See the letter in the article below.

https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...

3,700 employees @ $500/day would be $1.85M / day. Ouch.

Musk is worth $220 billion.

At $1.85 million/day, he'd go broke in only 325 years.

I don't think it's a major worry for him.

I have seen a lot of sentiment wonder "why some people do not like Elmo Musk".

This fact is probably something close to why I personally don't like the guy: he comes across as a personified avatar of the fact that laws don't really apply to folks with those kinds of resources, and that us peons have literally no recourse when faced with a rich person who wants to do whatever they feel like doing.

I'm not sure I'd rank "giving employees 60 days pay for sitting at home doing absolutely nothing" up there with "working in a Victorian coal mine", in terms of abusive employee relations.

What, in your opinion, would be fair, other than "paying them forever for doing absolutely nothing"?

The law apparently says he has to pay them for 60 days. He's doing that.

This is why you should hate your society and its values, not Musk.

While I don't disagree that I should hate this society and its values, that does not mean I shouldn't have some disdain for folks like musk:

"hate the player, not the game" doesn't apply to folks who own the referees.

1 month is $55M in fines at that rate. 300k verified users paying $8/month is $2.4M.

If he's making a big deal about bringing in single digit millions per month to "pay the bills", you'd think he'd care about double-digit million fines, but who knows. He has more FU money than anyone else alive.

> 300k verified users paying $8/month is $2.4M.

That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.

Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".

> That is far from the only source of Twitter revenue.

Yes, but he's claiming the $8/mo is to "keep paying the bills", so why focus on that small revenue stream and then pay a huge fine?

> Also, I'm about 99.999% sure that the $8/month thing is more about trolling the crap out of sanctimonious blue checks rather than actual revenue. They're basically Star-Bellied Sneetches who are going ballistic because the proles might also get "stars upon thars".

The revolution will be a subscription service, got it.