I think his argument holds. We should apply the same standards to Meta. Zuckerberg has explicitly harmed our democracy. Let's treat all companies that are hostile and run by those that despise America with deep hostility (look no further than his private practices in Hawaii for examples). That's my personal opinion. The same standard is the most democratic path
I''m curious. Do you think it makes sense to treat an American company - one of the biggest btw, that pays taxes and creates jobs - the same way as a foreign company?
I am not sure I understand the question. All companies should be subject to the basic rules and requirements under the law. It absolutely holds that one company should not be specifically targeted, just because it upsets current political ecosystem. If the rules allow it to exist, then the same end result is perfectly possible with other participants.
But what is happening here is different. We are saying: we don't Z company so we are going to treat them differently from the other companies in the same space.
And I am saying this as a person with minimal social media footprint.
This right here is incredibly stupid. One of the stupidest takes and a rampid and dangerous misconception among mostly young men I see as of late. Elon avoids taxes not because he likes this country, but because he benefits from it. Anything that maximizes his personal wealth could very well be hostile to the well being of the country. You should see how he treated his own children. Incredibly naive. Many rich men end up giving back to the communities that made them (Gates and others for instance). Elon, a child of parents that cashed in on apartheid, is certainly an exception.
Elon has literally paid billions of dollars in taxes.
Yes, he "avoids" taxes by using every legal strategy available to him, as does every single person who pays taxes. This is called "paying the correct amount of taxes you legally owe".
> Anything that maximizes his personal wealth could very well be hostile to the well being of the country.
Let's look at the things that have maximized his personal wealth:
Paypal - made online payments popular and safe. Enabled millions of people to start online business.
Tesla - made electric cars popular. Reduced C02 emissions. Gave thousands of Americans good jobs. Made many employees and investors rich.
SpaceX - re-ignited space exploration. pioneered re-usable rockets. Dramatically reduced the cost of launching satellites.
Starlink - brought Internet access to rural areas.
Please tell me, which of these personal wealth maximizing activities has been hostile to the US?
Many rick men are giving back for the soft power (i.e. the politics play). Or indirectly investing into their new ventures (like giving money to buy vaccines and also making the vaccines by their other company). Plus some interesting tax write-offs.
So, thanks for the charity, but I would rather prefer them to pay that as taxes.
Anecdotal, but out of my graduating class in chemical engineering from a University in Seattle, the top 20 students went into tech and finance. The worst performing students (by academic metrics) went to Boeing. Over time, I expect decisions to be made by engineers which are not stand outs. Coupled with the MBA trainwreck prioritizing profits and cost cutting, I expect Boeing has a very rough patch ahead.
I always wonder who these folks who graduate with excellent STEM degrees are who can't land a job.
I had a similar experience with my graduating class in undergrad computer science at a no-name state university. Of the graduating class (significantly smaller than when we started), I don't know of a single person who couldn't find some kind of gainful tech related employment - including the few folks who somehow could not code! by the end of our program. My experience is circa 2014, so only shortly after the great recession.
Where are these people who just can't get any kind of work with real CS degrees? Even the many hardcore cheaters I know of found ways into the FAANG (some have been promoted several times now too!)
Things are a bit sketchy at the moment. Had a recent get-together including a former co-worker who was an obvious hire-this-person. They got hit in a layoff and they're still essentially out of work after a year.
Job postings that don't respond to inquiries about the role are a waste of your time, and it's possible to spend all day every day applying to them. Job postings without a method of contact are probably some kind of scam.
The easiest step, IMHO, is to start by ignoring employers who use a service to filter applicants.
Top 20 students in chemical engineering went into tech and finance.... two professions that at the first sight have nothing in common with chemical engineering... Tech and finance must really be looking for a lot of employees....
If Boeing was paying $500K+ TC for engineers in their early/mid career, you'd see a lot more expertise enter the field. Instead you basically have to go into tech or PE/IB to see that type of compensation fresh out of school. Especially when students are taking on hundreds of thousands in debt, the payback period becomes really important when considering career paths.
I completely understand graduates would choose higher TC from tech/finance vs TC from Boeing. What I do not understand is why tech/finance companies would want to hire chemical engineering graduates.....
I know a few people who changed careers from biology to finance - but that was only after going back to school and getting some business degree....
No doubt, Big Tech prints money and absorbs all available talent. Boeing's troubles are surely compounded by having all the best new talent hired away from them, because Big Tech pays much better.
reply