3 ms·

> In fact, I’ll just live off dividend income and try to get my new IT startup Fourplex off the ground It’s easy to say no when the money is not needed.

esperent 2y ago
Don't be dismissive of people's challenges in life, especially when they have the strength to share them. Money isn't the only cause of pressure in the world.
- harryquach 2y ago
  > Money isn’t the only cause of pressure in the world. Of course not. However having FU money relieves many of them. Taking a moral stance is far less impressive when nothing is on the line.
dingnuts 2y ago
It's actually worse than that. By holding his stocks he remains invested in the company in every meaning of the word. The dividends he's living on are the literal fruit of the proverbial sin that caused him to quit. In order to be morally honest about divesting himself of this line of business he needs to sell his stock. He should invest it in something else, that he believes in, so that any dividends are thus just.
- colesantiago 2y ago
  I agree with this. He must rid himself of any remnants of Microsoft he helped build, therefore he still has a stake in MS through stock, which means he is still supporting surveillance capitalism.
  - t-writescode 2y ago
    Are his shares voting shares?
    - colesantiago 2y ago
      Shares are Shares. Whether they are voting shares or not is irrelevant as he is still invested in the company. As long as he is still invested in Microsoft he is still invested in surveillance capitalism, the very thing he is arguing against, and I am sure if he wants higher dividend payments, he would want the stock to go up. Even if they are voting shares, he has no realistic meaningful power or say when a shareholder vote happens. If I hated the company I worked with for over 10 years why would I still have shares in the company, I wouldn't want anything to do with it, this includes selling shares and wanting Microsoft's share price to go down.
      - t-writescode 2y ago
        I understand your perspective. I imagine, since they're the shares he has and it would cost a lot of money to sell them all, this could be seen as another example of "No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism". Paying for food that Nestle makes supports their system too, for example.
  - anothertroll123 2y ago
    [dead]

esperent 2y ago

Don't be dismissive of people's challenges in life, especially when they have the strength to share them. Money isn't the only cause of pressure in the world.

harryquach 2y ago
> Money isn’t the only cause of pressure in the world. Of course not. However having FU money relieves many of them. Taking a moral stance is far less impressive when nothing is on the line.

dingnuts 2y ago

It's actually worse than that. By holding his stocks he remains invested in the company in every meaning of the word. The dividends he's living on are the literal fruit of the proverbial sin that caused him to quit. In order to be morally honest about divesting himself of this line of business he needs to sell his stock. He should invest it in something else, that he believes in, so that any dividends are thus just.

colesantiago 2y ago
I agree with this. He must rid himself of any remnants of Microsoft he helped build, therefore he still has a stake in MS through stock, which means he is still supporting surveillance capitalism.
- t-writescode 2y ago
  Are his shares voting shares?
  - colesantiago 2y ago
    Shares are Shares. Whether they are voting shares or not is irrelevant as he is still invested in the company. As long as he is still invested in Microsoft he is still invested in surveillance capitalism, the very thing he is arguing against, and I am sure if he wants higher dividend payments, he would want the stock to go up. Even if they are voting shares, he has no realistic meaningful power or say when a shareholder vote happens. If I hated the company I worked with for over 10 years why would I still have shares in the company, I wouldn't want anything to do with it, this includes selling shares and wanting Microsoft's share price to go down.
    - t-writescode 2y ago
      I understand your perspective. I imagine, since they're the shares he has and it would cost a lot of money to sell them all, this could be seen as another example of "No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism". Paying for food that Nestle makes supports their system too, for example.
- anothertroll123 2y ago
  [dead]