Oh shit! That’s so fucked up.

I feel this is really the issue. In my own experience working in tech, I they HB1 staff does very well. And I know of a few that left to take jobs with other companies (who presumably also sponsored them) after 1-2 years, so the competition for fair pay was still there. They were also entirely men. I feel like it’s a way to make sure they get the people who don’t ask for too much, in terms of protection from labor practices and sexual harassment. With Amazon’s model being a complete PR and legal disaster currently. it seems to make sense.

All the way since the first company arrived here—the Virginia Company, that is. A handful of OG tech bros who found themselves a land of unrestricted resources and no boss around. They just needed some customers. And thus began immigration.

Scrapping the whole system would force us to finally fix our education system and stop intentionally raising unskilled people who leave college with $100k of debt and are still unqualified for a job.

Almost all of the HB-1 sponsors in my workplace are making 100k+. That may be lower than the average pay for that position in some cases, but it’s definitely not starving anyone.

Amazing!

Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.

On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.

I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was full of cited information and even the sources led to interesting reads.

That’s a great one 😇. I picture her wreath a little differently now.

If you’re asking that question because you’re genuinely conflicted about donating and you’re not just here spreading divisive nonsense on behalf of Elon Musk, you could do a deeper delve into the entire foundation or look up the Wikipedia page on Income Statements.

You seem to be hung up on the operating expenses. That’s just a finance term for certain operational costs like the electricity bill and insurance. It does not mean the total of what it costs to run the organization and that everything else is in excess. Similarly, salary expenses includes everyone from the HR department to the custodians, not just the rich CEOs.

The entire 485 word intro to his Wikipedia page is unsourced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

The politically elite are so used to puppeteering public sentiment with ease, and so confident in their efforts to suppress education in America that they have stopped trying to be sneaky. All American ‘news’ is propaganda and the this is a blatant attempt to divide the public on one of the last free resources for factual information**. Free as in non-criminalized. These types of posts by EM are to incite division in order to amp-up for the criminalization of information. And it’s not very difficult to see.

**factual when readers uphold its integrity through critical consumption and editing.