[samhwr]

I’m not sure why having the money is relevant. Plenty of companies, people, and governments ‘have the money’. The question is why it is specifically Apple who are obliged to provide welfare for this person at their own expense.

I have huge sympathy for human beings who are unable to work, and a humane society should provide for them, but I don’t see why it falls to Apple. This kind of populism (“person X or company Y should be arbitrarily forced to pay for thing Z, ultra vires, because they can”) feels like a lazy way to avoid solving a deeper societal problem which goes well beyond this one person.

[luffapi]

> I’m not sure why having the money is relevant. Plenty of companies, people, and governments ‘have the money’.

And they are beholden to the public that allows them to keep that money. The government should absolutely be doing more to help disadvantaged people (and everyone else). That doesn’t make Apple a good place to work. They already have exploited child labor to build their fortunes. Apple is rotten to the core and this is just another example.

[samhwr]

Yes, I’m not a fan of lots of what Apple does, but I don’t see how these generalised complaints about Apple are related to this case. I don’t think your comments justify the notion that Apple is obliged to hire people at a loss to provide some form of ad hoc social welfare.