I'm responding to your thought experiment which isn't particularly well defined. For example what is an established business? General Electric is not the same as Tesla for a variety of reasons. If you're not going to say what a well established business is, it's perfectly reasonable for me to use a Tesla as an example of an established business that would not exist if one person wasn't there to use his own capital. And further if Elon Musk died right now, Tesla would would probably have a much more difficult time securing funding. Elon's involvement is cited by basically every person you can find when they explain their investment in the company.Goalposts have gone and flown away into outer space I see. Musk wasn't talking about retroactive conditions of existence, he was evaluating worth in the present day based on employee absences. Aint nobody saying that the other paypal cofounders are essential to SpaceXs operation because without them Musk wouldn't have been able to have any paypal money in the first place because that is a stupid train of thought. And Musk certainly didn't evaluate whether his secretary was an essential element of his success over 12 years.
This seems like a set of pretty huge assumptions. First, how would we have any idea what his will was, and second are we saying that anybody could have provided the capital? That sort of seems like me saying I could have been Mark Zuckerberg, and that really when you think about it there's no difference between me or Zuckerberg. Do people not make decisions? Are you assuming he's risking his own money for no reason?Hell, even if we were to accept your thought experiment as both valid and true, all it would show is that Musk's capital (not Musk himself) used to be essential to the company's operation. But anybody could have provided that capital, it's not like there's something unique about Musk's money that makes it more meaningful than someone else's. And his will/estate likely would have continued funding the company after his death so it still doesn't resolve his proposed test.
The story probably doesn't have a lot of "negative inherent worth", whatever that means. It's more like, if he did say it lets keep it in context, which is the person has the option to remain employed at the same company.But more importantly, we can put aside all those factors because now his capital isn't necessary anymore so he would still fail his own test. So you would still be forced to admit that Musk brings no value at this time based on his logical reasoning / experiment.
And you complain about the veracity of the article as if we're reciting the narcissist's prayer, "Stop it guys, there's no proof Elon said this jeez, buuuuut...... if he did say it then he didn't say anything wrong". Okay, so then why complain about whether he actually said it or not if there's nothing wrong with it. The only reason you're complaining about whether he said it or not is because the statement/story clearly has so much negative inherent worth.
Is it? How would you know?Plus, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he would treat his employees with less respect than his wife, and he certainly didn't refrain from treating his wife the same way.