inhumane.
It's better to be bankrupt than inhumane, right?
[Why] do you believe that?
I believe that bosses owe more to their employees than individual people do to all the other random people on Earth. Maybe I’m wrong.
How do you define inhumane? Am I treating everyone less wealthy than me inhumanely if I don’t give them money?
There's a big difference between the richest man in the world letting their employees have 20 weeks of parental leave, than someone living on a salary giving away all their money to charity.
The difference is in how much we are affected personally by the "giving" we are doing, and this is not a meaningless point. It's very narrow minded to think we ought to give everything we have at all times because where would you stop? There is always someone that's more in need. Ultimately we should be giving away as much as we can and this needs to take into consideration how much we have. Do you seriously think Musk is not in a position to give 20 weeks of parental leave to his employees? If the richest man couldn't do that, then wouldn't this mean it's so taxing no one could? But there's plenty of business owners around the world that do, and none of them are richer than Musk, so what gives?