Suggesting a union is bad because it'd be good "for the benefit of a privileged few" is a bit ironic when the company is mamaged by a man who is in the running for the title of Richest Man in the World.
He’s only the near-richest man in theory. If he tried to convert all of his company ownership into cash, the company value would crash so fast that he would probably be lucky to actually recover one fifth of his theoretical wealth.
That's a stupid argument, because none of the people on the richest people lists have any significant portion of wealth in liquid assets.
Wealth for good reason is not defined as amount of cash you own.
It’s not an argument, just an observation that you can’t eat Tesla shares.
You seem to be replying as though I’m saying he’s not wealthy? Obviously he’s extremely wealthy by any definition. But most ultra-wealthy people are a LOT more diversified in their portfolio than Musk is. Someone with a diverse portfolio stands more chance of being able to functionally realise their wealth—if, say, they wanted to donate a large chunk of it to some charitable cause.
An argument could be made that Buffet is far and away the richest person (in terms of realisable wealth) due to his highly diverse holdings.
