4 ms·
I think the general take is that the higher you are up the money/power hierarchy the more strictly you should be judged for your choices, because acting in a se
by kemayo 4y ago
I think the general take is that the higher you are up the money/power hierarchy the more strictly you should be judged for your choices, because acting in a self-enriching way becomes less and less necessary. An almost incomprehensibly rich person like Musk should be given less leeway for acting in a grasping manner.
In a sense it's the inverse of the "it's moral to steal bread to feed your family" argument.
- luckylion 4y agoI agree. You have more options and fewer constraints the higher up you go, but I think that also applies to (most) Twitter/BigTech employees. A good chunk of those fired will be millionaires themselves, they're far from worrying about how to feed their families. Nobody has to be there to survive, everyone is there willingly because they saw it as the most advantageous place to work, and they'd switch to a different company tomorrow if they got the right offer. Loyalty is a term from a different era.
- kemayo 4y agoOh, yeah, there's definitely a scale to it. A twitter customer service employee is paid much less than a software engineer... though even the latter isn't going to have been at "will never need more money in their life" levels, particularly given the American social safety net or lack thereof. That said, I do find that people are fairly loyal to a company that treats them well.