Unfortunately, your very first assumption doesn’t hold true as Tesla is not the sole solution nor primary solution to “work” or to even “food”. This is why both morally and legally, we have tests of reasonableness. Under the same circumstances, would a reasonable person feel under duress that they had no other fair or sensible solutions to refusing employment at Tesla? The answer is no because the likelihood of someone getting a job at Tesla would suggest that they could easily obtain a job from another employer.
As for the rest of your post:
I fully support and agree with your criticism of his workplace safety issues.
You seem confused about his role as you are both incorrect from a legal and pragmatic standpoint of the distinction between Tesla and Elon Musk, they cannot be used interchangeably as he only owns 20% of Tesla and they have a Board of Directors that represent the full ownership of the company and they supersede Elon:
Tesla provides resources and machines; Elon Musk does not
Tesla pays people to work there; Elon Musk merely authorizes the payments on behalf of Tesla as he is their chosen CEO. If the BoD wishes to pay him more or less, they can and if they wish to replace him, they can.
To answer your question as to why he was chosen; it’s because the owners of the equity used to generate the GDP chose him. Based on their Proxy Statement, it would indicate that they feel he is qualified and a strong CEO. And they haven’t necessarily voted on a CEO, but the Board does typically have the option to call a vote for the replacement. Some Boards even have dedicated committees for CEO identification and selection.
As for your accusation that people are unable to rise or fall in a Capitalist society, you are attempting to use a false dichotomy to justify your claim, but there are far more methods of rising and falling in a Capitalist society than starting a small business or gambling in Vegas. Furthermore, you then continue on with more false assumptions that individuals require a certain amount of cash assets to be successful or even attempt a business, which is not true.
I think you meant “median”, not “mean”. Not criticizing, just for your awareness.
As for your analysis around relative proportion of investment, you would be correct that the relative risk impact from a $10m donor vs. a $100k donor of $50k would be drastically different, but so would the relative reward. Furthermore, you threw in a lot of variables to try to complicate and distract from the message, but you’re ignoring the risk and inputs required in obtaining that $10m. Obviously in your example you narrowed it to a trust fund recipient, which is atypical of the norm, but there still is a far greater complexity to it because of how the assets in the trust fund derived.
Upward mobility is not a myth as according to the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS):
“Ninety percent of young adults earned more than their parents did, and 60 percent worked in higher-status occupations”
As for your closing remark, he can tell them whatever wants for whatever reason, but they are free to find employment elsewhere. He does not have a monopoly on jobs.
romaincrisis
amandla
gamechangershow
izzy806
gracieabrams
