Yes, but in the Bay Area it's not uncommon to have household workers – cleaners, nannies, etc. Something like this would allow people to continue to pay those folks who are not working now, and have no other form of income or assistance. It would help the FB workers, because they're going to be doing that work on top of their normal jobs.
Not saying that's what people will use the money for, but it ups the odds at least.
If you're a tech worker and you have savings to weather a crisis: consider your plans for all the people who rely on you, who are waiting for something and not sure when and if its coming.
(fb employee here) fwiw I've heard of a ton of people continuing to pay housekeepers, nannies, etc. - I was going to pay our house cleaner to stay home anyway, but this removes any hesitation/excuse not to. I agree it's unnecessary, but it's a nice gesture and these FANG companies have the cash in the bank to help the Bay Area weather the storm safely.
Because people are going to have to keep paying for services they no longer get value from. Someone has to clean the house, watch and educate the kids, etc.
because.... they're working from home? if that's the case, that was a piece of info I was missing.
I suspect even if they're working from home, having a nanny/cleaner/etc at home isn't "no value" just "less value".
But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.
>But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.
Because there's a pandemic going on and they don't want outside people in their house? Also, some of these services are now illegal in many cities including SF (Child/adult/senior care is still allowed. I'm assuming cleaners aren't.)
I think the main reason I'm personally cynical about these types of 'good deeds' - whether it's Facebook giving $1K to their already well-paid employees or Bill Gates giving billions to charities - is that, in a perfect world, these ultra wealthy do-gooders probably shouldn't have so much fun money to give away in the first place. Our system should be much more balanced, where employees and researchers and charities don't need trickle down handouts.
Bill Gates became (one of) the world's richest individuals via a monopoly and predatory capitalism, and destroyed many companies and individuals on their path to riches. Facebook's wealth derives from selling users' personal information that they should have never been allowed to obtain in the first place.
I realize someone like Gates or a company like Facebook is going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that our system is not even close to as fair as we're constantly told it is.
This is just employer giving money to an employee, not a national charity. I’m not sure where the moral derision is coming from. Are you a FB stakeholder who thinks the money is going to waste?
Do you have a notion of who owes whom how much? Then please share.
I’m making a direct appeal to the people receiving this money — people who frequent this very website — to consider the people who work for their households.
I’m not making a policy argument, nor am I a proponent of trickle down economics.
This is about a specific, local situation in the midst of a crisis.
Not saying that's what people will use the money for, but it ups the odds at least.
If you're a tech worker and you have savings to weather a crisis: consider your plans for all the people who rely on you, who are waiting for something and not sure when and if its coming.