Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/03/feeling-super-bad-about-economy-musk-wants-to-cut-10percent-of-tesla-jobs.html
612 comments
I'm suspecting that we'll see forced return to office as a way to implement layoffs without as much bad PR. Stock will go up since costs will drop, but management will be able to say that is more an issue with return to office rather than a company failing. "We're doing great, it's just that some employees don't share our commitment and focus on doing things well, and making our mission a priority."
There has been a sudden uptick in return to office talk (despite plenty of reporting that covid is actually much worse than people realize now). Other people on HN have mentioned it and all of a sudden the leadership at my office, who were always extremely pro-remote work have suddenly started making mention of how valuable in-face communication is.
So the feeling of a "soft layoff" might be the intended effect.
There has been a sudden uptick in return to office talk (despite plenty of reporting that covid is actually much worse than people realize now). Other people on HN have mentioned it and all of a sudden the leadership at my office, who were always extremely pro-remote work have suddenly started making mention of how valuable in-face communication is.
So the feeling of a "soft layoff" might be the intended effect.
The main issue with that approach is that you basically also lay off all of your good workers who prefer remote. Maybe it's worth the cost for employers. Idk. We're remote-first and hiring. Looking forward to chatting with these employees once companies try and implement their in-office policies.
Been through a couple of layoffs at a variety of different companies through out my career and personally managed to dodge the bullet each time (so this isn't a sour grapes type response). It is very important to recognize: who gets laid off has nothing to do with whether or not they are a "good worker".
The "good worker" narrative is there to justify management's decisions and reduce survivor's guilt, but you'll see when layoffs come amazing talent and mediocre talent are equally removed. Management has zero problem laying off incredible people en masse.
The "good worker" narrative is there to justify management's decisions and reduce survivor's guilt, but you'll see when layoffs come amazing talent and mediocre talent are equally removed. Management has zero problem laying off incredible people en masse.
Yes but in this case we're talking about returning to the office, which doesn't have the exact same dynamics.
In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).
In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).
> you're specifically filtering out...
...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well.
That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well.
That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
No, he's assuming that low performers would have a harder time finding a new job with equal or better pay. Which may or may not be true.
Why would they be looking for a new job if this wasn't a breaking point or final straw for them?
They wouldn't be, which is why I believe this forced return to office action just filters out high-performers who wish to remain remote and it retains almost all of the low/medium skill workers and almost all of the high-skill no preference or work in office preferred high skill workers.
As a fly on the wall, I think you both agree! Both of your points are very good and aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite.
Keep in mind though that Elon can just say this, even send the memo... Then fire who he wants anyway, keep whoever is still remote and kept and pitch to the market that this "realignment" has made the company stronger by sucking right up to the expectations of your average distrustful exec.
How true is the claim that a hybrid WFH/in-person setup is worse than either pure WFH or pure in-person? I’ve seen many claim that it causes a cultural disconnect. I’ve wanted to defend the hybrid scenario, and yet I’ve also seen many problems with communication in a hybrid setup.
Personally, I think all three are equal. Each have merits and pros and cons. What we should do is leave people to decide what arrangement works best for them. Though companies can also decide what they think works best for their organization, in which case employees may have to leave or join new organizations depending on their work preferences or their options.
All this to say here in response that I'm increasingly irritated at the, what's the right word? Polarization? Radicalization? Politicization? Of work options and how those options are creating new tribes and battlegrounds.
All this to say here in response that I'm increasingly irritated at the, what's the right word? Polarization? Radicalization? Politicization? Of work options and how those options are creating new tribes and battlegrounds.
Here's the covid sewage data for Silicon Valley:
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
A week or so ago, it didn't look too bad. It is indeed much worse than I realized right now.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
A week or so ago, it didn't look too bad. It is indeed much worse than I realized right now.
I think the parent poster might also be talking about consequences, such as this gem that the CDC dropped recently. 20% of the working age adult population possibly having new onset long term health effects. Oops! (And that's not even getting into things like whether certain chopped up viral fragments might be seeding protein tangles and thus Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.)
>These findings translate to one in five COVID-19 survivors aged 18–64 years, and one in four survivors aged ≥65 years experiencing an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm
>These findings translate to one in five COVID-19 survivors aged 18–64 years, and one in four survivors aged ≥65 years experiencing an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm
Eh, this limitation mentioned in the study seems pretty huge to me:
> Finally, the study only assessed conditions thought to be attributable to COVID-19 or post-COVID illness, which might have biased RRs away from the null. For example, clinicians might have been more likely to document possible post-COVID conditions among case-patients. In addition, because several conditions examined are also risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19, it is possible that case-patients were more likely to have had an existing condition that was not documented in their EHR during the year preceding their COVID-19 diagnosis, resulting in overestimated risk for this group.
It also seems very possible that people with COVID diagnoses would be more likely to be on edge about their health / long COVID type symptoms. It also would have been nice if they differentiated things that can actually be tested for vs. things that can’t.
I’m not saying there isn’t an effect. I had bad cases of COVID twice. The first time I didn’t have any apparent effects afterwards other than my sense of taste taking a while to come back. After the second time - Delta - I definitely had some after effects.
We just need to be careful about claiming how many people get them. People are placeboing themselves into actually having symptoms (or thinking they do), and it’s hard to design studies to get around that.
> Finally, the study only assessed conditions thought to be attributable to COVID-19 or post-COVID illness, which might have biased RRs away from the null. For example, clinicians might have been more likely to document possible post-COVID conditions among case-patients. In addition, because several conditions examined are also risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19, it is possible that case-patients were more likely to have had an existing condition that was not documented in their EHR during the year preceding their COVID-19 diagnosis, resulting in overestimated risk for this group.
It also seems very possible that people with COVID diagnoses would be more likely to be on edge about their health / long COVID type symptoms. It also would have been nice if they differentiated things that can actually be tested for vs. things that can’t.
I’m not saying there isn’t an effect. I had bad cases of COVID twice. The first time I didn’t have any apparent effects afterwards other than my sense of taste taking a while to come back. After the second time - Delta - I definitely had some after effects.
We just need to be careful about claiming how many people get them. People are placeboing themselves into actually having symptoms (or thinking they do), and it’s hard to design studies to get around that.
For sure, that overall number could vary a lot, and this really needs further breakdown that distinguishes between more minor, annoying effects versus fairly life altering ones (like new diabetes or significant kidney damage). There was another one about breakthrough outcomes that did distinguish a difference in risk reduction for various severe and non-severe post-acute effects (the TL;DR being, vaccine breakthroughs are less severe but still far from harmless):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1529477481127759872.html
Many of these are amenable to direct observation though. Research has already had many objective findings such as lung fibrosis, kidney function damage, abnormal liver function tests, shrunken brain matter (UK biobank study), etc. So the overall number might be debateable, but this is almost certainly going to have a significant impact on the number of healthy workers, not to mention the personal tragedies behind those statistics.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1529477481127759872.html
Many of these are amenable to direct observation though. Research has already had many objective findings such as lung fibrosis, kidney function damage, abnormal liver function tests, shrunken brain matter (UK biobank study), etc. So the overall number might be debateable, but this is almost certainly going to have a significant impact on the number of healthy workers, not to mention the personal tragedies behind those statistics.
Risk is the product of probability and severity. The OP is talking about severity being corrected upwards, while the GP is talking about probability increasing too.
The data from my country looks like if there was a new immunity-escaping variant that causes even less grave symptoms than omicron. It's... well, it's not "good", I guess "validating" is the word here... so, it's "validating" to see other places following the same trend.
Here hospitalization and deaths are not following the infection curve at all. They are still following the end of the earlier omicron curve.
Here hospitalization and deaths are not following the infection curve at all. They are still following the end of the earlier omicron curve.
Anecdata: Everyone I know with kids in elementary school is reporting major outbreaks at school for the first time in the era of Covid. This includes my family. The transmissibility (specifically among kids) appears to be significantly higher than before. And the symptoms fortunately appear to be light for everyone I know who's caught it recently.
Meh. Wastewater has everything in it, but not things aren't checked for. Covid is now too broad a term that includes far less dangerous variants.
You need to draw a line between Covid and colds, or else count colds like Covid.
You need to draw a line between Covid and colds, or else count colds like Covid.
Biochemist here: the test for wastewater is quantitative PCR, which is specific to COVID. It's not COVID and "other viruses".
Here's the protocol: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/wastewater-sur...
Here's the protocol: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/wastewater-sur...
The data matches a spike in actual cases.
See https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-cases-and-deaths
For all intents and purposes, right now COVID in a particular area is either going to be 100% a single variant, or a variant in the process of outcompeting another variant. There hasn't been a situation where there's been equilibrium between multiple variants that I'm aware of.
Also, there is no common variant of COVID that is anywhere near as mild any virus we call "common cold". In the best case (Omicron for a young, boosted individual) it's comparable with influenza in terms of severity.
Also, there is no common variant of COVID that is anywhere near as mild any virus we call "common cold". In the best case (Omicron for a young, boosted individual) it's comparable with influenza in terms of severity.
Elon has in the past talked about a growth-pruning cycle, so this is likely part of that - planned to some degree.
I imagine, too, if there are "100x engineers" (or whatever their role is) there may be compromise otherwise that's not generally applied; I would however think that someone who's that production - unless it's somehow a mostly solo role - would necessarily need to be on-site to utilize whatever resources necessary.
I imagine, too, if there are "100x engineers" (or whatever their role is) there may be compromise otherwise that's not generally applied; I would however think that someone who's that production - unless it's somehow a mostly solo role - would necessarily need to be on-site to utilize whatever resources necessary.
But at this point everyone knows. It’s already become mainstream business news. If other companies try this, the market will absolutely know they’re lying, and additionally lack the transparency and morality to actually admit they need to do layoffs.
I'm not convinced this is a case of "soft layoffs". You'll save on severence costs, but those costs are so small compared to the cost of having no control over who decides to leave.
this might be a good excuse for companies under-performing but others doing (rather) well, will be (are) able to save a lot of costs (office spaces is #2 expenditure for software companies). And then the added possibility to recruit talent worldwide (and paying those in developing countries a fraction of resources in US / EU :-) )
I know a lawyer who works exclusively in the tech space, who’s dealt with Musk companies a number of times. He said they use the slimiest tactics he’s ever seen, are constantly acting in bad faith. Would not surprise me one bit if this was an attempt to get people to quit so he could avoid paying severance.
I know automation, engineering consulting firms, etc. who have done business w/ Tesla and I have heard thr same types of stories. Often they (Tesla) just burn through relationships, many companies choose to not do business with them a second time.
Musk seems like that's his entire personality. Burn bridges - buy new ones....
>half of the dev team(including me) don’t have parking space
Isn't your Tesla supposed to be robotaxi, driving around autonomously while you work ? Why do you need parking spaces ?
Isn't your Tesla supposed to be robotaxi, driving around autonomously while you work ? Why do you need parking spaces ?
Wouldn't it be fantastic if the solution to this problem ended up being public transit and bikes?
Why do you think Elon Musk hates work from home so much? He's in business of selling cars. People need less cars or no car at all if they don't have to commute.
The fact that its not a great situation aside, the concept of an engineer making ~300k plus a year having to setup a little office Harry Potter style on the floor under the stairs is pretty funny in a "its so egregious its funny" way. Imagine hiring people, paying them a ton of money and then saying everyone has to come into the office due to the CEO's arrogance but having zero infrastructure setup to handle these people. So millionaires (not that any income level should have to endure this) are working under the stairs or in the lobby to appease the God King. Its pretty bad and pretty amusing too.
Obviously, people who value their jobs show up earlier to claim a parking space and a desk. Coffee is for closers.
Might as well live at work.
points at head can't lose your desk to someone else if you never leave it.
Google has entered the chat with onsite laundry and free food.
The e-mail did say "minimum" of 40 hours - emphasis on the "minimum" part.
Didn't say you had to be awake. Could sleep under your desk, then WFH.
Follow Elon's example. He knows what's best.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reportedly-sleeping...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reportedly-sleeping...
[deleted]
Maybe Elon read https://www.richardkmorgan.com/writing/market-forces/ and thought it was a good time to implement capitalism 2.0. He's got the cars, the engineers, open roads in Texas, and the vision, he can make it happen!
Commenters' general feeling was that it was a soft layoff, and some speculated that it might amount to constructive dismissal.
Another instance of Tesla violating labor laws, this time to get out of paying unemployment....
Another instance of Tesla violating labor laws, this time to get out of paying unemployment....
if they desire sympathy for being forced to sit under stairs, maybe they should first be forced to sit under stairs before offering self-serving excuses.
ooohkay Elon.
>constructive dismissal
TIL and now that I know the term, I think I've had several employers use similar tactics.
TIL and now that I know the term, I think I've had several employers use similar tactics.
Smart right?
Should be enough time to evaluate whom to keep and not offending anyone directly by stating economic issues
Should be enough time to evaluate whom to keep and not offending anyone directly by stating economic issues
Well, except for the part where there are news articles with him talking about doing a layoff because the economy is super bad. But maybe Tesla’s workers have drank the “all journalism is clickbait” kool-aid and don’t read the news. In which case this becomes smart again.
Yes that what I meant. Using it as an excuse
This reminds me of Musk's recent comments about "political attacks against him in the coming days".
It has since been learned that he had been reached by Business Insider to comment about the sexual abuse case beforehand. He already knew that an article against him was coming so he framed the narrative before it even reached the public.
I would not be surprised this was the same here. Tell everyone "Leave if you don't like it or we will fire you" when you very well know that 10% of the workforce will need to be dismissed.
This is pure speculations but would not be surprising at all. I cannot imagine that the company's management is unable to do the math on number of employees vs. number of workstations.
It has since been learned that he had been reached by Business Insider to comment about the sexual abuse case beforehand. He already knew that an article against him was coming so he framed the narrative before it even reached the public.
I would not be surprised this was the same here. Tell everyone "Leave if you don't like it or we will fire you" when you very well know that 10% of the workforce will need to be dismissed.
This is pure speculations but would not be surprising at all. I cannot imagine that the company's management is unable to do the math on number of employees vs. number of workstations.
Yeah, since the BI story – and in particular his attempt to frontrun it and turn his personal legal troubles into a culture war battleground – I think we can assume pretty slimy tactics from Musk.
I started assuming this after Musk called that cave exploration expert in Thailand a pedophile.
After that comment I decided never to buy a Tesla if I can afford one. Good car, scumbag CEO.
Haven't the alternatives caught up to them, anyway? Most of the EV coverage I see nowadays is for cars made by traditional manufacturers, and are always saying that they match teslas (or are big improvements, such as the f150 lightning)
I'm really hoping someone creates a viable alternative to the Roadster 2.0
There's plenty of alternative vaporware cars out there that will also never hit production.
I'm not convinced it's vaporware. Behind schedule? Absolutely. But Elon has always been shitty about time estimates.
Same with Cybertruck and the Semi. They will come out eventually. It might be another 2-4 years, but they will happen.
I even think full self driving will eventually be achieved. It might be another 10 years, but we'll get there.
Same with Cybertruck and the Semi. They will come out eventually. It might be another 2-4 years, but they will happen.
I even think full self driving will eventually be achieved. It might be another 10 years, but we'll get there.
Yup, this was my jumping off point as well
When was this?
There is a big difference between Elon Musk pre and post-March 2018. For reasons that would take weeks to explain.
There is a big difference between Elon Musk pre and post-March 2018. For reasons that would take weeks to explain.
It looks like it was July 15, 2018.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-calls-diver-who-helpe...
If there's a big difference pre/post-March 2018, it would be nice if you could point people in a direction.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-calls-diver-who-helpe...
If there's a big difference pre/post-March 2018, it would be nice if you could point people in a direction.
Curious, what’s the TLDR on this? Or some resources to learn more?
Some kids got trapped in a cave in Thailand. Elon said Tesla would build a small submarine to get them out. A local cave expert who was advising the Thai government on how to handle the rescue operation said the Tesla idea was a pipedream and suggested a more practical solution. He called the Tesla proposal a "PR Stunt." Elon got upset and started bad mouthing the guy on twitter, eventually calling him a pedophile. Elon's rationale seemed to be that because the guy was an older, white male living in Thailand, he must be into pedophilia... The guy sued for defamation and Elon ended up winning because his defense argued Elon didn't really mean it. I'm serious...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593
Of all the things to complain about Musk, this seems like the weakest. Some dude started a twitter fight with Musk and got called a "pedo guy" in response. Sounds like a South African response to me. I'm guessing you've never spent time with Australians, they call everyone cunts. Who cares?
Potty mouth is not a mortal sin.
Potty mouth is not a mortal sin.
Maybe you missed the part where Musk hired a private investigator to prove that the guy was a pedophile. The investigator lied about the evidence, and Musk did no due diligence but directed his PR team to leak those lies to the media, and then threw a hissy fit when the media didn't reprint those lies uncritically.
The whole "pedo guy is just a generic insult" is a laughable lie that Musk tried to float in court. The evidence is that Musk tried to ruin a guy because he had the audacity to call out his publicity stunt when directly asked during an interview. You need to stop defending Musk on this because what he did was incredibly dick-headed and vindictive.
The whole "pedo guy is just a generic insult" is a laughable lie that Musk tried to float in court. The evidence is that Musk tried to ruin a guy because he had the audacity to call out his publicity stunt when directly asked during an interview. You need to stop defending Musk on this because what he did was incredibly dick-headed and vindictive.
The investigator lying about evidence is news to me, but hiring an investigator when someone sues you seems perfectly fair game? I mean, if you sued me over something frivolous and I had the resources for it, I'd tear your life apart too. Exchanging insults on twitter is one thing, filing lawsuits is something completely different.
Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
Musk hired the investigator before the diver sued. The diver sued because Musk basically said "No it wasn't just an insult, I really believe he's a pedophile and I have evidence" to multiple parties. Musk tried to ruin a guys life because he said that Musk's submarine was a publicity stunt. In no way, shape, or form are what they did equivalent and you have a serious moral deficiency if you think they are. Its incredible to me that anyone would try to draw a moral equivalency here.
> Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
The jury found for Musk because Musk didn't name the guy in his tweets. Thats why the diver lost. I don't think you can extrapolate from that verdict to "actually they were both equally bad."
> Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
The jury found for Musk because Musk didn't name the guy in his tweets. Thats why the diver lost. I don't think you can extrapolate from that verdict to "actually they were both equally bad."
> I'm guessing you've never spent time with Australians, they call everyone cunts. Who cares?
Being called a cunt by some jackass Australian and being called a pedophile by a wealthy influential individual are probably going to have wildly different effects on your life and how people see you. being a cunt alone is not a serious offense that ruins the lives of everyone involved.
Being called a cunt by some jackass Australian and being called a pedophile by a wealthy influential individual are probably going to have wildly different effects on your life and how people see you. being a cunt alone is not a serious offense that ruins the lives of everyone involved.
> Of all the things to complain about Musk, this seems like the weakest.
I would argue it's the strongest.
"Pedo" is one of those accusations that sticks around associated with your name, often even when it's false.
Knowing that, Elon Musk, one of the best known people on the planet at this stage, called this to a real person. This can ruin a person's life. Did he have any evidence, even circumstantial? Nope. Did he have a reason for this attack? Only that he felt slighted.
So Elon Musk is ok with potentially ruining someone's life if he even as much as feels slighted.
I think even is the strongest hint of what his character is like. And character is, you could argue, the most important predictor of future behavior. I took this hint of character at face value, and after that I've never been surprised when I've since heard accusations of fraud or sexual harassment. No surprise whatsoever.
So if your reaction to this is Elon Must has potty mouth, you're either breathtakingly stupid or dishonest.
I would argue it's the strongest.
"Pedo" is one of those accusations that sticks around associated with your name, often even when it's false.
Knowing that, Elon Musk, one of the best known people on the planet at this stage, called this to a real person. This can ruin a person's life. Did he have any evidence, even circumstantial? Nope. Did he have a reason for this attack? Only that he felt slighted.
So Elon Musk is ok with potentially ruining someone's life if he even as much as feels slighted.
I think even is the strongest hint of what his character is like. And character is, you could argue, the most important predictor of future behavior. I took this hint of character at face value, and after that I've never been surprised when I've since heard accusations of fraud or sexual harassment. No surprise whatsoever.
So if your reaction to this is Elon Must has potty mouth, you're either breathtakingly stupid or dishonest.
Hey after all that activity on Twitter you gotta give him leeway at some point, just like a cop who's been in a thousand conflicts gets a pass when things go wrong, there has to be a margin of error.
I'm hoping this was sarcasm.
Like you're in any position to chide me?
It's a common South African insult, in fact I've heard classmates say it to one another in early high school for dating girls in late middle school. It's a word, people sometimes say it. There's a context. It wasn't a formal accusation. One in thousands of comments, you actually expect perfection from Musk and police?
Let me tell you as someone who has pulled off exactly that in 28 conflicts, as if they were 28 chess matches, I haven't fucked up this whole time. It's fucking impossible in the long term. Narrowest odds imaginable. That's not fucking up at all, much harder than merely winning 28 times in a row, which is already staggering. You have to let us fuck up sometimes, let it go. Someday I'll fuck up. Especially due to manipulation eg a racketeer as a last resort, when arrest was imminent, angled his back to get injured by police, in order to get a lighter sentence by countering the guilt of crime with an accusation of police brutality (SFPD police didn't fall for it, not even close).
The bad guys want us to fuck up, it's not easy to foil them every single time. Saying this is possible implies strict inferiority on the part of the bad guys.
And if you expect perfection from the police, you ought to tell them that next time you call them to come vindicate you. So they know you might yourself accuse them of brutalizing your victimizer.
It's a common South African insult, in fact I've heard classmates say it to one another in early high school for dating girls in late middle school. It's a word, people sometimes say it. There's a context. It wasn't a formal accusation. One in thousands of comments, you actually expect perfection from Musk and police?
Let me tell you as someone who has pulled off exactly that in 28 conflicts, as if they were 28 chess matches, I haven't fucked up this whole time. It's fucking impossible in the long term. Narrowest odds imaginable. That's not fucking up at all, much harder than merely winning 28 times in a row, which is already staggering. You have to let us fuck up sometimes, let it go. Someday I'll fuck up. Especially due to manipulation eg a racketeer as a last resort, when arrest was imminent, angled his back to get injured by police, in order to get a lighter sentence by countering the guilt of crime with an accusation of police brutality (SFPD police didn't fall for it, not even close).
The bad guys want us to fuck up, it's not easy to foil them every single time. Saying this is possible implies strict inferiority on the part of the bad guys.
And if you expect perfection from the police, you ought to tell them that next time you call them to come vindicate you. So they know you might yourself accuse them of brutalizing your victimizer.
Musk called the hero that helped save children's lives a pedophile on three separate occasions in front of his audience of millions. This wasn't a one-time mistake, it was a deliberate public smear campaign against the man.
Respectfully, what in the world are you talking about?
Elon Musk spoke in public. I interceded in crimes. Police fight crime.
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Like you're in any position to chide me?
Obviously.
Obviously.
Also the 20% drop of $TSLA since he announced his idiotic bid for Twitter and the potential fallout from that I'm sure is related.
Slimy tactics?
From the person that said one of his companies can fix Spinal and Brain injuries?: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1312
Surely...
From the person that said one of his companies can fix Spinal and Brain injuries?: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1312
Surely...
Meh. The youtuber criticizes Musk's statement "This is something we could fix" by saying "He does not say 'This is something we _might_ be able to fix.'"
Seconds later, the youtuber goes on to criticize Musk's disclaimer of "I'm not saying this is going to solve everything... it's something that _might_ be helpful."
You just can't win with these "skeptics".
Seconds later, the youtuber goes on to criticize Musk's disclaimer of "I'm not saying this is going to solve everything... it's something that _might_ be helpful."
You just can't win with these "skeptics".
Another golden Musk gem: "I am very confident that...".
The guy doesn't say anything, yet he makes everyone believe he did. Genius. The best salesperson in the world for sure.
The guy doesn't say anything, yet he makes everyone believe he did. Genius. The best salesperson in the world for sure.
You missed the part where Elon Musk says it will take a few years before then can do a "brain memory upload".
So they will be content of spending the first decade "just" fixing spine and brain injuries: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1116
Then Elon Musk says he will solve Schizophrenia, Depression and Morbid Obesity: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1137
Yes,...really what is with the skeptics? Can't the recognize a genius when they see one?
So they will be content of spending the first decade "just" fixing spine and brain injuries: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1116
Then Elon Musk says he will solve Schizophrenia, Depression and Morbid Obesity: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1137
Yes,...really what is with the skeptics? Can't the recognize a genius when they see one?
Oh god I demonstrate how the timestamped quote is incorrect and now I've attracted the attention of the Musk anti-fans.
Let me be clear: Musk is human. He has positive and negative qualities. His Thailand pedo comments were, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. His autopilot timeline was wildly optimistic. His behavior on Twitter is infantile.
And yet this is not carte blanche to twist his words into something unrecognizable. You can't just criticize someone for not being nuanced, then criticize their disclaimer that happens seconds later. That's intellectually dishonest. At that point I stopped listening because it is clear (to me) that the youtuber has an agenda to push.
As to your comments, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it incorrect to believe that brain implants may lead to solutions to these problems?
Let me be clear: Musk is human. He has positive and negative qualities. His Thailand pedo comments were, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. His autopilot timeline was wildly optimistic. His behavior on Twitter is infantile.
And yet this is not carte blanche to twist his words into something unrecognizable. You can't just criticize someone for not being nuanced, then criticize their disclaimer that happens seconds later. That's intellectually dishonest. At that point I stopped listening because it is clear (to me) that the youtuber has an agenda to push.
As to your comments, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it incorrect to believe that brain implants may lead to solutions to these problems?
Guy says he will provide a brain implant to upload human memories to a computer and says he CAN fix a whole range of brain and spine damage, plus diseases that are not even caused by brain injury, and you focus on the disclaimer that will not be "right away"?
You continue to not say anything concrete.
Lots of technologists speak about the potential of technology/industry/science. Roasting Musk for dreaming big is the best you can come up with? Especially given the other material he gives you?
Lots of technologists speak about the potential of technology/industry/science. Roasting Musk for dreaming big is the best you can come up with? Especially given the other material he gives you?
[deleted]
The BI story thing is only a slimy tactic if you assume the sexual assault accusation to be true. If Elon knows its false and a tactic to paint him in a specific light, how could he be blamed for getting out in front of the narrative? Should he just let people say reputationally-damaging things about him, without intervening in any way?
I think we've seen recently with the Amber Heard case that it's better to let these things shake out in court first.
I think we've seen recently with the Amber Heard case that it's better to let these things shake out in court first.
Strongly disagree. I'm completely ambivalent as to whether the accusation is true or not – I have literally no idea and probably never will. Elon didn't come out and say, "hey there are accusations coming about an issue that was settled long ago outside of court, I maintain position X."
He said, "I am switching to the Republican party, expect political hit pieces."
He has turned his legal issue into a Republican vs Democrat issue. That's slimy regardless of the veracity of the allegations.
He said, "I am switching to the Republican party, expect political hit pieces."
He has turned his legal issue into a Republican vs Democrat issue. That's slimy regardless of the veracity of the allegations.
He didn't even switch.
For years, he's donated to both political parties (as most of the ultra rich do). But for years, for every million dollars he's donated to the GOP, he's only donated just over 100,000 to the Democrats.
The only thing "liberal" about Musk is his attitude to weed (well, for himself, not his employees). Anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-trans, etc., etc.
For years, he's donated to both political parties (as most of the ultra rich do). But for years, for every million dollars he's donated to the GOP, he's only donated just over 100,000 to the Democrats.
The only thing "liberal" about Musk is his attitude to weed (well, for himself, not his employees). Anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-trans, etc., etc.
Again, in order to think it's slimy, you have to make assumptions about what is true. In the instance you just described, you still have to assume that the "hit piece" isn't because he was starting to lean more Republican. I don't think we know why the accusation re-surfaced, do we?
The claim that he was a Democrat but is now starting to lean more Republican is itself a blatant lie based on his historical political donations.
Sometimes people support the candidate that happens to protect their interests more, and the color of their party doesn't really mean a lot.
Am I imagining that Trump and Elon were portrayed in the media as having a good relationship? Wouldn't you consider that leaning more Republican, especially considering Trump's radioactivity?
Am I imagining that Trump and Elon were portrayed in the media as having a good relationship? Wouldn't you consider that leaning more Republican, especially considering Trump's radioactivity?
Musk is openly anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-worker protection, anti-trans. Not remotely liberal.
Most people don't change their political ideology based on sexual assault accusations. Even if they were false, why would that cause someone to join a party with a radically different view of society than their previous party?
The best explanation that I've seen so far is that he was a Democrat only because it boosted Tesla's sales.
He's been massively donating more to the GOP than the Democrats since before Trump. About the only thing that espouses a liberal viewpoint is his view on legalization of weed (but don't smoke it if you work for his companies, unless you're him).
>Most people don't change their political ideology based on sexual assault accusations
That's not the ordering of events I'm suggesting. People have commented over time how Elon has been "moving right" for some time now. I'm suggesting it's possible that the accusation re-surfaced in response to how his political alignment shifting overall. Him saying he's "switching parties" is a soundbite for the last 5 years of his politics.
That's not the ordering of events I'm suggesting. People have commented over time how Elon has been "moving right" for some time now. I'm suggesting it's possible that the accusation re-surfaced in response to how his political alignment shifting overall. Him saying he's "switching parties" is a soundbite for the last 5 years of his politics.
The problem is that media organizations _do_ write hit pieces for political/agenda-driven reasons.
A certain side of the political aside has been unhappy about Musk trying to acquire Twitter. We've already seen how the media treats the views of this group of people. A certain supreme court nominee hearing comes to mind. It really, really isn't a stretch to think they'd attempt similar things to Musk.
That is, if the allegation is actually false. If it is true, it is another matter. Musk isn't as pure as the wind-driven snow. But these sorts of things have to be based on evidence. The actual story was second hand information and the fact of a settlement doesn't prove guilt.
A certain side of the political aside has been unhappy about Musk trying to acquire Twitter. We've already seen how the media treats the views of this group of people. A certain supreme court nominee hearing comes to mind. It really, really isn't a stretch to think they'd attempt similar things to Musk.
That is, if the allegation is actually false. If it is true, it is another matter. Musk isn't as pure as the wind-driven snow. But these sorts of things have to be based on evidence. The actual story was second hand information and the fact of a settlement doesn't prove guilt.
> I think we can assume pretty slimy tactics from Musk.
I personally think we can assume slimy tactics from everyone involved.
Did Musk do what he was accused of? Knowing his attitude most likely.
Did someone also have very large shorts opened on Tesla right before the story dropped, to expire a day later? Yep.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/152743945535046860...
I personally think we can assume slimy tactics from everyone involved.
Did Musk do what he was accused of? Knowing his attitude most likely.
Did someone also have very large shorts opened on Tesla right before the story dropped, to expire a day later? Yep.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/152743945535046860...
Not everyone, but yes a convicted securities fraudster (Henry Blodget) runs a news site that has now published two sexual harassment stories about two different companies, on two different dates (respectively), that both had unusually large shorts expiring.
The Elon / TSLA fanboys need to update their conspiracy theory. Blodget doesn’t even own BI, which everyone knows.
I think Elon himself helped to spread this conspiracy, when he would be fully aware it’s complete BS. This demonstrates to me that he is willing to engage in the dangerous game of pushing fake news on his blind followers to get them to go after his enemies, even if it makes no sense. These are the exact sort of people who should not have any power, because they’ll happily abuse it to cause societal harm.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/29/axel-springer-...
I think Elon himself helped to spread this conspiracy, when he would be fully aware it’s complete BS. This demonstrates to me that he is willing to engage in the dangerous game of pushing fake news on his blind followers to get them to go after his enemies, even if it makes no sense. These are the exact sort of people who should not have any power, because they’ll happily abuse it to cause societal harm.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/29/axel-springer-...
> Blodget doesn’t even own BI
Nobody I saw claimed he owns BI. He's a cofounder and the current CEO though and therefore does run BI. Just had to call you out on that for spreading a falsehood by trying to twist someone else's words while trying to make a claim about "fake news".
But I also never said it was him either, someone else did. I have no clue who it is and don't even want to get into a guessing game of it. It could be Elon himself for all we know. I was just pointing out that someone knew and opened the short.
Nobody I saw claimed he owns BI. He's a cofounder and the current CEO though and therefore does run BI. Just had to call you out on that for spreading a falsehood by trying to twist someone else's words while trying to make a claim about "fake news".
But I also never said it was him either, someone else did. I have no clue who it is and don't even want to get into a guessing game of it. It could be Elon himself for all we know. I was just pointing out that someone knew and opened the short.
Blodget kept the title but Axel Springer ultimately determines what does or doesn’t happen. If you think Blodget is abusing his position to further a personal vendetta or short-selling agenda, you should contact Axel Springer and blow the whistle!
Naked short selling is farcical. But short positions are perfectly valid and the "oh the shorts, the shorts!" martyrdom is tired. People are allowed to think your company is overvalued.
That someone could be him, since he knew the story was going to break and tank the stock.
This has happened at least twice, and the first time didn't involve Elon/Tesla, but did also involve Business Insider.
I'm starting to wonder more and more whether Musk has forgotten to think about the individuals negatively affected by his actions. I wouldn't be surprised if he really cares about humanity and wants to save the world by going to Mars, but I'm not so sure though whether the end justifies the means.
I don't think he displays any altruistic behaviour if you observe any of his actions.
All of his actions seem to be congruent with his vision IMO.
One has to separate feelings about Elon from objective reality. Seems like a difficult thing to do for most comments here.
One has to separate feelings about Elon from objective reality. Seems like a difficult thing to do for most comments here.
I don't think it's possible to be altruistic and be a billionaire. That part of your brain has to be dysfunctional in order to amass infinite money while exploiting everyone around you.
People voluntarily bought the Tesla cars, shareholders voluntarily bought the shares. That's Elon's wealth. He didn't steal it from anyone else.
He didn't steal, he exploited. Think about how 1 person at a company can be worth $100+ billion, and the other 100k employees are worth less than that combined. Can you imagine that there systemic exploitation there? Every day he lives and consciously decides to hoard that wealth. Just because it happened legally doesn't mean it's not evil/exploitation.
He made many millionaires at Tesla. This is absolutely abhorrent mischaracterization of any billionaire, let alone Elon Musk. Wealth is not stolen from anyone, it is created from providing value to millions of people.
No one is exploiting anyone. It is at-will employment. Provides a living wage to thousands of employees to raise their families.
If wealth was stolen, then we'd not have any growth in GDP. 90% people lived in poverty in the 19th century. Capitalism improved lives of millions of people. Every single person is better off today than in 18th century.
You simply cannot become a billionaire without providing value to millions. Exceptions are inheritance and crony capitalists (often in bed with Gov).
Sergey Brin is rightfully a billionaire. He made the world better and so did pretty much any billionaire. I feel like media has been feeding people "Billionaire bad, socialism good" and people have stopped thinking for themselves.
No one is exploiting anyone. It is at-will employment. Provides a living wage to thousands of employees to raise their families.
If wealth was stolen, then we'd not have any growth in GDP. 90% people lived in poverty in the 19th century. Capitalism improved lives of millions of people. Every single person is better off today than in 18th century.
You simply cannot become a billionaire without providing value to millions. Exceptions are inheritance and crony capitalists (often in bed with Gov).
Sergey Brin is rightfully a billionaire. He made the world better and so did pretty much any billionaire. I feel like media has been feeding people "Billionaire bad, socialism good" and people have stopped thinking for themselves.
There’s a whole bunch of videos out there about “if you really care about humanity having new places to go, focus on Antarctica first since it’s here, has abundant fresh water, an atmosphere, and isn’t particularly colder than mars”
He’s Always been a sci go nerd who backsolves his narrative.
He’s Always been a sci go nerd who backsolves his narrative.
Despite the zealous beliefs of the visionary, thought-leader techbro space that Musk's every move was to drive civilization forward in some kind of libertarian, technocrat utopia, it seems very clear at this point every one of these moves was absolutely a self-serving narrative shield around incredibly typical corporate/rich-person bad behavior.
Oh but who could have seen this coming except oh wait everyone.
The schadenfreude has been hilarious. Twitter has been blessedly devoid of the kind of chest-thumping he typically elicits and it has been glorious.
Oh but who could have seen this coming except oh wait everyone.
The schadenfreude has been hilarious. Twitter has been blessedly devoid of the kind of chest-thumping he typically elicits and it has been glorious.
The divide here about Elon is much deeper than I anticipated.
It’s crazy how one sided HN is. Seems entirely subjective and political. If one were to read the comments here, the only conclusion would be that Elon is the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan.
It’s crazy how one sided HN is. Seems entirely subjective and political. If one were to read the comments here, the only conclusion would be that Elon is the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan.
Is there a grand conspiracy plotting against him to discredit him? Or are his own actions doing the damage?
To me it seems like there are 3 things at play.
1) Political incongruency.
2) Character flaws.
3) Actions and actual impact.
These 3 things mix together in a toxic cocktail of hate (or love) depending on which side of the table you’re on. The sides of the table are primarily determined by 1) and the 2) and 3) are glued together to fit the narrative.
I am expecting more from HN tbh.
1) Political incongruency.
2) Character flaws.
3) Actions and actual impact.
These 3 things mix together in a toxic cocktail of hate (or love) depending on which side of the table you’re on. The sides of the table are primarily determined by 1) and the 2) and 3) are glued together to fit the narrative.
I am expecting more from HN tbh.
> I am expecting more from HN tbh.
In a previous comment you(an HN user!) framed all comments or discussion that might portray EM in a negative light as painting him as:
> "...the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan."
A pitch-perfect example of a straw-man argument, and now you're claiming the level of discourse is not up to your standards?
In a previous comment you(an HN user!) framed all comments or discussion that might portray EM in a negative light as painting him as:
> "...the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan."
A pitch-perfect example of a straw-man argument, and now you're claiming the level of discourse is not up to your standards?
It was an intentional hyperbole to thrust a point across if you didn’t read between the lines. I thought it was obvious. I could improve in my message though.
I do expect more from HN than vitriol of this sorts.
I do expect more from HN than vitriol of this sorts.
It is strange to use charged words such as "crazy", "evil" and "satan" in a comment and then complain of vitriol on the forum.
I've been around here long enough to realize that when discussions are leaning one way, I become extremely skeptical of the situation. Not going to address your ad-hominem slant, but I hope you can empathize with where my skepticism comes from. This forum tends to usually have a great discussion between opposing viewpoints, except here.
Where was the ad-hominem slant? More straw-men and an appeal to authority! I'm convinced you're playing logical fallacy bingo at this point.
> the only conclusion would be that Elon is the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan.
Speaking of one sided... I'd argue there are many more nuanced conclusions you could derive.
I'm sure there have been comments towards him that are ad-hominem accusations of "evil", but in general and this thread specifically I think it's his virtue signaling around "free-speech" and "innovation" rightfully being called out for what they are; self-serving and quite vanilla capitalist maneuvering.
Setting up straw-man arguments like you've done is the same kind of defensive, fallacious reasoning his aforementioned zealous followers engage in.
Like Rick & Morty and Jesus, the worst thing about Elon tends to be his fans.
Speaking of one sided... I'd argue there are many more nuanced conclusions you could derive.
I'm sure there have been comments towards him that are ad-hominem accusations of "evil", but in general and this thread specifically I think it's his virtue signaling around "free-speech" and "innovation" rightfully being called out for what they are; self-serving and quite vanilla capitalist maneuvering.
Setting up straw-man arguments like you've done is the same kind of defensive, fallacious reasoning his aforementioned zealous followers engage in.
Like Rick & Morty and Jesus, the worst thing about Elon tends to be his fans.
This is of course, correct, but it is something not exclusive to Elon Musk, you just have to read the stream of accolades some of the darlings of this site receive here when they are just your run of the mill capitalists with all the usual interests and biases.
Yep. You’d think Patrick Collison of Stripe invented the internet based on the praise he receives here rather than the reality that he made a PayPal clone with some custom branding options.
Brian Chesky directly ripped off a popular free product called CouchSurfing then said “ok same thing but I get to be a billionaire, local housing markets lose long term rentals in exchange for teenage keg parties, and I get to buy virtue signaling billboards all over SF cause I get to be rich AND morally superior.”
Then after we lionize those guys we can make fun of the Musk fan club.
Brian Chesky directly ripped off a popular free product called CouchSurfing then said “ok same thing but I get to be a billionaire, local housing markets lose long term rentals in exchange for teenage keg parties, and I get to buy virtue signaling billboards all over SF cause I get to be rich AND morally superior.”
Then after we lionize those guys we can make fun of the Musk fan club.
I feel like you could have said a lot of this with less words. But, exposing Elon seems to be the focus of your comment. Non-sequitur after non-sequitur.
Please rewrite my comment in your own words without losing any information.
English is my second language and I am curious on how you would achieve this.
From my point of view it is as barebone as it can be with 125 words, 7 sentences and 4 paragraphs.
English is my second language and I am curious on how you would achieve this.
From my point of view it is as barebone as it can be with 125 words, 7 sentences and 4 paragraphs.
Shocking how much credibility some random reddit comment can get.
You show up to work, go to your manager and tell them you have no where to park and nowhere to work. Ask them.what you should do. If they tell you to go home and check back you go home and phone them every day asking if there is space for you and if you can come back to the office.
They can and will buy desks.
When people say “no desk” what they mean is “no space in the building to allocate a desk”.
This is Tesla, office workers will soon find themselves working in a tent.
Why not WFT: Work From (a) Tesla? Of course, it would have to be, "at the office," (read, parking lot) otherwise the worker would get fired.
And since the Teslas are self driving, they can just roam the public roads while people work, an endless TS (Tesla Stream) cycling between two superchargers.
You mean they can ride through the office building, pass the managers desk, who can check the work.
Have a Manager Booth halfway between the two charging stations for checkins, in addition to video calls. Biobreaks (exercise, waste removal, nutrition ingestion) can happen during charging if the Teslas remain unmodified.
I just realized that the Tesla could eject the worker a couple miles before the charging station, calculating the workout and charge duration so that the employee would have to run at the correct rate to retrieve their car before it was done charging. The vehicle could self clean while empty on the way to the charging station.
I can't think of any downsides to this.
Exciting times for the future of work!
I just realized that the Tesla could eject the worker a couple miles before the charging station, calculating the workout and charge duration so that the employee would have to run at the correct rate to retrieve their car before it was done charging. The vehicle could self clean while empty on the way to the charging station.
I can't think of any downsides to this.
Exciting times for the future of work!
We wondered how the open office plan could get worse. Now, we wonder no more!
Why isn't the manager station at the charging station?
I fully expected to see this in SF eventually. Wifi equipped buses set up like coffee shops that drive around SF all day. Cheaper than commercial real estate, at the time. I'm sure COVID has changed the calculus considerably.
They do this with billboards. It's somehow cost effective to have a big truck that is nothing but a rolling billboard drive around the city all day. By definition that means that it's cheaper or somehow better than a fixed billboard on real estate.
That actually is a really good idea, they'll figure out problems real quick that way. Very very good idea.
EDIT: If your job in Tesla is on the line proposing working out of a Tesla is your best bet to save it.
EDIT: If your job in Tesla is on the line proposing working out of a Tesla is your best bet to save it.
I remember when we were going to have FSD in 1 year, 10 years ago.
Tbh I wouldn't mind "working" out of a tent for a few weeks if the "office" was located in a natural area and the whole affair was more of a company-sponsored camping "workation" where half the day was spent doing outdoor activities.
I’m kitting out my truck with solar and batteries now that starlink has roaming and rv pricing so I can literally drive up mountains and camp by glacier lakes while working.
[deleted]
Musk should dig a pit. A pit. An office in a pit. In the the ground. In a pit. Pit office. Office pit. Yes. In a pit.
HR: "Remember when we said that working at Tesla was intense? Well it's actually in tents"
they'll buy big cafeteria-style tables and eliminate individual desks
The ones that fold up to stack against the walls when the cafeteria needs to be used as the theater? The ones with the built in round, blue plastic seats? If not, you're thinking too nice.
[deleted]
When people say "no space in the building to allocate a desk” they mean "No space to neatly put a desk." Companies have often shown repeatedly they can force desks into rooms when needed.
Anyways, they can and will buy office space to put the desks when needed.
Anyways, they can and will buy office space to put the desks when needed.
Lol. I can confirm that a motivated company can Tetris a lot more desks into a room than you’d expect. My first job… ah, memories.
LAN parties have been fitting a surprising number of people onto 8' folding tables for decades.
An even duct tape them to places.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/kvgtok/lan_party_ga...
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/kvgtok/lan_party_ga...
OTOH LAN parties do not generally persist long enough to need to worry about fire codes etc.
I don't know how we didn't trip all the breakers. Running a crapload of CRTs, and multiple 500+ watt power supplies on one circuit?! Plus 2 projectors? I wonder how hot that breaker panel got lol.
Putting someone in a hallway might technically meet the requirement of having a desk, but not the spirit of having a desk.
And while I know everyone is into breaking regulations, both fire codes (for density and exit corridors) and OSHA (for number of employees per toilet) limit the number of desks in an office.
Enter: Open plan offices!
I love how now they are justifiably out of fashion when just a few years ago only staid companies had cubicles or offices!
I love how now they are justifiably out of fashion when just a few years ago only staid companies had cubicles or offices!
A wild COVID variant has appeared!
Don’t be silly, covid is over. Pay no attention to the 3,250 people hospitalized per day, or the 280 deaths, behind the curtain!
Disruption!
And am I the only person who has been in a startup going through a "two people per desk" period when growing rapidly?
For a time, the Niantic office in Bellevue was a tiny room with four desks and five people. The manager would sit on a swivel chair in the middle and try to work on a laptop on his knee.
Later we upgraded to a room with twelve people in it where you had to ask at least two other people to stand up and move their chairs out of the way if you needed to get up for any reason.
Later we upgraded to a room with twelve people in it where you had to ask at least two other people to stand up and move their chairs out of the way if you needed to get up for any reason.
Are we considering Tesla a startup now?
Sounds like a luxury still, I got to the "elbows touching" stage. You couldn't put a hand between my screen and the screens of my coworkers. For quiet time I'd go to the kitchen table...
Summer was a challenge because the A/C couldn't keep up at all.
Summer was a challenge because the A/C couldn't keep up at all.
Nope.
And the desks were doors on sawhorses.
And the desks were doors on sawhorses.
I had to walk uphill both ways to my desk. With my smaller co-workers on my back.
Tesla, the 15 year old "startup".
I once spent a summer internship working at desk and computer they put in the nook next to soda and chip vending machines. Got to say hi to everyone at snack time.
Oh man I'd definitely buy large headphones and a baseball cap with a huuuge bill!
The Fremont factory has like a square mile of unused space. Not defending or apologizing, but they can find the room. That being said it’s not uncommon for Elon to declare shit that’s totally unreasonable and impossible and then leave it to other people to and something work.
[deleted]
what about occupancy/fire code limits?
Fire codes and occupancy limits are set by how many people can evacuate the building in a set amount of time. I worked at a place in an antique building and they had to limit how many classrooms were allowed in the building because they had to stay under these limits. Also, yearly, there were fire drills where they'd verify they could get everyone out.
So in tesla's case, they'd just fire all the people who leave their desks in a fire?
So in tesla's case, they'd just fire all the people who leave their desks in a fire?
Elon will plead to the fire marshal to arrest only him, and force his workers to come in anyways
As if Musk would fall on his own sword let alone anyone else's. To much wasted time to be able to poke fun of Bezos or make some other bone headed tweet.
Parking space? Ride your bike or take public transport, individual cars are not the best option. Electric buses and trains and bikes (for moving people) and electric trucks (for moving goods) are really where the future is going to be.
Tesla’s HQ is on the outskirts of Palo Alto, pre-pandemic most employees commuted in from San Francisco or San Jose. It’s a 3-4 hr bike ride each way from SF, or a 1.5-2 hr bike ride each way from SJ. Not exactly practical. Public transit isn’t great in the area either.
Not to mention Palo Alto is extremely anti-density and housing. No choice but to live in San Jose or SF and commute.
You can take bikes on Caltrain, the Palo Alto stop appears to be 4-5 miles away from the station.
That’s neat, but the USA has garbage public transport. Many towns just have none. I think it’s unreasonable to expect people to use a resource that just isn’t there in most cases.
Yeah Fremont California, Austin Texas. Terribly famous for being cities of hundreds of thousands and having no public transport. It'd actually be funny if you were joking.
The Tesla factory has a BART station and a mainline rail station, so that's good. But the Tesla office is way out in the middle of nowhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3500+Deer+Creek+Rd,+Palo+A...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3500+Deer+Creek+Rd,+Palo+A...
The Bay Area's public transit is only good compared to places with no public transit. It's far from comprehensive and the intermodal coordination is pretty non-existent. It's only good if your start and destination are on the same mode of transit.
I don't know about Austin, but with Fremont's public transit, it would take at least 40 minutes to get from the Fremont BART station to the Tesla factory on public transit. That doesn't count the time needed on BART from someplace with a lower COL (Fremont itself is a $$ place to live). For that, add at least another 1/2 hour (for nearest lower COL in Castro Valley or San Leandro). So, it wouldn't be unheard of to have an hour+ commute to Tesla Fremont on public transit.
Large and wealthy Bay Area employers like Tesla therefore run private shuttles for employees for this reason (a practice started in the current era by Genentech way back in the early 00s I think, and later Google popularized it among tech co's)
Maybe Austin has world class public transit, though I kind of doubt it.
I don't know about Austin, but with Fremont's public transit, it would take at least 40 minutes to get from the Fremont BART station to the Tesla factory on public transit. That doesn't count the time needed on BART from someplace with a lower COL (Fremont itself is a $$ place to live). For that, add at least another 1/2 hour (for nearest lower COL in Castro Valley or San Leandro). So, it wouldn't be unheard of to have an hour+ commute to Tesla Fremont on public transit.
Large and wealthy Bay Area employers like Tesla therefore run private shuttles for employees for this reason (a practice started in the current era by Genentech way back in the early 00s I think, and later Google popularized it among tech co's)
Maybe Austin has world class public transit, though I kind of doubt it.
Why would anyone use Fremont BART when Warm Springs BART almost abuts the Tesla factory?
Fair, but it's still 27 minutes from there to the factory on public transit, so not quite "abuts". I know you can take the company shuttle, but the point is that the public transit system isn't very practical end to end.
I actually would give Tesla a bit of a pass on this since it is a factory purchased from GM/Toyota and it inherently needs lots of space, so you can't expect a train station at the factory gate.
Tech campuses like the Googleplex, the Apple spaceship donut, Oracle HQ on the edge of a marsh are where the failings of the public transit system are most apparent.
I actually would give Tesla a bit of a pass on this since it is a factory purchased from GM/Toyota and it inherently needs lots of space, so you can't expect a train station at the factory gate.
Tech campuses like the Googleplex, the Apple spaceship donut, Oracle HQ on the edge of a marsh are where the failings of the public transit system are most apparent.
There's a footbridge from the BART station to the Tesla site. I don't know why someone would waste their time trying to take public transit from the station to Tesla. It's 1-2km depending on which side of their gigantic facility a person needs to reach.
The fact that the USA hasn't invested in the necessary infrastructure doesn't change the conclusion that efficient public transport systems (see Europe, see China) have huge benefits relative to a system that relies almost entirely on individual vehicles.
No, it doesn't change any of that, but it does make your suggestion pretty much completely useless in this particular instance. I agree it's totally wrong and self-defeating, but it is also the reality.
I live near a rapid bus line in Seattle. One stop is a block away from my house, and the other stop is 2 blocks from the office.
The traffic to the office is always awful, so a pleasant ride to the office, skipping traffic via dedicated bus lanes on the route, without needing to drive, sounds great to me in principle. I WANT to like this. I WANT to use this. But, there are several problems with it in practice.
For me, the bus is still significantly slower than driving because of all of the stops, even though it skips car traffic. For my wife, who needs to walk 10 blocks from the bus stop to her office, it's even slower.
My wife and I both get motion sick, especially if I don't get a forward facing seat.
Other people riding the bus smoke drugs, don't clean themselves & smell awful, scream loudly & incoherently, etc.
On the 10 block walk from the stop to her office, my wife saw homeless folks fighting, some screaming, and other smoking fentanyl. As a small woman, she did not feel safe, and informed me she wouldn't be taking the bus again. With our car, she can drive directly to the secured parking garage in her office, no safety risk.
We're going to stick to the safety, security, and speed of the car, thanks. It's not the lack of infrastructure, public transit is just a much worse experience.
None of this will get better, our transit agency doesn't even have the guts to reduce fare evasion via real enforcement because of the wacky political climate here.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/sound-transit-fare-...
Find a way to make public transit clean & safe and we'd probably ignore the other negatives listed above. Unfortunately, the political climate in the US in areas with adequate public transit makes that impossible.
The traffic to the office is always awful, so a pleasant ride to the office, skipping traffic via dedicated bus lanes on the route, without needing to drive, sounds great to me in principle. I WANT to like this. I WANT to use this. But, there are several problems with it in practice.
For me, the bus is still significantly slower than driving because of all of the stops, even though it skips car traffic. For my wife, who needs to walk 10 blocks from the bus stop to her office, it's even slower.
My wife and I both get motion sick, especially if I don't get a forward facing seat.
Other people riding the bus smoke drugs, don't clean themselves & smell awful, scream loudly & incoherently, etc.
On the 10 block walk from the stop to her office, my wife saw homeless folks fighting, some screaming, and other smoking fentanyl. As a small woman, she did not feel safe, and informed me she wouldn't be taking the bus again. With our car, she can drive directly to the secured parking garage in her office, no safety risk.
We're going to stick to the safety, security, and speed of the car, thanks. It's not the lack of infrastructure, public transit is just a much worse experience.
None of this will get better, our transit agency doesn't even have the guts to reduce fare evasion via real enforcement because of the wacky political climate here.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/sound-transit-fare-...
Find a way to make public transit clean & safe and we'd probably ignore the other negatives listed above. Unfortunately, the political climate in the US in areas with adequate public transit makes that impossible.
Is fare evasion related to bus safety?
On a different note, I rode Sound Transit buses to Redmond every day pre-pandemic and it was a pretty good experience. The seats were really nice and some even reclined! I think it is a bit slower than driving but I would rather sit on a bus for an extra 10 minutes reading a book than be driving in soul crushing traffic.
On a different note, I rode Sound Transit buses to Redmond every day pre-pandemic and it was a pretty good experience. The seats were really nice and some even reclined! I think it is a bit slower than driving but I would rather sit on a bus for an extra 10 minutes reading a book than be driving in soul crushing traffic.
It's not really the fare evasion itself that is the problem (though it does allow people to use transit as a homeless shelter).
Fare evasion is a symptom; the real issue is it being politically unviable to have a police force actively riding buses and light rail.
Fare evasion is a symptom; the real issue is it being politically unviable to have a police force actively riding buses and light rail.
The rapid bus lines had that reputation back when I lived there (particularly the one going down 3rd) and I rarely used it for that reason. My time on other bus lines plus the light rail were a lot more pleasant.
Oh you think it was bad then... You should see 3rd ave now.
You're having a conversation with a person you're imagining.
Nobody is disagreeing that systems built around transit/biking/etc are better than car-oriented ones. They're saying that an individual in the latter system may still need to drive. In case you've forgotten, your original comment was in response to a specific individual, suggesting that he didn't need to drive.
Nobody is disagreeing that systems built around transit/biking/etc are better than car-oriented ones. They're saying that an individual in the latter system may still need to drive. In case you've forgotten, your original comment was in response to a specific individual, suggesting that he didn't need to drive.
Google "man walks to work" for heartwarming tales about the kindness of strangers in dystopian Third World America. White-collar workers now get to experience the blue-collar reality that neoliberalism created. Fun times for all, and remember, shared suffering builds community consciousness. Let's all eat cake together!
Got it, you're just completely detached from reality and don't actually understand anything people are saying to you on the thread. Take care
Sure...
Or they could just drive their cars.
We’ve built so much sprawl that it’s difficult to make an efficient transport system that makes the types of trips that people now want to make.
Everyone chooses where to put homes and workplaces with transportation in mind.
In the UK people who commute by rail commute an average of 235 miles per year. [0]
I’ve had commutes of 150 miles per day. (Or 30,000+ miles per year) although that’s on the high end of what Americans might do.
The typical commute for people in my last office job was 30-50 miles per day. About 10,000 miles per year. About 1-2% of the people in our office lived in the same town as the office. This is in a top-50 metropolitan area of the US.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/466097/average-distance-...
Everyone chooses where to put homes and workplaces with transportation in mind.
In the UK people who commute by rail commute an average of 235 miles per year. [0]
I’ve had commutes of 150 miles per day. (Or 30,000+ miles per year) although that’s on the high end of what Americans might do.
The typical commute for people in my last office job was 30-50 miles per day. About 10,000 miles per year. About 1-2% of the people in our office lived in the same town as the office. This is in a top-50 metropolitan area of the US.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/466097/average-distance-...
> We’ve built so much sprawl that it’s difficult to make an efficient transport system that makes the types of trips that people now want to make.
Yeah, the American desire to have a large grassy lawn surrounding their house means density is far too low to make public transit viable.
Yeah, the American desire to have a large grassy lawn surrounding their house means density is far too low to make public transit viable.
If they commute 235 miles per year then they don’t need a train at all because that is a commute of around half a mile each way per day which is easily walkable. That number is so ridiculously low I suspect the source is wrong.
Maybe so. A government source says:
> Even though average miles travelled for commuting purposes has declined to 799 miles travelled per person in 2020, a decrease of 37% compared to 2019 (1,276 miles travelled per person) and an overall decrease of 43% compared to 2002 (1,400 miles travelled per person)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-sur...
So, still close to an order of magnitude less than my anecdotal data. The bottom line is that the US definitely has a lot of sprawl.
> Even though average miles travelled for commuting purposes has declined to 799 miles travelled per person in 2020, a decrease of 37% compared to 2019 (1,276 miles travelled per person) and an overall decrease of 43% compared to 2002 (1,400 miles travelled per person)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-sur...
So, still close to an order of magnitude less than my anecdotal data. The bottom line is that the US definitely has a lot of sprawl.
Do you have any idea of the SIZE of some States and distances between HOMES, not just towns? Public transport is not feasible in some places, as are not bikes. Am I supposed to bike 30 miles for a gallon of milk? How do I bring it back?
> Do you have any idea of the SIZE of some States and distances between HOMES, not just towns?
Is that even a serious argument?
Public transportation networks are designed to serve urban areas, with specific solutions catered to specific combinations of travel distance and throughput.
Hand-waiving by pointing out isolated individuals live in isolated areas means nothing. Mass transportation is designed to serve the masses, not hermits who chose to live far from urban centers.
Meanwhile, all those person's filling in those two-digit-lane highways live somewhere, and if they can pack a highway they certainly can be served by a suburban railway service.
Is that even a serious argument?
Public transportation networks are designed to serve urban areas, with specific solutions catered to specific combinations of travel distance and throughput.
Hand-waiving by pointing out isolated individuals live in isolated areas means nothing. Mass transportation is designed to serve the masses, not hermits who chose to live far from urban centers.
Meanwhile, all those person's filling in those two-digit-lane highways live somewhere, and if they can pack a highway they certainly can be served by a suburban railway service.
It's not just hermits that live far from urban centers in the US. The US is famous for sprawling contiguous suburbs.
Subway systems work well when people commute from the edges of a city to an urban center. Throw US suburbs into the mix, and you get some strange complications, like:
* suburbs that from adjacent cities that sprawl together -- the residents there may commute to different cities
* suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
Subway systems work well when people commute from the edges of a city to an urban center. Throw US suburbs into the mix, and you get some strange complications, like:
* suburbs that from adjacent cities that sprawl together -- the residents there may commute to different cities
* suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
> It's not just hermits that live far from urban centers in the US. The US is famous for sprawling contiguous suburbs.
Sprawling suburbs can be, and often are, served by public transportation. The critical factor affecting the US approach to public transportation, which is purely ideological, is the neoliberal belief that public transportation services are only worth considering if they are provided by private corporations and only if they are profitable right from the start.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world these services are either public or public-private partnerships, and subsidized with clear externalities in mind. For example, if I recall correctly the Tokyo subway network is operated by a few private companies which profit not by the direct exploration of their railway lines but from real estate investments coordinated by the expansion of their railway lines.
Consequently, we have european capitals which coordinate urban planning (i.e., where suburban sprawls can and cannot be built) with coverage of their public transportation services, including investing in extensions of subway lines to deserted places where medium- and high-density housing projects have been approved.
> Subway systems work well when people from the edges of a city to an urban center.
Subway is not a good example in discussions over public transportation in urban sprawls. The main purpose of subway networks is to enhance mobility within a urban area. Consequently, typically you see subway networks with subway stops at 500-800 meters and travel speeds of around 50km/h, which just happens to be slightly better than traveling by car. Park-and-ride stops are only another aspect of the main goal of eliminating car traffic within the city.
The standard strategy to serve urban sprawls with public transportation is to cover them with bus routes which feed into a high-throughput mass transport systems such as commuter rail or bus rapid transit, also serving as park-and-ride stations.
> suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
This is not true. I happen to have worked for a company located in a suburban office park which wasn't served very well by public transportation, but the office park itself organized bus services from one of the city's multimodal hub to the office park.
Also, this is so common and mundane that I know for a fact that even some Ikea stores in europe located in industrial districts offer free bus services connecting public transport hubs to them.
Sprawling suburbs can be, and often are, served by public transportation. The critical factor affecting the US approach to public transportation, which is purely ideological, is the neoliberal belief that public transportation services are only worth considering if they are provided by private corporations and only if they are profitable right from the start.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world these services are either public or public-private partnerships, and subsidized with clear externalities in mind. For example, if I recall correctly the Tokyo subway network is operated by a few private companies which profit not by the direct exploration of their railway lines but from real estate investments coordinated by the expansion of their railway lines.
Consequently, we have european capitals which coordinate urban planning (i.e., where suburban sprawls can and cannot be built) with coverage of their public transportation services, including investing in extensions of subway lines to deserted places where medium- and high-density housing projects have been approved.
> Subway systems work well when people from the edges of a city to an urban center.
Subway is not a good example in discussions over public transportation in urban sprawls. The main purpose of subway networks is to enhance mobility within a urban area. Consequently, typically you see subway networks with subway stops at 500-800 meters and travel speeds of around 50km/h, which just happens to be slightly better than traveling by car. Park-and-ride stops are only another aspect of the main goal of eliminating car traffic within the city.
The standard strategy to serve urban sprawls with public transportation is to cover them with bus routes which feed into a high-throughput mass transport systems such as commuter rail or bus rapid transit, also serving as park-and-ride stations.
> suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
This is not true. I happen to have worked for a company located in a suburban office park which wasn't served very well by public transportation, but the office park itself organized bus services from one of the city's multimodal hub to the office park.
Also, this is so common and mundane that I know for a fact that even some Ikea stores in europe located in industrial districts offer free bus services connecting public transport hubs to them.
I'm not really saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that, comparatively, this puts the US at a huge disadvantage. It requires a larger investment per rider, and when you're done, you still have a metro area that was specifically designed to be convenient for drivers that your transport system must compete with.
I worked a job for several years where I could have taken either bus or light rail to work. I still chose to drive because I already had a car, my car had more privacy, I didn’t have to go outside in the weather, and I had more autonomy.
For public transit to compete, it has to be someone’s best option. Being usable is not good enough to cause people to switch.
Yes, you could build it all anyway, and that’s probably the only long-term solution. But it’s not politically popular. If not for budgetary reasons, then because people don’t want construction interfering with their drive.
In the end, I feel like we’re better off just concentrating on public transit in the neighborhoods that want to use it.
I worked a job for several years where I could have taken either bus or light rail to work. I still chose to drive because I already had a car, my car had more privacy, I didn’t have to go outside in the weather, and I had more autonomy.
For public transit to compete, it has to be someone’s best option. Being usable is not good enough to cause people to switch.
Yes, you could build it all anyway, and that’s probably the only long-term solution. But it’s not politically popular. If not for budgetary reasons, then because people don’t want construction interfering with their drive.
In the end, I feel like we’re better off just concentrating on public transit in the neighborhoods that want to use it.
> Sprawling suburbs can be, and often are, served by public transportation.
Very ineffective though, very limited hours, akward stops where you have to walking stretches with the sun beating down on you and the annoying unsettling noise of cars rushing past you on a main road, worst case the particular place they’re at doesn’t have sidewalk for a good stretch and they have to hug the grass line to stay out of the road and out of peoples yards.
I’ve lived in several small cities/large towns with primarily suburban areas, as well as highly sprawled MSAs and this describes any suburban bus system I’ve seen.
Very ineffective though, very limited hours, akward stops where you have to walking stretches with the sun beating down on you and the annoying unsettling noise of cars rushing past you on a main road, worst case the particular place they’re at doesn’t have sidewalk for a good stretch and they have to hug the grass line to stay out of the road and out of peoples yards.
I’ve lived in several small cities/large towns with primarily suburban areas, as well as highly sprawled MSAs and this describes any suburban bus system I’ve seen.
Bikes are not feasible because of intentional urban design decisions, not because of inherent values of American geography.
Needing to travel 30 miles for a grocery store applies to only a tiny, tiny minority of Americans here.
edit: some data to back up my point: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/june/us-shoppers-a...
> When the ERS researchers looked at rural food store access, they found that the median distance to the nearest and the third-nearest food store was 3.1 miles and 6.1 miles, respectively.
6 miles is pretty far to go by bike each way, no doubt, though 3 miles isn't too bad, especially if you use an ebike, and those are steadily becoming more affordable. That would be in the range of 10-15 minutes each way.
That said, the bigger problem right now is having decent bike infrastructure to actually get there, rather than the distance.
Needing to travel 30 miles for a grocery store applies to only a tiny, tiny minority of Americans here.
edit: some data to back up my point: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/june/us-shoppers-a...
> When the ERS researchers looked at rural food store access, they found that the median distance to the nearest and the third-nearest food store was 3.1 miles and 6.1 miles, respectively.
6 miles is pretty far to go by bike each way, no doubt, though 3 miles isn't too bad, especially if you use an ebike, and those are steadily becoming more affordable. That would be in the range of 10-15 minutes each way.
That said, the bigger problem right now is having decent bike infrastructure to actually get there, rather than the distance.
> Am I supposed to bike 30 miles for a gallon of milk? How do I bring it back?
Live closer? How do people in Germany get a gallon of milk? Or Japan?
How is it that every country in the world is able to do this except us?
Ultimately physics will win here and we're going to run out of cheap gasoline and fossil fuels and you're going to wish you could walk a couple blocks to a neighborhood grocery store. Milk is going to be $7/gallon and gas is going to be $7/gallon and you're going to effectively pay $15 or more to drive to the store 30 miles away and buy that gallon of milk. The whole reason you're were previously able to live 30 miles away from a place to buy milk is because we've had cheap, subsidized fossil fuels. This is going away. There's no amount of oil we can drill for that will change this reality over the long term. No political party can "fix" this. Republicans can't open enough pipelines. It doesn't matter anyway. If you choose to live 30 miles away from the nearest house or grocery store, you also will incur the associated costs of doing that. Townships and other entities aren't going to be able to afford to repair roads. They don't have the money unless they raise taxes by a lot. Better get ready for that too.
Public transit isn't feasible in many places, nor are bikes. Why is that? It's because we've decided to make sure that this is the case and we've spread out towns and cities, and used zoning to make sure that there are no stores within walking distance of the suburbs just so we can keep wasting money building new roads and buying new cars. It's a hidden tax going straight to shareholders of construction companies, automobile manufacturers, and government officials who green light all highway and road projects with your tax money even when we could just change a few things and reap huge savings. It's mind-blowing every time I see these comments. "How am I supposed to do this? See it doesn't work? Well yea because you've decided to make it not work and then tried it and you're like "oh the thing I made not work doesn't work! See??".
Nobody is interested in "taking your car" and nobody is interested in forcing you to live in a place that looks like Hong Kong. What many people are interested in though is building in sensible ways that include cheaper and more effective transit options, like walking, biking, light rail, and possibly busses. 90% of your day-to-day needs should be within a distance that you don't need a car for. Everything else is incorrect and just won't work in the long-term for most people.
Live closer? How do people in Germany get a gallon of milk? Or Japan?
How is it that every country in the world is able to do this except us?
Ultimately physics will win here and we're going to run out of cheap gasoline and fossil fuels and you're going to wish you could walk a couple blocks to a neighborhood grocery store. Milk is going to be $7/gallon and gas is going to be $7/gallon and you're going to effectively pay $15 or more to drive to the store 30 miles away and buy that gallon of milk. The whole reason you're were previously able to live 30 miles away from a place to buy milk is because we've had cheap, subsidized fossil fuels. This is going away. There's no amount of oil we can drill for that will change this reality over the long term. No political party can "fix" this. Republicans can't open enough pipelines. It doesn't matter anyway. If you choose to live 30 miles away from the nearest house or grocery store, you also will incur the associated costs of doing that. Townships and other entities aren't going to be able to afford to repair roads. They don't have the money unless they raise taxes by a lot. Better get ready for that too.
Public transit isn't feasible in many places, nor are bikes. Why is that? It's because we've decided to make sure that this is the case and we've spread out towns and cities, and used zoning to make sure that there are no stores within walking distance of the suburbs just so we can keep wasting money building new roads and buying new cars. It's a hidden tax going straight to shareholders of construction companies, automobile manufacturers, and government officials who green light all highway and road projects with your tax money even when we could just change a few things and reap huge savings. It's mind-blowing every time I see these comments. "How am I supposed to do this? See it doesn't work? Well yea because you've decided to make it not work and then tried it and you're like "oh the thing I made not work doesn't work! See??".
Nobody is interested in "taking your car" and nobody is interested in forcing you to live in a place that looks like Hong Kong. What many people are interested in though is building in sensible ways that include cheaper and more effective transit options, like walking, biking, light rail, and possibly busses. 90% of your day-to-day needs should be within a distance that you don't need a car for. Everything else is incorrect and just won't work in the long-term for most people.
Public transport changes that.
Yes, that would be a nice future. But how do I get to the office, now?
LOL he literally works for a company that makes expensive electric cars and markets that as the future.
I've lived very few places with public transport, and often what was in place was poor. Winter exists and biking infrastructure simply doesn't exist in ways meaningful enough to ride a bike, if you are lucky enough to live close enough to do that.
Musk hates public transit
> The message, sent on Thursday and titled “pause all hiring worldwide”, came two days after the billionaire told staff to return to the workplace or leave
So people who claimed less than 24h ago it was at lest partially a way of creating cheap layoffs, were proven right pretty swiftly.
So people who claimed less than 24h ago it was at lest partially a way of creating cheap layoffs, were proven right pretty swiftly.
This is par for the course. Every time there is big news expected, Elon’s antics are elevated and a coordinated distraction by way of a tweet is posted. See the “political attacks on me” tweet as an example, which coincidentally was posted the day prior to his sexual assault allegations.
The man has bought Twitter for the purposes of distracting and manipulating the public.
The man has bought Twitter for the purposes of distracting and manipulating the public.
The man has bought Twitter for the purposes of distracting and manipulating the public.
To be fair, twitter ownership is not required to use twitter for this purpose.
To be fair, twitter ownership is not required to use twitter for this purpose.
> To be fair, twitter ownership is not required to use twitter for this purpose.
I understood that remark as a reference to the way Musk's bid to buy Twitter with no intention to follow-through, in light of other shameless PR ploys like the absurd political persecution claim, looks like a shameless attempt to distract people from other problems affecting Musk, such as Tesla's tanking stock price.
I understood that remark as a reference to the way Musk's bid to buy Twitter with no intention to follow-through, in light of other shameless PR ploys like the absurd political persecution claim, looks like a shameless attempt to distract people from other problems affecting Musk, such as Tesla's tanking stock price.
True, but it's good insurance against (the unlikely event of) being banned for doing so.
Quite expensive insurance
[deleted]
He did the same thing with stock sales last fall. The sale was already in motion when he created a Twitter poll and made a bunch of noise about voluntarily paying taxes. It's bizarre how many people still take his manipulative actions at face value.
> which coincidentally was posted the day prior to his sexual assault allegations.
Business insider gave him a heads up because they asked him for comment before publishing the story.
Business insider gave him a heads up because they asked him for comment before publishing the story.
the coincidence part was sarcasm, everyone suspected he knew after the article came out
I am still amazed the DoD will work with this guy. Yes, there are thousands of people at Space X, many of them former government employees that are well (and still) respected by their colleagues on civil/military side, but the latitude this guy gets...
Why wouldn't they? He's not the CEO and there are still things he knows to keep his mouth shut about.
Or were the sexual assault allegations part of the political attacks on him?
How would you tell?
How would you tell?
You would tell by checking whether he had been asked for comment on the story before making the claims that there would be political attacks on him, which would reveal that he tweeted a few hours after he learned of the story.
How does this rule out that it's a political attack?
How does it imply that it is a political attack, except for Elon saying so?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course, it's not really so easy to tell. A lot of people select a certain narrative beforehand, and then adapt their interpretation of the facts to match it in retrospect. Or maybe they just made an honest attempt at figuring out the truth. And they're wrong. Or they're right.
The world is really complicated, and figuring out the truth from subtle signals is really hard. At best it's a game of probabilities, and I don't think we're often seeing the best in short-form comments on the internet.
A lot of commentary I see regarding the most successful entrepeneurs really triggers my suspicion for fallacious thinking, most often confirmation bias for a worldview where "the rich" are out to get everyone else and therefore are expected to lie all the time. I think that generally, the most correct explanations for the comments and behavior or entrepeneurs like Elon Musk are much more complex than that.
One thing though; I've become quite jaded towards this after seeing the firehose of lies and distortions regarding the Model 3 production ramp-up in 2017-18. It's hard to take any direct skeptical claim at face value after seeing that; the best I can do it noting that someone said this and concluding "not enough information yet to be certain".
Occasionally, there really is a conspiracy, in the sense that a lot of people have a vested interest in having things perceived a certain way. Don't dismiss the idea just because it has the word "conspiracy" in it.
The world is really complicated, and figuring out the truth from subtle signals is really hard. At best it's a game of probabilities, and I don't think we're often seeing the best in short-form comments on the internet.
A lot of commentary I see regarding the most successful entrepeneurs really triggers my suspicion for fallacious thinking, most often confirmation bias for a worldview where "the rich" are out to get everyone else and therefore are expected to lie all the time. I think that generally, the most correct explanations for the comments and behavior or entrepeneurs like Elon Musk are much more complex than that.
One thing though; I've become quite jaded towards this after seeing the firehose of lies and distortions regarding the Model 3 production ramp-up in 2017-18. It's hard to take any direct skeptical claim at face value after seeing that; the best I can do it noting that someone said this and concluding "not enough information yet to be certain".
Occasionally, there really is a conspiracy, in the sense that a lot of people have a vested interest in having things perceived a certain way. Don't dismiss the idea just because it has the word "conspiracy" in it.
Is there a situation where you would not expect the dirt of the rich and famous to be reported on? Where journalists collectively, ALL OF THEM, right-wing nutjobs and useless centrists alike, would say let's not?
This whole attitude of expect political attacks on me is disingenuous at best. Anybody with power should always expect their personal faults to be reported, whatever their political colour.
This whole attitude of expect political attacks on me is disingenuous at best. Anybody with power should always expect their personal faults to be reported, whatever their political colour.
You seem to completely ignore the possibility of false or exaggerated accusations?
We're talking about professional journalists working for mainstream publications publishing unflattering facts about the richest man in the world; I err on the side of caution, but I do not fall in the trap of believing journalists should be treated by the sole measure that everything they do is bad.
There was a settlement. He can sue for defamation.
Generally, the fact of a settlement would preclude him from winning a defamation suit, since introducing the existence of the settlement would satisfy the defendant's bar of establishing affirmatively that there was some sort of actionable sexual harassment at the "more likely than not" threshold for civil cases.
Additionally, the existence of the settlement would likely make any suit for defamation fun afoul of the anti-SLAPP laws.
Additionally, the existence of the settlement would likely make any suit for defamation fun afoul of the anti-SLAPP laws.
While blabling about freedom of speech.
Remember when Marissa Mayer eliminated WFH at Yahoo?
Seemed to work out well for them.
Seemed to work out well for them.
Do you really think Yahoo would have avoided its fate if it had continued allowing WFH?
I don't think it was a good decision, but Yahoo had/has way more issues with its business than whether or not it allows employees to WFH.
I don't think it was a good decision, but Yahoo had/has way more issues with its business than whether or not it allows employees to WFH.
No, but it's one of those decisions that most normal people could easily recognize as a bad decision. It clearly didn't have any positive impact on the company and most likely had a negative impact. Just a CEO doing pure nonsense, causing a huge impact to the company based on ego over data. As opposed to making actual positive decisions. There was no reason for yahoo to fail other than a huge series of poor leadership decisions.
Yahoo is an internet company. Tesla makes cars.
Even for IT workers, I guess that sometimes you need to test on the actual hardware, and the factory is where most things happen.
I am not saying that working from home is impossible, or that banning it is a good thing, but you can't really compare Yahoo and Tesla.
Even for IT workers, I guess that sometimes you need to test on the actual hardware, and the factory is where most things happen.
I am not saying that working from home is impossible, or that banning it is a good thing, but you can't really compare Yahoo and Tesla.
Those producing cars in the factory have never worked from home. The discussion is only about R&D, legal, finance whatever. And most of those don't differ significantly between Yahoo or Tesla.
It's an incredibly unpopular view on HN, but I don't think we can categorically conclude yet that WFH is always equally good as working in-person for all white-collar jobs that have good prerequisites for WFH.
For me personally, the train has left the station and I would not expect to ever consider a non-WFH job again in my career.
But that's a completely different question than asking whether companies that require physical attendance can in some cases out-compete those that don't. I think we have a tendency to project our wishes onto this debate, and not make an honest attempt at figuring out the truth.
For me personally, the train has left the station and I would not expect to ever consider a non-WFH job again in my career.
But that's a completely different question than asking whether companies that require physical attendance can in some cases out-compete those that don't. I think we have a tendency to project our wishes onto this debate, and not make an honest attempt at figuring out the truth.
Actually, I would be surprised if anyone thinks, that WFH always beats working in an office. But that doesn't mean, that there are not a ton of jobs where it does, or just part time, even if the job requires a lot of on-site presence.
But a company shouldn't have to mandate in-office work permanentely and for all. It should be obvious from the job profile and the working conditions, when it is advantageous to be in the office rather than at home.
But a company shouldn't have to mandate in-office work permanentely and for all. It should be obvious from the job profile and the working conditions, when it is advantageous to be in the office rather than at home.
Thanks for the intellectual honesty, it seems to be a rare thing in the WFH discussion.
Working every single minute at the factory regardless of role also seems more like dogma than anything actually based in facts. It's the (cargo) cult of work rather than wanting productive employees.
Maybe a software company should have 1/5 days in office (for meetings/dicussions/onboarding/...) while a manufacturing company might need 4/5 days for desk workers to be on site. But to say 40h of 40h should be at a desk doesn't seem like a sensible treshold.
Right now my time is 6PM and I'm at my office desk. Because I'm home. Granted, I'm writing on HN waiting for some tests, but if I had been at my office, I would have taken a 2h lunch and left at 2 or 3 this afternoon ...
Maybe a software company should have 1/5 days in office (for meetings/dicussions/onboarding/...) while a manufacturing company might need 4/5 days for desk workers to be on site. But to say 40h of 40h should be at a desk doesn't seem like a sensible treshold.
Right now my time is 6PM and I'm at my office desk. Because I'm home. Granted, I'm writing on HN waiting for some tests, but if I had been at my office, I would have taken a 2h lunch and left at 2 or 3 this afternoon ...
A measurable amount of Tesla’s profit margin comes from pre-selling a $10,000 software package that does not yet exist.
I don't think that's the case; they do an accounting thing where they store the money and don't register all of it as profits until they deliver a set of benchmark features.
So some of it is recognized as profits right away because the car drives into a tree autonomously in a parking lot, or grinds the wheels against a curb when asked to self park, or when it slams on the brakes randomly when going under an overpass while the lane keeping cruise control is enabled. Each new feature allows them to claim more of that $10k as profits, but they still haven't gotten their FSD delivered out of beta so they don't get all of it.
I really like my tesla, BTW. It doesn't quite live up to the promises but it is quite lovely for everything I use it for.
So some of it is recognized as profits right away because the car drives into a tree autonomously in a parking lot, or grinds the wheels against a curb when asked to self park, or when it slams on the brakes randomly when going under an overpass while the lane keeping cruise control is enabled. Each new feature allows them to claim more of that $10k as profits, but they still haven't gotten their FSD delivered out of beta so they don't get all of it.
I really like my tesla, BTW. It doesn't quite live up to the promises but it is quite lovely for everything I use it for.
If you seriously believe this I have a bridge to sell you LOL. Elon has a history of shilling FSD and FSD payments at let’s say… opportune times in history when Tesla was at risk of running out of runway.
I'm not sure what you mean by "runway" in this context. I think you may be working off of old memes - Tesla has been profitable since 2020.
2020 was 2 years ago.. history older than 2 years ago is not "old" in any sense of the word, and if it was.. does that matter?
Is it really the case? Surely the development of this software package has its own very significant expenses, considering how much effort such a thing must take. What exactly are the annual revenue from selling this package and the expenses spent on working on it?
Depend on which profit margin you’re using, but gross profit margin is revenue from a sale compared to COGS and wouldn’t include R&D
My point was, if the company is getting $10k extra per sale but actually for example spending a total of $12k per sale, then arguing with these sales seems pointless if they're actually worsening the company's situation. At this point it seems far from certain that this is a net benefit for the company, other than perhaps as an investment in its future (but long-term investments in your future don't prop up your current profits).
> but long-term investments in your future don't prop up your current profits
This is exactly why gross profit margin typically excludes R&D, because the measure is usually used to see “is this business profitable on a per-unit basis”. That is, would you make profit if you decided to stop the long term investment.
This is exactly why gross profit margin typically excludes R&D, because the measure is usually used to see “is this business profitable on a per-unit basis”. That is, would you make profit if you decided to stop the long term investment.
The net gain from investing the car buyers money instead of investors/banks money must add up...
Do Tesla office workers work at the same place as factory workers? I guess it's possible but it feels pretty unlikely.
If someone in software dev is in an office at a different address from the factory I don't see how Tesla having a factory is relevant.
If someone in software dev is in an office at a different address from the factory I don't see how Tesla having a factory is relevant.
I feel like someone can eliminate WFH AND have it not be intended as a "soft layoff".
Whatever Yahoo's issues were they were going on for a LONG time. Even when they HAD WFH...
Whatever Yahoo's issues were they were going on for a LONG time. Even when they HAD WFH...
Wasn't it kind of the same thing in all the likelyhood? Their troubles became apparent shortly after, they were likely trying to get rid of employees people without making layoffs apparent.
It was proven through data that most people at yahoo that were “working from home” weren’t working. It was indisputable.
I keep hearing references to this study that precipitated the famous “no more WFH Fridays” decision but I can’t actually seem to find it. Do you have a link?
It's hard to imagine that severance from a 10% layoff is a significant cost for a company of Tesla's size and revenue. It's not small by any means, but not necessarily worth a complicated scheme in relative terms
I think it's just a game for executives at this point to think of what dumb policy will people put up with to keep their jobs or to quit and reduce severance.
Uh,ok...
Two days ago the "Who is hiring" thread here had something like 20+ software engineering positions for Tesla.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31585021
More erratic decision making from Mr Musk. Like, I dunno, the time he told Twitter he was taking Tesla private while tripping on LSD. He needs to step aside from Tesla at this point.
Two days ago the "Who is hiring" thread here had something like 20+ software engineering positions for Tesla.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31585021
More erratic decision making from Mr Musk. Like, I dunno, the time he told Twitter he was taking Tesla private while tripping on LSD. He needs to step aside from Tesla at this point.
Not defending Tesla or Musk specifically here, but this happens all the time. Until you're ready to announce to internal staff (and publicly, if you're large enough) that you're in a hiring freeze and/or doing layoffs, you need to keep up appearances that things are operating normally, even if that means keeping up the recruiting pipeline for positions that you have no intention of hiring.
The absolute worst thing you can do is go into a "soft freeze" mode where new hires slowly stop getting approved, backfills aren't happening, middle management gets told that hiring will be revisited next quarter, etc. Non-management employees will notice this and you'll start getting rumors circulating and people leaving.
The absolute worst thing you can do is go into a "soft freeze" mode where new hires slowly stop getting approved, backfills aren't happening, middle management gets told that hiring will be revisited next quarter, etc. Non-management employees will notice this and you'll start getting rumors circulating and people leaving.
> you need to keep up appearances that things are operating normally, even if that means keeping up the recruiting pipeline for positions that you have no intention of hiring
This reminds me what I once read about the challenges of zookeeping big cats. They tend to appear very often perfectly healthy until one day they just die. And when you do an autopsy on them you realise that they were sick since weeks or even month, but it often does not “show” in a way you would expect.
The speculation is that since they are not incentivised evolutionary to show that they are hurt. In the wild they are often solitary creatures so no one would or could help them, on the other hand if they appear hurt that would invite other predators to challenge them. Sounds like the incentive structure is very similar for companies.
This reminds me what I once read about the challenges of zookeeping big cats. They tend to appear very often perfectly healthy until one day they just die. And when you do an autopsy on them you realise that they were sick since weeks or even month, but it often does not “show” in a way you would expect.
The speculation is that since they are not incentivised evolutionary to show that they are hurt. In the wild they are often solitary creatures so no one would or could help them, on the other hand if they appear hurt that would invite other predators to challenge them. Sounds like the incentive structure is very similar for companies.
That happens with house cats too. They’re good at hiding signs of weakness.
I've experienced similar at a large tech employer. During a brief, now-forgotten market downturn, we froze hiring but kept open all of our position advertisements, in order to keep the pipeline 'warm'.
I thought it was short-sighted. There were a small number of qualified people for the positions and we constantly complained that it was hard to find them. If one of those qualified candidates applies to a position and gets ghosted, they may never apply again, either because they lose their confidence or out of spite.
I thought it was short-sighted. There were a small number of qualified people for the positions and we constantly complained that it was hard to find them. If one of those qualified candidates applies to a position and gets ghosted, they may never apply again, either because they lose their confidence or out of spite.
Why would you ghost them? You should politely let people know that it was not a match at this time and hopefully in the future you will get back to them.
There is an art to wording the communication in such a way that it does not lie outright, nor does it spell out a hiring freeze.
There is an art to wording the communication in such a way that it does not lie outright, nor does it spell out a hiring freeze.
While this may be true from the perspective of upper management, it is a very shitty way to treat the people who work for you, or would like to.
What's the alternative? Telling all of your employees "hey we're thinking about layoffs that may or may not happen, and we don't know who will be affected" would be a massive morale hit and make people leave. Until the final decision is made -- and this is a hard decision that everyone, including upper management, wants to avoid making until absolutely necessary -- it's best to keep it close to the chest. Just because you've planned for it doesn't mean you'll execute on it.
Look at this situation, even. Elon says he's going to cut 10% of Tesla's jobs. You're a Tesla employee. Is your job on the chopping block? Should you start looking? Nearly every person at Tesla is now living with fear that they might not have a steady paycheck in a month. To me this is a way shittier situation because you're stuck in limbo for a month or more. Isn't it a lot better to have a single all-hands meeting where you announce layoffs, the people who are affected will be contacted by their manager with severance information, and the plan going forward? Rather than just having this stuff linger for months?
Look at this situation, even. Elon says he's going to cut 10% of Tesla's jobs. You're a Tesla employee. Is your job on the chopping block? Should you start looking? Nearly every person at Tesla is now living with fear that they might not have a steady paycheck in a month. To me this is a way shittier situation because you're stuck in limbo for a month or more. Isn't it a lot better to have a single all-hands meeting where you announce layoffs, the people who are affected will be contacted by their manager with severance information, and the plan going forward? Rather than just having this stuff linger for months?
this is a hard decision that everyone, including upper management
I call bullshit on the inclusion of "upper management". To think upper management cares about anything other than short term profits (and their own bonuses) is just naive. When COVID hit, the company I worked for laid off 40 people (we were just a couple of hundred employees in total). You know how they laid them off? One morning they simply asked the sysadmin to turn off their logins.
It is not a "hard decision" - to them, it is just like throwing away a chair or a table. Remember that dude who laid off 900 something people on a zoom call and shit talking them later? You mentioned morale, what do you think happens the morale of the people who found half of their (small) team laid off with zero warning, like it happened to my team?
There may be exceptions of course, but it is safe to say most companies don't give a shit about their employees, even their star employees.
I am not complaining about layoffs here (though the way they do it is cruel). Just pointing out that companies are not as heartbroken about it as you seem to think. It is just business
I call bullshit on the inclusion of "upper management". To think upper management cares about anything other than short term profits (and their own bonuses) is just naive. When COVID hit, the company I worked for laid off 40 people (we were just a couple of hundred employees in total). You know how they laid them off? One morning they simply asked the sysadmin to turn off their logins.
It is not a "hard decision" - to them, it is just like throwing away a chair or a table. Remember that dude who laid off 900 something people on a zoom call and shit talking them later? You mentioned morale, what do you think happens the morale of the people who found half of their (small) team laid off with zero warning, like it happened to my team?
There may be exceptions of course, but it is safe to say most companies don't give a shit about their employees, even their star employees.
I am not complaining about layoffs here (though the way they do it is cruel). Just pointing out that companies are not as heartbroken about it as you seem to think. It is just business
I'm not going to pretend that layoffs are harder on upper management than employees or anything. Getting laid off sucks ass and there's no sugarcoating it.
But thinking that being a C-level automatically means you're a Patrick Bateman style sociopath treating people like furniture is an immature take, especially for a forum like this, where so many people are entrepreneurs and upper management themselves. They're still people.
But thinking that being a C-level automatically means you're a Patrick Bateman style sociopath treating people like furniture is an immature take, especially for a forum like this, where so many people are entrepreneurs and upper management themselves. They're still people.
If you're at C-level at a company of Tesla's size, you are still a person, just compensated as though you were 50 persons. That is going to change how you're perceived, like it or not.
Everyone is judged on the basis of their actions, not their words. When you're a CEO managing 10 people, you feel the weight of every firing. When you can tell your lieutenants "slash headcount by 10%", you don't feel the weight as much. It's the difference between hand-to-hand combat and firing a drone missile from a command center thousands of miles away.
Everyone is judged on the basis of their actions, not their words. When you're a CEO managing 10 people, you feel the weight of every firing. When you can tell your lieutenants "slash headcount by 10%", you don't feel the weight as much. It's the difference between hand-to-hand combat and firing a drone missile from a command center thousands of miles away.
You don't see those folks taking a paycut to keep the furniture around though.
Once you've started layoffs, the possibility that there will be layoffs in the future is much higher. Anybody at Tesla who doesn't get hit in the initial round should be thinking about what if there's a round 2. I'd personally be grabbing my parachute, or at least sizing one for myself.
The long slow method gives more time for people to bail the hell out. As a worker, I think I prefer the time.
The long slow method gives more time for people to bail the hell out. As a worker, I think I prefer the time.
Well, one alternative is not to get into that situation in the first place.
> Isn't it a lot better to have a single all-hands meeting where you announce layoffs, the people who are affected will be contacted by their manager with severance information, and the plan going forward?
Well, maybe. But if my employer announced layoffs, I would be looking for a new job the next day regardless of whether I was included. For one thing, 10% layoffs is unlikely to correspond to 10% reduction in total work, so my workload just grew by 10%, and somehow I doubt I'm getting a 10% raise to compensate. For another, the company has now lost its ability to attract top-tier talent, for several years if not forever.
> Isn't it a lot better to have a single all-hands meeting where you announce layoffs, the people who are affected will be contacted by their manager with severance information, and the plan going forward?
Well, maybe. But if my employer announced layoffs, I would be looking for a new job the next day regardless of whether I was included. For one thing, 10% layoffs is unlikely to correspond to 10% reduction in total work, so my workload just grew by 10%, and somehow I doubt I'm getting a 10% raise to compensate. For another, the company has now lost its ability to attract top-tier talent, for several years if not forever.
While it is possible some people are trying to do the right thing, it seems more likely they simply don't care.
Companies have all sorts of fake job openings, even when things are good now. They view it as a form of marketing, showing that they're growing. That it wastes applicants' time applying is an externality. It's not hurting them.
Companies have all sorts of fake job openings, even when things are good now. They view it as a form of marketing, showing that they're growing. That it wastes applicants' time applying is an externality. It's not hurting them.
As a worker, I'd prefer to have the time to prepare. By, for example, job hunting. Or at the least updating and polishing my resume.
"This happens all the time" at badly managed companies, or perhaps at well managed companies if there is a huge macroeconomic shock like in 2001 or 2009. Given that great software is what supposedly gives Tesla its competitive advantage, it's really bizarre to me to go from having 20 open software dev positions to a layoff within 48 hours, because Elon Musk "has a very bad feeling" based on no new data points as far as we can tell. Unless he learned something this week that he isn't telling us.
People always leave. Isn't people leaving the desired result?
Big cuts like that, in my experience, happen when there is an either mismanagement or an external shock that requires action faster than what can be achieved with natural turnover.
Otherwise, headcount targets can be reached by managing the hiring rate. There is always natural turn-over. If you need to grow, hiring rate>turnover rate, if you need to shrink hiring rate<turnover rate.
Big cuts like that, in my experience, happen when there is an either mismanagement or an external shock that requires action faster than what can be achieved with natural turnover.
Otherwise, headcount targets can be reached by managing the hiring rate. There is always natural turn-over. If you need to grow, hiring rate>turnover rate, if you need to shrink hiring rate<turnover rate.
This was very insightful. Thanks for that.
That's actually pretty standard practice. An official layoff at a large company is going to be kept to a pretty tight circle until it is officially announced. It isn't uncommon for hiring managers to be unaware and only know that currently they have open head count, even if the plan in the works is to include open positions as part of the reduction in force.
Even in small companies, I've definitely had times where I had to drop everyone in late stages (like offer negotiation) due to a surprise hiring freeze. I can't think of many times even when I've been in the exec meetings that I knew about it more than a few days in advance of everyone else.
It's much more fun when internal promos get axed on the last approval. Learned the hard way never to say anything about promo processing until after paperwork is ready.
Regulations often require that the stock exchange is told before the average hiring manager.
[deleted](2)
The same can be said about Coinbase and look what's happening. Let's just say buyer beware when it comes to meme companies.
The thing is, Tesla isn't a Coinbase. Tesla is now a giant manufacturing company that makes a lot of things, brings in revenue, and has some really solid engineering. I don't like their cars from a UX standpoint, but the engineering in their motors and battery packs are solid good products.
Move fast and break things might have been fine in the early days. Seems to me like the company needs to 'grow up' and demonstrate responsibility to shareholders and customers, and to do that it likely involves significantly sidelining Musk, who clearly behaves very erratically.
Move fast and break things might have been fine in the early days. Seems to me like the company needs to 'grow up' and demonstrate responsibility to shareholders and customers, and to do that it likely involves significantly sidelining Musk, who clearly behaves very erratically.
I agree with the spirit of this; but…
This specific pattern, switching suddenly from "thousands of open positions" to “freeze and maybe layoffs” is typical for large large, mature, professionally managed companies.
This specific pattern, switching suddenly from "thousands of open positions" to “freeze and maybe layoffs” is typical for large large, mature, professionally managed companies.
But not because the CEO fired off an email based on his gut feeling about the economy. That’s wacky.
> not because the CEO fired off an email based on his gut feeling about the economy. That’s wacky.
Elon's been off his rocker the last couple weeks. But this is just honesty. At the end of the day, this is the CEO's job. Some dress it up with more corporate speak. Others, like Elon, are more direct.
Elon's been off his rocker the last couple weeks. But this is just honesty. At the end of the day, this is the CEO's job. Some dress it up with more corporate speak. Others, like Elon, are more direct.
weeks?
I have a ton of respect for what he's accomplished, but from my perspective, I think he's been pretty chaotic in communications for years.
I have a ton of respect for what he's accomplished, but from my perspective, I think he's been pretty chaotic in communications for years.
> he's been pretty chaotic in communications for years
True. But he was less impulsive in his actions. The Twitter acquisition is a boondoggle. He could have just tweeted about it.
True. But he was less impulsive in his actions. The Twitter acquisition is a boondoggle. He could have just tweeted about it.
Musk was a hair's breadth away from taking the SEC "420 funding secured" case to court, and spending who knows how much political goodwill, attention and effort towards that for months or years, instead of building the world's most interesting car company. During the most critical months of Tesla's history. He was convinced he was right and unwilling to let the thing disappear in a settlement. That was in 2018, four years ago. IIRC, only a conversation with Mark Cuban concerning the distraction of a lawsuit convinced him otherwise.
Oh, and this was immediately after the Thailand cave diver pedo fiasco, and immediately before the Joe Rogan marijuana controversy.
Two years before this, in 2016, Tesla bought the unprofitable SolarCity at a price that's truly ridiculous considering Tesla's share price today. I hardly think they've made more than a token profit in the eight years since. The thing seemed like a spur-of-the-moment decision.
I don't think we're seeing a difference of magnitude in Musk's impulsive big decisions. Pretty sure they're strongly correlated with the personality traits that's given us the successes of SpaceX and Tesla already. I think everyone should just lean back, relax and enjoy the drama if that's what they're into. Or read a good book otherwise, and check back on the progress of Musk's companies in five years.
Also need to point out that the Twitter purchase hasn't closed yet. Musk pulling out of that at the last moment would not be very unexpected.
Oh, and this was immediately after the Thailand cave diver pedo fiasco, and immediately before the Joe Rogan marijuana controversy.
Two years before this, in 2016, Tesla bought the unprofitable SolarCity at a price that's truly ridiculous considering Tesla's share price today. I hardly think they've made more than a token profit in the eight years since. The thing seemed like a spur-of-the-moment decision.
I don't think we're seeing a difference of magnitude in Musk's impulsive big decisions. Pretty sure they're strongly correlated with the personality traits that's given us the successes of SpaceX and Tesla already. I think everyone should just lean back, relax and enjoy the drama if that's what they're into. Or read a good book otherwise, and check back on the progress of Musk's companies in five years.
Also need to point out that the Twitter purchase hasn't closed yet. Musk pulling out of that at the last moment would not be very unexpected.
>I hardly think they've made more than a token profit in the eight years since.
I want to push back on this a little: Tesla Energy's revenue was $2.79B in 2021, while SolarCity's revenue topped out at $735M in 2016 just before acquisition. SolarCity had seen 82% YoY revenue growth 2015-6, and apparently averaged 30% YoY growth for the next five years. That's not necessarily a great purchase, but it's not terrible.
>the Twitter purchase
More than anything, it was astonishingly bad timing. Few investors have ever managed to buy effectively $40B worth of tech stocks right before the whole NASDAQ collapses. But even fewer can time the market!
I want to push back on this a little: Tesla Energy's revenue was $2.79B in 2021, while SolarCity's revenue topped out at $735M in 2016 just before acquisition. SolarCity had seen 82% YoY revenue growth 2015-6, and apparently averaged 30% YoY growth for the next five years. That's not necessarily a great purchase, but it's not terrible.
>the Twitter purchase
More than anything, it was astonishingly bad timing. Few investors have ever managed to buy effectively $40B worth of tech stocks right before the whole NASDAQ collapses. But even fewer can time the market!
Good points, thanks for providing the nuance.
> Two years before this, in 2016, Tesla bought the unprofitable SolarCity at a price that's truly ridiculous considering Tesla's share price today. I hardly think they've made more than a token profit in the eight years since. The thing seemed like a spur-of-the-moment decision.
It was literally to save a company his brother was heavily invested into from bankruptcy, and using Tesla to do so.
It was literally to save a company his brother was heavily invested into from bankruptcy, and using Tesla to do so.
Getting into a pedo flame war with a literal hero?
> Elon's been off his rocker the last couple weeks.
Pretty sure he's malding over the fact that Chelsea Manning is boffing his ex.
Pretty sure he's malding over the fact that Chelsea Manning is boffing his ex.
> mature, professionally managed companies
But Tesla is supposed to manufacture more cars than it manufactures now. It is supposed to grow its capacity to explain its valuation, at least partially. I think they make 1 million cars per year and want to make as much as Toyota + Volkswagen combined who make probably around 20 million cars per year.
So how some short term cuts by 10% connect to the idea that Tesla will grow by 1000%?
Of course in every company you can trim some fat, but isnt Tesla supposed to expand to at least partially explain the valuation?
Also if they wash out people who can get a better job, they are left with those who are stuck there (there is a difference between firing non performers and making best people leave - I define best as someone who can find another job). Will their quality stay the same? Their competitive edge was markering and (supposedly) better technolofy / engineering / programming. Losing top staff in exchange for engineers who accept working as in a sweatshop doesnt sound mature for me.
But Tesla is supposed to manufacture more cars than it manufactures now. It is supposed to grow its capacity to explain its valuation, at least partially. I think they make 1 million cars per year and want to make as much as Toyota + Volkswagen combined who make probably around 20 million cars per year.
So how some short term cuts by 10% connect to the idea that Tesla will grow by 1000%?
Of course in every company you can trim some fat, but isnt Tesla supposed to expand to at least partially explain the valuation?
Also if they wash out people who can get a better job, they are left with those who are stuck there (there is a difference between firing non performers and making best people leave - I define best as someone who can find another job). Will their quality stay the same? Their competitive edge was markering and (supposedly) better technolofy / engineering / programming. Losing top staff in exchange for engineers who accept working as in a sweatshop doesnt sound mature for me.
It's typical only where there is a huge macroeconomic shock like in 2001 or 2009, or because those large companies were either horribly managed (i.e. outdated business model). None of that is true right now with respect to Tesla...huge increased in oil prices recently should actually make EV's "cheaper" in comparison.
The idea of shareholders sidelining Musk is crazy.
Shareholders paid him tens of billions to stay after he wanted to step down as CEO after Model 3 push.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/21/elon-musk-s...
Elon Musk is golden goose for Tesla shareholders.
Shareholders paid him tens of billions to stay after he wanted to step down as CEO after Model 3 push.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/21/elon-musk-s...
Elon Musk is golden goose for Tesla shareholders.
The fact remains that Musk is the techbro Kanye West, and shareholders should sideline him.
They won't because it's a meme stock. There's no way they should be the largest us auto maker. People are or have bought Tesla stock because they like Elon. There's not that much value in the company.
TBH, that's just as much a testament to how pessimistic investors are about other US automakers as it is to how positive they are on Tesla/Musk. F and GM are massively undervalued unless you have really big doubts about their future.
Which doesn't make sense to me. Just comparing the F-150 Lightning to the Cybertruck it seems pretty clear that Tesla has no idea what they are doing.
Because Ford is shipping somewhere between 50k and 100k of the Mach-E, while Tesla is doing closer to 500k? They have their faults, but they are a long way from "no idea what they are doing".
The model Y has the significant advantage of being a modified version of a car that had already been in production for years.
"No idea what they're doing" is probably a bit harsh on my part, but I stand by my opinion that Ford seems to be in a better position moving forward. The F-150 Lightning is a compelling product that went from announcement to consumer driveways in the span of a year. The Cybertruck still has no ship date in sight, and feels like it was designed to appeal to people buying Brodozer's rather than people needing something to do truck stuff. And from what we've seen so far, Ford does not seem to be suffering from the same chronic quality control issues as Tesla.
"No idea what they're doing" is probably a bit harsh on my part, but I stand by my opinion that Ford seems to be in a better position moving forward. The F-150 Lightning is a compelling product that went from announcement to consumer driveways in the span of a year. The Cybertruck still has no ship date in sight, and feels like it was designed to appeal to people buying Brodozer's rather than people needing something to do truck stuff. And from what we've seen so far, Ford does not seem to be suffering from the same chronic quality control issues as Tesla.
I don't know about Ford, but GM is pretty well positioned to eat the US electric car market by producing more affordable electric cars (like Hyundai and Kia are doing, but mostly not yet in the US market). They could well fail to do so, but if they do, it would be an own goal.
I think that's true for both Ford and GM to varying degrees. They have solid cash flow and existing factories that could be retooled, as well as the critical supplier relationships that are needed.
But so far the results haven't been spectactular. Their goals for 2025 look like Tesla's goals for next year.
That could change, though. Ford in particular has been making a lot of solid moves recently, and unlike GM there seems to be more movement than talk.
But so far the results haven't been spectactular. Their goals for 2025 look like Tesla's goals for next year.
That could change, though. Ford in particular has been making a lot of solid moves recently, and unlike GM there seems to be more movement than talk.
To be fair, tesla's goals is kinda a moving target. How's that auto driving and the truck coming along?
anyone who's not already reading Matt Levine should look up the "Elon Markets Hypothesis", which states that markets in a meme period value things depending on their closeness to Musk.
It's been proven over and over! (not really)
It's been proven over and over! (not really)
Do love some Matt Levine
Find me another person that has his expertise in business, finances, marketing, mass manufacturing and aerospace industry.
Find me another car executive that would have been bold enough to do something like Tesla Giga Castings before Elon decided to go for it.
There are 4 entities to date that delivered people to Earth orbit:
- Russia - USA - China - SpaceX
There is only one entity that made rocket reuability profitable: SpaceX
There is no person alive with better track record on delivering things that were believed by experts to be impossible.
Find me another car executive that would have been bold enough to do something like Tesla Giga Castings before Elon decided to go for it.
There are 4 entities to date that delivered people to Earth orbit:
- Russia - USA - China - SpaceX
There is only one entity that made rocket reuability profitable: SpaceX
There is no person alive with better track record on delivering things that were believed by experts to be impossible.
[deleted]
Gwynne Shotwell is the reason SpaceX is successful today, and generally, every time SpaceX has an unexpected failure rather than a success, it's because Musk showed up to the facilities and started making silly demands.
Did I miss the part where Gwynne Shotwell was CEO and CTO at SpaceX? Or the part where she put all her money into the company?
Shotwell is absolutely awesome, but she did not came up with the initial capital or the idea of rocket reusability and Mars settlement. She did not convince Tom Muller to join SpaceX etc. etc.
The fact that Elon noticed Shotwell and gave her COO position is an example of excellent leadership skills from Musk.
For contrast, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin is an excellent example of bad leadership.
Boeing is also an excellent example of bad leadership.
Shotwell is absolutely awesome, but she did not came up with the initial capital or the idea of rocket reusability and Mars settlement. She did not convince Tom Muller to join SpaceX etc. etc.
The fact that Elon noticed Shotwell and gave her COO position is an example of excellent leadership skills from Musk.
For contrast, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin is an excellent example of bad leadership.
Boeing is also an excellent example of bad leadership.
The EV market is becoming extremely competitive. Not only are they not going to be the only game in town, they probably won’t have the best product. Tesla’s valuation has to come back from the moon at some point.
Yeah. Tesla knows how to make motors and battery packs, but they don't really know how to make cars. Established automakers are liable to eat their lunch once they catch up technologically. In fact, they don't even have to catch up; just be good enough.
Tesla's valuation was over 100x earnings yesterday. They had a P/E ratio of over 200x not too long ago. They are making solid products mostly, but I doubt you couldn't lump them in with "meme stocks" considering their volatility and average shareholder.
This is the transition most startups fail to make. It's easy to be reckless when you're small, it gets much harder to do that when you get big.
Companies are instituting freezes but keeping jobs posted. It creates an outside illusion of success and growth.
It’s also tied to strategy. Eg traditional auto is laying of combustion engine folks and hiring battery folks.
I don’t think Tesla needs any illusion though. Their product Sells like hotcakes. Of course the stock is still crazy valued so it’s not sustainable to keep this valuation
TBH, a lot of freezes still allow backfills or exceptions. Its not all an illusion.
Lots of big companies in the past couple years have had 10% layoffs and still have job openings because they are shifting strategy and need different skill sets.
It's possible they are still hiring for software and laying off for other areas.
I'm sure that's the case. But personally I wouldn't want to be a SWE in that kind of scenario. Dumpster fire all around you and company as a whole pivoting to austerity while at the same time hiring 20+ software engineers? When I see that many open postings at once, alarm bells go off.
Tesla’s headcount grown 40% in 2021. That’s pretty unheard of for manufacturing sector. We all hear about mass layoff but massive hiring is rarely recognized. They have almost 100K employees now.
20 open positions, especially for an in demand profession like software, is the norm at companies at such size who are doing well.
20 open positions, especially for an in demand profession like software, is the norm at companies at such size who are doing well.
> When I see that many open postings at once, alarm bells go off.
It all depends on context though - for a company as massive as Tesla, 20+ open postings for SWE is nothing. It certainly doesn't warrant alarm bells, I think.
It all depends on context though - for a company as massive as Tesla, 20+ open postings for SWE is nothing. It certainly doesn't warrant alarm bells, I think.
I would expect much more than that just for _normal_ attrition. People leave for any number a reasonable scenarios and you need to backfill. At the scale of a big company, NOT hiring 20-100 people at all times means you are _shrinking_.
I think that's going to be a lot of places soon.
-1: recruiters are just executing, which has nothing to do with corporate above them.
Is the LSD story real?
Yeah, let’s remove the most successful businessman in modern history because you don’t like some of his quirks. Very smart move that would be
> erratic decision making from Mr Musk
I'd be the last person to defend Elon Musk, I don't know the guy, but just want to point out that when you're at his level of wealth and power you also have very wealthy, powerful enemies.
I see ongoing, what appears to be coordinated, attempts in the mainstream/social media to paint him as crazy. I have no special access to the truth but I'd be unsurprised if those stories are 100% politically motivated and have no basis in reality.
I'd be the last person to defend Elon Musk, I don't know the guy, but just want to point out that when you're at his level of wealth and power you also have very wealthy, powerful enemies.
I see ongoing, what appears to be coordinated, attempts in the mainstream/social media to paint him as crazy. I have no special access to the truth but I'd be unsurprised if those stories are 100% politically motivated and have no basis in reality.
> I see an ongoing, what appears to be coordinated, attempts in the mainstream/social media to paint him as crazy.
The parent never used the word crazy, you did. His behavior is erratic. I don't know how that's not obvious to anyone watching him. Does it make him crazy? I don't know, but he is most certainly erratic.
The parent never used the word crazy, you did. His behavior is erratic. I don't know how that's not obvious to anyone watching him. Does it make him crazy? I don't know, but he is most certainly erratic.
So he should be condemned because he behaves differently than you?
As a reminder, this kind of thinking lead to the worst atrocities of 20th century history.
As a reminder, this kind of thinking lead to the worst atrocities of 20th century history.
The people who committed those atrocities were erratic.
Comparing people critical of Elon’s erratic behavior to Nazis is pushing things a little too far, don’t you agree?
When people find it acceptable to make ad hominem attacks of a person or group instead of arguing the point, history has shown evil rises and takes power.
Elon has Asperger's syndrome. So no, it's not "pushing things a little to far" if you read up on what the Nazi's did to children diagnosed with the syndrome.
Elon has Asperger's syndrome. So no, it's not "pushing things a little to far" if you read up on what the Nazi's did to children diagnosed with the syndrome.
> When people find it acceptable to make ad hominem attacks of a person or group instead of arguing the point
We were literally talking about his character - that was the argument and the point and nothing else.
We were literally talking about his character - that was the argument and the point and nothing else.
The point is that he is erratic.
We’re not arguing against some point Musk made, we’re arguing against his fit for his role, and his erratic behavior is absolutely a factor to consider, and in particular it is not an “ad hominem.”
It is absolutely pushing things a little too far to make the jump from “this person is behaving erratically” to anything resembling what the Nazis did to children with Aspergers.
It’s incredible you can legitimately think it’s comparable.
We’re not arguing against some point Musk made, we’re arguing against his fit for his role, and his erratic behavior is absolutely a factor to consider, and in particular it is not an “ad hominem.”
It is absolutely pushing things a little too far to make the jump from “this person is behaving erratically” to anything resembling what the Nazis did to children with Aspergers.
It’s incredible you can legitimately think it’s comparable.
He's sure doing his best to let them paint him that way.
In the same vein, when you have that much money and power you can simply buy/create your image.
There is a lot to criticize about Elon Musk but he's too influential for any of that criticism to reach the majority.
When you're that wealthy you can also circumvent the law. During the pandemic, Tesla "threatened" to move from California to another state if they wouldn't be allowed to reopen their factories. This caused the state of California to basically make an exception for them... so they circumvented the law which other smaller companies could not do.
Personally i can't understand the obsession with someone like Elon Musk or even someone like Bill Gates... It's easy to control your image when you're a billionaire, so you don't actually have to behave and live ethically.
There is a lot to criticize about Elon Musk but he's too influential for any of that criticism to reach the majority.
When you're that wealthy you can also circumvent the law. During the pandemic, Tesla "threatened" to move from California to another state if they wouldn't be allowed to reopen their factories. This caused the state of California to basically make an exception for them... so they circumvented the law which other smaller companies could not do.
Personally i can't understand the obsession with someone like Elon Musk or even someone like Bill Gates... It's easy to control your image when you're a billionaire, so you don't actually have to behave and live ethically.
From a strictly economic viewpoint, Tesla has made major inroads that threaten sales from other automakers (Ford, GM, Toyota) who were behind the curve on electric vehicles. Long-term mass adoption of electric vehicles threatens the profitability of the entire oil refinery sector. Similarly, SpaceX has made major inroads against other government contractors for the space delivery sector.
So it's pretty clear why these interests would want to badmouth Musk, but this doesn't really change the viability of the fundamental business models of Tesla and SpaceX. Basically, this is an industrialist model, not a financialist model, and that's the opposite of what the likes of Warren Buffett have been into. Industrialist models are really what the USA needs, the whole neoliberal financialization game has been a disaster for most of the country.
So it's pretty clear why these interests would want to badmouth Musk, but this doesn't really change the viability of the fundamental business models of Tesla and SpaceX. Basically, this is an industrialist model, not a financialist model, and that's the opposite of what the likes of Warren Buffett have been into. Industrialist models are really what the USA needs, the whole neoliberal financialization game has been a disaster for most of the country.
It's amazing to see the regime's golden boy turn into it's black sheep.
You realize that much of our opinions aren't from critical think but are simply assigned to us by elites.
You realize that much of our opinions aren't from critical think but are simply assigned to us by elites.
> but are simply assigned to us by elites.
Do Musk's own tweets fall into this category?
Do Musk's own tweets fall into this category?
Yes, of course. There are many people who will simply adopt another high profile person's opinion as their own. Entire industries are built on it.
Musk is certainly an elite.
The elite that I had in mind, however, were the establishment elite.
Musk is certainly an elite.
The elite that I had in mind, however, were the establishment elite.
Recession or not, Musk's emails (the stoppage of remote work 2 days ago, and then yesterday's "super bad feeling") seem like reactionary outbursts than wise management. What was the point of pissing people off with the abrupt change to the remote work policy, only for the next day to announce imminent layoffs?
People have pointed out that he’s likely going through mental health issues and Im inclined to agree with them.
He went a bit too far with the Twitter buyout stunt.
Honestly, he should just get off social media and take a vacation or something. But of course he’s too egotistical to do that and will try to muddle his way through it. Its amusing to watch as an outsider but I can’t imagine its a lot of fun for people at Musk companies (+ Twitter).
He went a bit too far with the Twitter buyout stunt.
Honestly, he should just get off social media and take a vacation or something. But of course he’s too egotistical to do that and will try to muddle his way through it. Its amusing to watch as an outsider but I can’t imagine its a lot of fun for people at Musk companies (+ Twitter).
> People have pointed out that he’s likely going through mental health issues and Im inclined to agree with them.
There could be all kinds of other factors, but I have been a Musk watcher for a decade and I have a theory on the timing.
There was a major shift in Musk’s public behavior, and his state residency, around the time he was about to have to pay a lot of CA state income tax.
Having to write a ten digit check to the government appears to make most people lose some of their rational thinking abilities.
They seem to go into a siege mentality for one thing.
It appears to me that humans are just not evolved to handle his level of wealth/resource disparity.
There could be all kinds of other factors, but I have been a Musk watcher for a decade and I have a theory on the timing.
There was a major shift in Musk’s public behavior, and his state residency, around the time he was about to have to pay a lot of CA state income tax.
Having to write a ten digit check to the government appears to make most people lose some of their rational thinking abilities.
They seem to go into a siege mentality for one thing.
It appears to me that humans are just not evolved to handle his level of wealth/resource disparity.
The timing is precisely what tells me that Musk's actions are his alone. There is no right-hand person advising him from the shadows. Such a person would have told him that going on public rants about Democrats and switching his vote to Republican might have been convincing if it wasn't public knowledge that his political donations already favoured the GOP.
It's sad really. I used to idolize him so much. I read through all of WaitButWhy's [0] blog post series on Musk back in '15/'16 and loved every bit of it. He literally became my demigod during my undergrad days.
And from all that... to this?
From a much admired and respected 'inventor' to a cringeworthy Twitter 'edgelord.' Just been a crazy ride.
[0] https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/03/elon-musk-post-series.html
And from all that... to this?
From a much admired and respected 'inventor' to a cringeworthy Twitter 'edgelord.' Just been a crazy ride.
[0] https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/03/elon-musk-post-series.html
You've gotta ask yourself: has there really be a fall from grace? Because there are those of us who saw him as a cringeworthy Twitter 'edgelord' in 2015, and we don't notice much of a difference at all today. It's probably just that he's being more consistently overt about it, and his PR machine can't compensate.
What did you think of his public behaviour over the past few years? It's one thing to be enthralled by a praise-heavy series of blog posts, but it's not like you couldn't get first-hand impressions from the man's own very public persona.
I was a lot more vulnerable to manipulation via propaganda and good PR back when I was a college student, I suppose. Aside from the naïvety of late teens/early 20s.
His Twitter meltdown on Memorial Day was one of the biggest signs of mental illness I've seen yet.
Isn't his boldness one of the traits that his fans cheer on?
Interested to see this go down in parallel with Elon's "everyone must be in office decree". I have multiple friends that work at Tesla and at least one of them has it in their work contract to allow remote work for at least a year (they started 2 weeks ago). Not sure how his decree will work out (though I have only heard about the employment contract, not actually seen it).
Is the statement in an actual work contract? Or just an item in the offer letter?
In the US (and many countries) we don’t actually have work contracts as full-time employees. Offer letters aren’t contracts, as an lawyer will remind us.
Companies can, and will, change employment terms and compensation as they want.
Tesla does have an exception process for remote work, though.
In the US (and many countries) we don’t actually have work contracts as full-time employees. Offer letters aren’t contracts, as an lawyer will remind us.
Companies can, and will, change employment terms and compensation as they want.
Tesla does have an exception process for remote work, though.
Many workers have contracts, and they are not subject to unilateral change by the company.
If you accept an offer letter, wouldn't that be a tacit contract?
Unless your friend lives in Montana, their employment is “at-will”. Which means at any time Tesla can change their mind on any aspect of the agreement and offer you a choice between a new contract or the door.
That’s not true. At will is almost never an excuse for violating contracts, employment law, or various discrimination protections. That said they can do it, but they would expose themselves to copious lawsuit liability.
Being a contract worker is the alternative to being an at-will employee. Employment law, nor discrimination protection law, have anything to say about dismissing at-will employees who are surplus to business needs.
Any kind of competent HR department will be able to manage a paper trail sufficient to dismiss at-will employees in a bullet-proof way, especially in a general business turndown.
Any kind of competent HR department will be able to manage a paper trail sufficient to dismiss at-will employees in a bullet-proof way, especially in a general business turndown.
That’s untrue, lay-offs and not for cause terminations have all sorts of protections and implications for the employer. The employment law body for not for cause termination is substantial, and discrimination law absolutely applies in not for cause termination - if they laid off all their pregnant and black employees you don’t think there would be liability?
If the firing is discriminatory, then yes obviously discrimination law applies; I mean, that's kind of obvious isn't it? Everyone knows that "at-will" doesn't mean "you can be fired for illegal reasons".
A well-executed termination of at-will employees because of a change to the business environment is basically never going to fit into any of the exception categories to at-will, again assuming a competent HR department. Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.
A well-executed termination of at-will employees because of a change to the business environment is basically never going to fit into any of the exception categories to at-will, again assuming a competent HR department. Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.
Ah sorry I misread what you were saying.
Yes, but having that in an offer letter or work contract makes it a lot easier to argue for constructive dismissal.
Make that popcorn. Elon’s going to try and dodge all those laws and rules about layoffs, severance, etc. The only thing he might end up hiring is lawyers.
Musk’s return to office directive is likely a mechanism to force quits and avoid the WARN act and paying severance to thousands of workers.
Edit: If you’re looking for SWEs, I’ve spoken to three at Tesla who are looking for new opportunities. They’re an org to target for talent acquisition.
Edit: If you’re looking for SWEs, I’ve spoken to three at Tesla who are looking for new opportunities. They’re an org to target for talent acquisition.
Yeah, his directive seemed obviously aimed at getting people to quit. As I have understand it, legally, that's transparently the same thing. Hence his very public hiring of lawyers whose qualifications are "fighting" to discourage employees from seeking what they are owed.
I think it's not legally the same thing. Since doing things to get people to quit have to be larger than you need to work at your place of employment. It's moving them across the country, making them work unsocialable hours, etc. Not returning to the office, which the goverment actually wants. Remote work is bad for the economy.
Remote work is bad for the economy.
I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends?
For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving.
Maybe people don't stop in big stores on their way home from work but home delivery services are thriving.
Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better?
It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends?
For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving.
Maybe people don't stop in big stores on their way home from work but home delivery services are thriving.
Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better?
It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
> For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving.
People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better.
> Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better?
This talk of having good and bad managers makes no real sense. Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair.
> It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
Too early? Two-years in?
People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better.
> Maybe bad managers who don't understand how to support and motivate their teams are having problems with people slacking off at home. What if good managers who look after their people and engender a degree of trust and even loyalty are improving their team's performance by making their people's lives better?
This talk of having good and bad managers makes no real sense. Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair.
> It seems far too early to draw broad conclusions about the effects of population-scale remote working but early enough to be confident that some people really like it but it's not for everyone and that some types of businesses benefit from the shift away from the office while others lose out.
Too early? Two-years in?
> People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
And this money just goes poof instead of being reallocated elsewhere?
And this money just goes poof instead of being reallocated elsewhere?
It doesn't go to the poor coffee shop worker who gets let go. And can't spend it on x, y, z. No it goes on cost of living increases.
The cost of living increases aren't caused by people not buying coffee.
>Too early? Two-years in?
Yes. It's been two years when so many other things haven't been normal though--and to some degree still aren't. And it takes time for people to, for example, commit to working remotely on a more or less permanent basis, e.g. by moving to a location that doesn't have good local job prospects.
Remote work is also mostly a topic for a relatively limited number of "knowledge workers." If anything, it looks like the change will be less than some were expecting. (Though even relatively modest changes can, at scale, have fairly significant knock-on effects.)
Yes. It's been two years when so many other things haven't been normal though--and to some degree still aren't. And it takes time for people to, for example, commit to working remotely on a more or less permanent basis, e.g. by moving to a location that doesn't have good local job prospects.
Remote work is also mostly a topic for a relatively limited number of "knowledge workers." If anything, it looks like the change will be less than some were expecting. (Though even relatively modest changes can, at scale, have fairly significant knock-on effects.)
> People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
> People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better.
This is the broken window fallacy. Just like you can't improve the economy by breaking people's windows to get them to spend money on window repair, you can't improve the economy by forcing people to go to work to get them to spend money on coffee and gas
> People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better.
This is the broken window fallacy. Just like you can't improve the economy by breaking people's windows to get them to spend money on window repair, you can't improve the economy by forcing people to go to work to get them to spend money on coffee and gas
We still get plenty of take-out for lunch, in fact possibly more now than before.
We used to be better about cooking meals for the week and bringing them to work, right now we only sometimes eat last night's leftovers for lunch.
I've got more restaurants within 5-10 minute drive of my house than near my old office.
Coffee is a valid point though. We mostly make that at home now. But then again at the office I just got coffee from the Keurig in the break room, so not much difference there either. We still get Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts coffee about twice a week, usually on the weekends.
Starbucks, at least, seems to have completely recovered its dip in revenue in 2020 and was making more revenue than ever (until the slight dip this most recent quarter, due to the national economic downturn) and doesn't need any extra help:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/rev...
We used to be better about cooking meals for the week and bringing them to work, right now we only sometimes eat last night's leftovers for lunch.
I've got more restaurants within 5-10 minute drive of my house than near my old office.
Coffee is a valid point though. We mostly make that at home now. But then again at the office I just got coffee from the Keurig in the break room, so not much difference there either. We still get Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts coffee about twice a week, usually on the weekends.
Starbucks, at least, seems to have completely recovered its dip in revenue in 2020 and was making more revenue than ever (until the slight dip this most recent quarter, due to the national economic downturn) and doesn't need any extra help:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/rev...
> People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
Plenty go to work from coffee shops which they wouldn’t if they were in an office. Coffee shops with WiFi are thriving. They still buy take out lunches. Or they buy more groceries so they can cook and eat healthier food. They have more time due to lack of commute and allocate it to spending on something else (like a hobby, meeting friends, keeping fit etc).
The money is just be reallocated elsewhere.
Plenty go to work from coffee shops which they wouldn’t if they were in an office. Coffee shops with WiFi are thriving. They still buy take out lunches. Or they buy more groceries so they can cook and eat healthier food. They have more time due to lack of commute and allocate it to spending on something else (like a hobby, meeting friends, keeping fit etc).
The money is just be reallocated elsewhere.
People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
So your argument that remote work harms the economy is because it hurts businesses that sell coffee for at least a 10x markup over what it would cost to make it yourself when the one advantage they offered - convenience - ceased to be relevant? Should we also mourn the demise of the horse and cart? That's not how economics works. The money that was being spent on coffees doesn't just disappear. It becomes available to spend on something else and the greater efficiency is a boon overall.
As for things like transportation of commuters that's a clear win for both quality of life (less time wasted on journeys) and the environment (less pollution and consumption of resources for unnecessary journeys). And again economically what is lost in transport infrastructure might be gained in better communications infrastructure and technology that enable better working from home and bring other benefits as well.
People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home.
There's a cafe just down the road from my home. It's a family-run business that employs local people. Everything is made fresh and the quality of the food is significantly better than the average chain sandwich shop.
They now have so many new staff working for them that I don't even know everyone's name any more. It must be at least 3x the scale they were pre-COVID. They are busy throughout the day with tradespeople stopping in on a break or parents with young families getting out out of the house for a while. Of course at lunchtime they are packed and even with the extra help and redesigned kitchen they now have there is usually still a bit of a wait at the peak time.
My impression is that even when working from home a lot of people still like to get out of the house for a break now and then and still value the convenience of having a decent lunch made for them. I don't see the market for this kind of local place going anywhere. On the contrary the growth in demand has been obvious.
Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair.
It's unfair to fire people who can't get results when literally the only reason to employ them is to improve results and they are demonstrably incompetent? That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure it's going to result in a lot of groundbreaking economics papers getting published any time soon...
Too early? Two-years in?
Of course. Since COVID started we've seen huge changes in our lifestyles. We've seen patterns in property markets sharply disrupted. We've obviously seen business arrangements change fundamentally for a lot of knowledge workers. The way we shop has changed. The way we socialise has changed. Use of technology (by non-experts) has changed. Education has changed. How we think about our health and provide healthcare has changed.
I would be surprised if we know what the "new normal" looks like before at least another 5-10 years have passed. I doubt it will ever be the same as the old normal no matter what a few dinosaurs in business and government might think about subjects like remote working. They'll simply be outcompeted by employers who offer a pleasant working environment and take care of their staff whether that's in a company building or at home or on the move or some mix of those.
So your argument that remote work harms the economy is because it hurts businesses that sell coffee for at least a 10x markup over what it would cost to make it yourself when the one advantage they offered - convenience - ceased to be relevant? Should we also mourn the demise of the horse and cart? That's not how economics works. The money that was being spent on coffees doesn't just disappear. It becomes available to spend on something else and the greater efficiency is a boon overall.
As for things like transportation of commuters that's a clear win for both quality of life (less time wasted on journeys) and the environment (less pollution and consumption of resources for unnecessary journeys). And again economically what is lost in transport infrastructure might be gained in better communications infrastructure and technology that enable better working from home and bring other benefits as well.
People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home.
There's a cafe just down the road from my home. It's a family-run business that employs local people. Everything is made fresh and the quality of the food is significantly better than the average chain sandwich shop.
They now have so many new staff working for them that I don't even know everyone's name any more. It must be at least 3x the scale they were pre-COVID. They are busy throughout the day with tradespeople stopping in on a break or parents with young families getting out out of the house for a while. Of course at lunchtime they are packed and even with the extra help and redesigned kitchen they now have there is usually still a bit of a wait at the peak time.
My impression is that even when working from home a lot of people still like to get out of the house for a break now and then and still value the convenience of having a decent lunch made for them. I don't see the market for this kind of local place going anywhere. On the contrary the growth in demand has been obvious.
Companies aren't just going to fire managers. That would be unfair.
It's unfair to fire people who can't get results when literally the only reason to employ them is to improve results and they are demonstrably incompetent? That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure it's going to result in a lot of groundbreaking economics papers getting published any time soon...
Too early? Two-years in?
Of course. Since COVID started we've seen huge changes in our lifestyles. We've seen patterns in property markets sharply disrupted. We've obviously seen business arrangements change fundamentally for a lot of knowledge workers. The way we shop has changed. The way we socialise has changed. Use of technology (by non-experts) has changed. Education has changed. How we think about our health and provide healthcare has changed.
I would be surprised if we know what the "new normal" looks like before at least another 5-10 years have passed. I doubt it will ever be the same as the old normal no matter what a few dinosaurs in business and government might think about subjects like remote working. They'll simply be outcompeted by employers who offer a pleasant working environment and take care of their staff whether that's in a company building or at home or on the move or some mix of those.
>I would be surprised if we know what the "new normal" looks like before at least another 5-10 years have passed.
I generally agree although a lot of things have generally drifted back to business as usual.
However, other patterns still need to play out.
The degree to which pre-pandemic office work for knowledge workers who can work remotely goes back to pre-pandemic patterns still has to play out and I suspect, for many, there will at least be greater flexibility in the future.
Many US cities were still losing population 25 years ago. There's certainly no law of nature that younger educated people will continue to reverse this trend as they have the past couple of decades.
Things like big in-person business conferences have come back to some degree but it's unclear if they'll ever be back to business-as-usual.
The list goes on. I'm not sure the disruption will be as great as some envisioned but a lot of things were paused and it's unclear they will look the same as they unpause.
I generally agree although a lot of things have generally drifted back to business as usual.
However, other patterns still need to play out.
The degree to which pre-pandemic office work for knowledge workers who can work remotely goes back to pre-pandemic patterns still has to play out and I suspect, for many, there will at least be greater flexibility in the future.
Many US cities were still losing population 25 years ago. There's certainly no law of nature that younger educated people will continue to reverse this trend as they have the past couple of decades.
Things like big in-person business conferences have come back to some degree but it's unclear if they'll ever be back to business-as-usual.
The list goes on. I'm not sure the disruption will be as great as some envisioned but a lot of things were paused and it's unclear they will look the same as they unpause.
I suspect you will be proved right that the changes often won't be as big as some have predicted. One of the surprises to me about the spike in working from home during COVID was how many people didn't really like it either because their work environment wasn't very good or just because they missed the direct communications and social aspect of working in an office together. Based on that I suspect we'll see a lot of hybrid arrangements in the future as well as some people preferring to work from home full time. I won't be surprised if we see some sort of local work hubs developing as well.
For all the fervor here about remote work, a lot of people especially with fairly easy commutes prefer to go into an office many days for the environment, social aspect, work/life separation, change of scenery, etc. I worked for an analyst firm at one point and many people came in most days even though they usually didn't need to.
Early on in the pandemic, there were lots of predictions about what pandemic activities would stay and which would be dropped/be much diminished. The evidence seems to suggest that things today are a lot more like the before times than they are different.
Early on in the pandemic, there were lots of predictions about what pandemic activities would stay and which would be dropped/be much diminished. The evidence seems to suggest that things today are a lot more like the before times than they are different.
>> Remote work is bad for the economy.
> I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends?
Yes. This is a very good example of what is known in economics as the "broken window" fallacy. It's very easy to only account for the effects you measure and ignore what might otherwise have happened. [1]
"It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented."
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/T...
> I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends?
Yes. This is a very good example of what is known in economics as the "broken window" fallacy. It's very easy to only account for the effects you measure and ignore what might otherwise have happened. [1]
"It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented."
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/T...
It's probably bad for cities in general, whether inner city coffee bars or office (and probably residential) real estate. And that may (or may not) be bad for people who want to live in cities.
My observation though based just on traffic patterns is that debates about remote work are something of a bubble at this point. When I've had to go into the relatively nearby city a couple times lately rush hour traffic seemed as bad as ever although train/subway seemed relatively light.
My observation though based just on traffic patterns is that debates about remote work are something of a bubble at this point. When I've had to go into the relatively nearby city a couple times lately rush hour traffic seemed as bad as ever although train/subway seemed relatively light.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of people over the past two years were explicitly hired as WFH or allowed to transition to formally WFH. So they would have to move across the country. Also, as others are pointing out, the facility isn't designed to hold some of the departments that went on a hiring binge over the last two years.
The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant. If there was a reasonable understanding or agreement by both parties that you would be able to work from home for a certain period of time, and you're forced into the office, that's an arguable case for constructive dismissal.
> The particulars of whether something is good for bad for the economy, or even good or bad for Tesla is irrelevant.
It very much matters when a Judge who is politically appointed as they are in the US has to decide if you're right or wrong. Then what is better for the economy and for corporations will win out.
It very much matters when a Judge who is politically appointed as they are in the US has to decide if you're right or wrong. Then what is better for the economy and for corporations will win out.
I'm not going to deny that political bias plays a role, but we're talking fairly low-stakes things here that in all likelihood going to be heard by an arbitrator anyway. It makes more sense for any company to settle and give you severance if you raise a stink about something like this.
[deleted]
1) you're likely correct, the "return-to-office" was in part a stealth layoff
2) given that this sort of thing is very common during a downturn, I think Tesla's lawyers probably have a well worked out method on how to do it; I'm not saying it's kosher, but it's common. The only reason this gets so much press is that it's Elon Musk.
2) given that this sort of thing is very common during a downturn, I think Tesla's lawyers probably have a well worked out method on how to do it; I'm not saying it's kosher, but it's common. The only reason this gets so much press is that it's Elon Musk.
So the message here seems to be "if you want your employees to leave, make them return to the office".
No, I think that the real message is "If your employees don't want to leave, make them return to the office". And then you announce a hiring freeze, and that equals an official downsizing.
There are a lot of people who are good at looking busy in the office and doing very little.
I can come in at 7AM, crush it, and leave at 2PM. Here is the thing, however - the guy who came in at 10:30AM and is sitting at his computer for some reason at 7PM is going to be viewed as the "hard worker". It's all bullshit.
If this is what Musk is doing, he is going to shed some of his most productive workers and leave those in place who are just good at fronting.
I can come in at 7AM, crush it, and leave at 2PM. Here is the thing, however - the guy who came in at 10:30AM and is sitting at his computer for some reason at 7PM is going to be viewed as the "hard worker". It's all bullshit.
If this is what Musk is doing, he is going to shed some of his most productive workers and leave those in place who are just good at fronting.
Everyone has a super bad feeling about the economy. I think most large companies are going to be announcing back to office then followed by layoffs.
I was much more nervous about the long running policy of cheap capital to be honest. I’m glad for a correction before it goes too long.
Precisely this. We've been looking at too many startups raising money constantly and still have not been making any money.
We'll now see who will survive this correction, no matter how long it takes.
We'll now see who will survive this correction, no matter how long it takes.
BLS issued job numbers today and May was still very strong. 390K new jobs, participation rate is up and unemployment rate steady at 3.6%. We're in a bizarre situation where labor is in such short supply that eliminating millions of jobs would just bring us to parity and not lead to a spike in unemployment. It would at least relieve upward pressure on wages and possibly put downward pressure.
It won't be 2007-2008 bad, but there will be a recession. First lay offs tend to be the R&D.
Says who? For tech companies, S&M is usually first to go. You don't need your growth engine during recessions, you need profit.
https://tomtunguz.com/sales-marketing-spend-model/
https://tomtunguz.com/sales-marketing-spend-model/
I agree I don't think it'll be 2007-2008 bad. I think it'll be worse. Covid, Ukraine, Remote Work, etc are all hammering the economy.
>bad. I think it'll be worse.
Different.
2007/08 was a financial crisis, and global banking infrastructure almost imploded. Here we're talking about deglobalization, supply chain issues and, well, a war.
What's interesting is that the main problems may not be US focussed, it may happen around the world (although no one will be safe). For example, hard to imagine the Canadian real estate sector isn't going to melt down...
Different.
2007/08 was a financial crisis, and global banking infrastructure almost imploded. Here we're talking about deglobalization, supply chain issues and, well, a war.
What's interesting is that the main problems may not be US focussed, it may happen around the world (although no one will be safe). For example, hard to imagine the Canadian real estate sector isn't going to melt down...
"For example, hard to imagine the Canadian real estate sector isn't going to melt down..." - Oh, how many times did I hear that, but it's wishful thinking. At best it's 20% down
There was a somewhat accepted view after QE that the next crash is going to be worse because of all the money that is being pumped into the system, and I think that logically makes sense. Although I agree we don't have shitty financial instruments this time, but it's still a lot of leverage in the system right? It must have accumulated somewhere? Or did something happen such that it's no longer the case and a danger? Did the economy actually grow into the leverage such that it's no longer a problem?
[deleted]
Far from economist, but I kinda agree. Finance is like 6x larger than real economy hence it really rules the world.
That said, wonder what's going to happen with cost of living and property market going thru the roof everywhere. Riots? Ain't got time for that when you need to feed yourself.
That said, wonder what's going to happen with cost of living and property market going thru the roof everywhere. Riots? Ain't got time for that when you need to feed yourself.
> Finance is like 6x larger than real economy
How are you measuring this? By conventional metrics, it's less than 10% [1].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/VAPGDPFI
How are you measuring this? By conventional metrics, it's less than 10% [1].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/VAPGDPFI
Unsure - I've heard it over Odd Lots podcast. Could've been sixth?
Is remote work hammering the economy?
What effect does it actually have on productivity?
It's keeping a lot of people at home who otherwise would be in downtowns or suburban office districts buying lunch, having clothes drycleaned, stopping in stores, buying gas, etc.
Dry cleaning being the exception, I believe I spend more in my local neighborhood than ever before. If anything I’m giving more to the local stores rather than some far downtown area or sprawling office complex area.
I certainly was out a lot less during most of the 2019-2021 times, but that was mostly because COVID.
Funny enough I probably go out more now than I did before, something about WFH is a lot less draining and I don’t feel the urge to take a unexpected nap at 6pm.
Funny enough I probably go out more now than I did before, something about WFH is a lot less draining and I don’t feel the urge to take a unexpected nap at 6pm.
In theory what you are describing is a more efficient economy which would actually boost the economy, except for those unnecessary producers. Everyone cuts out unnecessary items and has more money to spend on necessary items. This is kind of true as the supply of nearly everything can’t meet the demand at the moment. Less people cutting hair and washing clothes means more people can work on producing other things people want… however since things that people want are mostly produced in China we can’t properly reallocate the labor force to increase production to meet demand, in particular in cities. US is way behind on manufacturing and is completely missing the tools to ramp up production. We are missing entire business to business categories that make production impossible because no one knows where or how to obtain raw materials or supplies, let alone the machinery to produce goods.
Or at they at home thinking about revamping their kitchens, bathrooms, gardens and upsizing the place they spend 23 hours a day?
This is a "broken window" fallacy.
If you've had people fixing broken windows for 100 years then windows stop getting broken, it may be more efficient in the long term - but in the short term, you've got lots of glaziers going bankrupt.
Which is bad for them but good for the overall economy. They will find other jobs and since the net benefit of fixing broken windows is 0 anything they do will grow the economy.
I think it's not the broken windows fallacy when it increases many remote workers' savings rate. That's different from the parable of paying a glazier for the window instead of a tailor for a suit, but rather having less money circulating in the economy when 20 days a month, I don't burn $5 of gasoline, eat a $2 lunch instead of a $15 lunch, and wear sweat pants instead of office clothes.
That could be $3000 of spending reduction for me that isn't replaced with $3000 of other consumption, but rather a significant portion of it goes into savings/investments.
That could be $3000 of spending reduction for me that isn't replaced with $3000 of other consumption, but rather a significant portion of it goes into savings/investments.
Yes, but the economy is not suffering from a lack of demand right now. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The personal savings rate is well below pre-pandemic levels now.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
> it increases many remote workers' savings rate
I think that was true during lock-outs, for obvious reasons, but now? On the contrary, people have more money to spend and the opportunity to spend it.
I think that was true during lock-outs, for obvious reasons, but now? On the contrary, people have more money to spend and the opportunity to spend it.
This still happens regardless of remote work. People still live in the cities. The city isn't 100% full of remote tech workers. I think there is some assumption that remote work represents the majority, which its not even close.
Because what the economy needs right now is… more demand?
Food and gas prices are already inflated now. It's not clear how people paying even more for these would help the economy.
IDK the economy isn't built on dry cleaning and lunch
will the stop spending altogether? They ll spend on other things
Unemployment in city centers and businesses reliant upon the city commuter and office crowd are not doing well. The unemployment rate of Manhattan is still pretty high for instance. A lot of remote workers have priced out local service workers in some small towns, so some restaurants and businesses are now more or less permanently closed due to short staffing. They can't afford to live where they work so they moved. You could blame AirBnB as well for this development where short term rentals outnumber actual rentals available. Under those conditions I'd expect a detriment to the local economy.
hasnt the pandemic been a much bigger shock than remote work ?
I'd imagine the determining the relative impacts should be best left to policy experts and wonks. I don't think one can determine the impact of the pandemic without also contextualizating the rise of remote work. They cascade and coalesce together.
it has significantly shifted spending; downtown landlords are kind of screwed
Worse??? where have you been the past 2 years
I think it's going to be 2001 bad best and 1939 bad worst :/
> It won't be 2007-2008 bad
It will be far worse since we're still in the unresolved credit bubble that created that crash. We never actually solved the core problems that created that crisis.
What we're seeing now is the beginning of what we have avoided for over a decade, and narrowly dodged during the pandemic, start to finally unravel.
Is it just bias from such a long, fun ride that tech has had that make people unable to see this? Back in 2019 there were plenty of people deeply worried about our credit system and the fragility of our global economy. Our actions to avoid catastrophe in 2020 only allowed the issue to become worse.
We've been living in a fantasy economy so long people have started to believe that nothing is real (just a few days ago there was a post claiming that "natural resources" don't exist and everything is fantasy). But a variety of factors are coming together that so that we'll see the revenge of reality. I don't think it's going to be pretty.
It will be far worse since we're still in the unresolved credit bubble that created that crash. We never actually solved the core problems that created that crisis.
What we're seeing now is the beginning of what we have avoided for over a decade, and narrowly dodged during the pandemic, start to finally unravel.
Is it just bias from such a long, fun ride that tech has had that make people unable to see this? Back in 2019 there were plenty of people deeply worried about our credit system and the fragility of our global economy. Our actions to avoid catastrophe in 2020 only allowed the issue to become worse.
We've been living in a fantasy economy so long people have started to believe that nothing is real (just a few days ago there was a post claiming that "natural resources" don't exist and everything is fantasy). But a variety of factors are coming together that so that we'll see the revenge of reality. I don't think it's going to be pretty.
Yet not one of the doomers can articulate how a financial meltdown will happen with cascading failures. 2008 was a feedback loop of house values falling which caused banks to fail which caused people to liquidate housing supply which lowered values. What happens this time?
> What happens this time?
Unless you're deep in the financial industry you couldn't have possibly known the details of what was coming in 2008 in 2007. However you easily could tell, if you were paying attention, that something wasn't right in 2007.
Plenty of analysts and economists much smarter and more informed than me have been worried about the massive credit bubble we're in and the consequences of that popping.
While I agree, it would be far more interesting to know exactly what is going to cause the system to snap, it doesn't mean that observations that something is deeply wrong and we are very likely in for a lot of trouble are invalid "doomerism".
Additionally, what's your evidence that this will be less severe than 2008?
Unless you're deep in the financial industry you couldn't have possibly known the details of what was coming in 2008 in 2007. However you easily could tell, if you were paying attention, that something wasn't right in 2007.
Plenty of analysts and economists much smarter and more informed than me have been worried about the massive credit bubble we're in and the consequences of that popping.
While I agree, it would be far more interesting to know exactly what is going to cause the system to snap, it doesn't mean that observations that something is deeply wrong and we are very likely in for a lot of trouble are invalid "doomerism".
Additionally, what's your evidence that this will be less severe than 2008?
Isn't it easier to lay off people remotely?
I don't understand why people would want to work for this guy? To any Tesla employees, whats your take on this? I can imagine having a CEO like this must be super stressful!
Same reason people work for Bezos, Zuck, etc.
A lot of people have the capacity to set aside morals/ethics for a bit of chump change.
The work is interesting. I'm sure the people making nuclear bombs probably said the same thing. Or the death star. "It is such interesting work" Yeah ok.
A lot of people have the capacity to set aside morals/ethics for a bit of chump change.
The work is interesting. I'm sure the people making nuclear bombs probably said the same thing. Or the death star. "It is such interesting work" Yeah ok.
So this was not enough? https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/15320445618071797...
Well, that happened yesterday and is probably part of their process of reducing numbers by 10%. It's better if they quit than if they're laid off.
Except if yo lay off 10% you get to cut (at least some of) the 10% you want to get rid off. And if you rely on persuading people to quit by reducing satisfaction, you'll get rid of a large chunk of the 10% best employees instead.
It would seem to me any time a 10% layoff is announced you can expect another 10% to leave over the next year. Smart people will see the writing on the wall and they always have a couple recruiters in their back pocket. Employers would want to layoff the bottom 10% obviously but they're going to shed serious talent too as they get the full court press from recruiters.
Maybe that's why the stack ranking/up-or-out systems are so pervasive. When companies cut 10% of employees every year there is no writing on the wall. When they want to reduce headcount by 10% they just slow hiring but keep firing that year. Much less obvious as a signal to get out, than a large axe.
What is the writing on the wall, specifically, for Tesla though? They're ramping up two new factories and have a massive product lineup outlook. Electric is the future and, while this recession will last a couple years, will be the winning strategy long term.
It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence.
It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence.
Well, it depends on the details.
Sometimes large layoffs mean absolutely nothing - for example, if a company lays off a loss-making division that's nothing to do with your work. If you work on advertising for Facebook and they lay off the entire VR headset division, your job might remain entirely secure.
Sometimes layoffs mean the company is short of money - that products aren't bringing in enough revenue to cover costs, and investors aren't looking to pump in more cash. This might mean there will be further rounds of layoffs in the near future; subsequent layoffs might be less generous; and there might be a freeze on raises or promotions, no matter how well you perform.
On the other hand, I've known people get big promotions at failing companies, as their superiors leave for greener pastures. So your employer being in decline doesn't always mean freezes on promotions!
Some layoffs mean the bosses think bad hires have been made - that the company has too many indolent employees putting in just enough effort to not get fired. Maybe that colleague everybody knows is useless will finally get fired. On the other hand, if the bosses think people like you are dead weight, that might not bode well for your career.
Sometimes layoffs mean the company has changed strategy and areas that were seen as money-makers (like adding new features to the product) are now seen as cost centers. This may indicate there will be less work developing new greenfield code and worrying about chasing the cutting edge. If you're near the end of your career that might be fine; if you're early in your career, it might mean this isn't the place to keep your skills up-to-date.
Sometimes large layoffs mean absolutely nothing - for example, if a company lays off a loss-making division that's nothing to do with your work. If you work on advertising for Facebook and they lay off the entire VR headset division, your job might remain entirely secure.
Sometimes layoffs mean the company is short of money - that products aren't bringing in enough revenue to cover costs, and investors aren't looking to pump in more cash. This might mean there will be further rounds of layoffs in the near future; subsequent layoffs might be less generous; and there might be a freeze on raises or promotions, no matter how well you perform.
On the other hand, I've known people get big promotions at failing companies, as their superiors leave for greener pastures. So your employer being in decline doesn't always mean freezes on promotions!
Some layoffs mean the bosses think bad hires have been made - that the company has too many indolent employees putting in just enough effort to not get fired. Maybe that colleague everybody knows is useless will finally get fired. On the other hand, if the bosses think people like you are dead weight, that might not bode well for your career.
Sometimes layoffs mean the company has changed strategy and areas that were seen as money-makers (like adding new features to the product) are now seen as cost centers. This may indicate there will be less work developing new greenfield code and worrying about chasing the cutting edge. If you're near the end of your career that might be fine; if you're early in your career, it might mean this isn't the place to keep your skills up-to-date.
> It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence.
This is an investor perspective though, not an employee perspective. When it comes to jobs, "just sit and wait" is not necessarily the best strategy.
This is an investor perspective though, not an employee perspective. When it comes to jobs, "just sit and wait" is not necessarily the best strategy.
The long term issue I see with Tesla is that, while I agree that electric is the future, multiple manufacturers are now starting to enter the space Tesla currently occupies. Up until recently, you didn't have much choice aside from Tesla for premium electric vehicles. By 2024, however, it seems like most of the current major automobile manufacturers will be offering electric options, and a few additional startups are attempting to squeeze into this space as well.
Tesla has some solid engineering to their credit, but they also have a reputation for poor quality control (in fit and finish in particular). It would be one thing if Elon Musk showed some initiative in addressing these QC issues. The recent Twitter diversion however along with other erratic behavior by Musk seems to indicate a lack of focus, at a time where a strong focus at Tesla is sorely needed. Tesla can no longer coast in the EV market, they will be far from the only player in the future.
Tesla has some solid engineering to their credit, but they also have a reputation for poor quality control (in fit and finish in particular). It would be one thing if Elon Musk showed some initiative in addressing these QC issues. The recent Twitter diversion however along with other erratic behavior by Musk seems to indicate a lack of focus, at a time where a strong focus at Tesla is sorely needed. Tesla can no longer coast in the EV market, they will be far from the only player in the future.
Not really. The people who will flee because of this will also flee because of layoffs and look for somewhere more secure.
And everyone is acting like the best employees are going to be the ones quitting. Nah, the best employees are highly engaged employees not ones that are technically talented but will flee just because they have to go to an office. Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital. A software developer who is really smart can and will be replaced.
There will be HR people working on retention of top employees as we speak. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insi... gives an insight into this when it comes to M&As
And everyone is acting like the best employees are going to be the ones quitting. Nah, the best employees are highly engaged employees not ones that are technically talented but will flee just because they have to go to an office. Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital. A software developer who is really smart can and will be replaced.
There will be HR people working on retention of top employees as we speak. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insi... gives an insight into this when it comes to M&As
The best employees at passing the average SV engineering interview loop will indeed leave.
You better bet there is some amount of dead weight/low rated employees who have been interviewing around for there own reasons and haven't been getting any decent offers, so they just rest and vest. They'll happily return to office while the high performers get some $700k offer elsewhere
This is exactly why Netflix decides to pay very nicely for you to quit, if you reach out to your manager about that. They don't want you to stay an extra year trying to pass hard interview loops elsewhere
You better bet there is some amount of dead weight/low rated employees who have been interviewing around for there own reasons and haven't been getting any decent offers, so they just rest and vest. They'll happily return to office while the high performers get some $700k offer elsewhere
This is exactly why Netflix decides to pay very nicely for you to quit, if you reach out to your manager about that. They don't want you to stay an extra year trying to pass hard interview loops elsewhere
"Highly engaged employees" do actually leave when management does things like "intentionally trying to alienate and push employees away". People who are highly engaged want to be highly engaged and don't like changes that lowers engagement. Changes designed to alienate employees are alienating highly engaged employees as much as they alienate everyone else. Except that, if you are already alienated, you are used to it. When you used to be engaged, you perceive the change as very negative.
Also, have you ever worked in a company affected by consultants like you suggest? They don't have capability to recognize or motivate good people .
Also, have you ever worked in a company affected by consultants like you suggest? They don't have capability to recognize or motivate good people .
We had a great discussion about "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free" a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573108
It talks about employees that were very productive and happy hitting a stumbling block and suddenly realizing that "hey, this isn't the same place it used to be", and then leaving.
Saying "no work from home" and "10% layoffs" are much bigger triggers for this than getting rid of free sodas.
It talks about employees that were very productive and happy hitting a stumbling block and suddenly realizing that "hey, this isn't the same place it used to be", and then leaving.
Saying "no work from home" and "10% layoffs" are much bigger triggers for this than getting rid of free sodas.
> Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital
Sounds like that ops guy should be paid more...
Sounds like that ops guy should be paid more...
* better for the company
God, as a Tesla owner myself, this is worrying. Future quality of code and hardware is going to be affected. Musk's extra wild behavior in the past few months is not helping either. My personal experience so far has being great (had it for a few years already) but this is very disappointing tbh.
Isnt that a permanent risk attached to teslas?
Right. Raise your hand if you were surprised to see this happen.
So yesterday when it was Coinbase [0] announcing cuts the reaction was, 'ha ha crypto bad', 'worst of luck to them' and now when it also affects companies like Tesla, now the reaction is 'Shocking', 'everyone is doing it now', 'I wouldn't read much into it. A 10% cut is completely normal and healthy for a company the size of Tesla.'
This to me sounds like some form of cope that many thought the market was always going up forever.
The recent market rally of 2020 had to come to an end.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600505
So yesterday when it was Coinbase [0] announcing cuts the reaction was, 'ha ha crypto bad', 'worst of luck to them' and now when it also affects companies like Tesla, now the reaction is 'Shocking', 'everyone is doing it now', 'I wouldn't read much into it. A 10% cut is completely normal and healthy for a company the size of Tesla.'
This to me sounds like some form of cope that many thought the market was always going up forever.
The recent market rally of 2020 had to come to an end.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31600505
Quick recession, then back to the market always going up. And for longer time spans, it has always gone up.
> And for longer time spans, it has always gone up.
Mostly because of utterly insane injections of cash into the economy, whether by unsafe lending practices creating money out of thin air (which ended up causing 2008ff) or by the central banks creating money out of thin air and buying up assets.
Now, especially after two years of pandemic-related bailouts, there's no government whose balance sheet hasn't been hit hard... governments can't take up more debt to inject into the economy, and the central banks cannot because inflation is already skyrocketing across the world.
Additionally, the people are fed up with social inequality worldwide - they saw that a lot of wealth was redistributed from the bottom to the top stock owners over the last two years. It may very well be that governments shift focus from propping up the stock markets to preventing social unrest, not to mention climate change which is bound to send a lot of companies' worth towards the bottom as their business model becomes outdated (e.g. car manufacturers, oil/gas companies).
Mostly because of utterly insane injections of cash into the economy, whether by unsafe lending practices creating money out of thin air (which ended up causing 2008ff) or by the central banks creating money out of thin air and buying up assets.
Now, especially after two years of pandemic-related bailouts, there's no government whose balance sheet hasn't been hit hard... governments can't take up more debt to inject into the economy, and the central banks cannot because inflation is already skyrocketing across the world.
Additionally, the people are fed up with social inequality worldwide - they saw that a lot of wealth was redistributed from the bottom to the top stock owners over the last two years. It may very well be that governments shift focus from propping up the stock markets to preventing social unrest, not to mention climate change which is bound to send a lot of companies' worth towards the bottom as their business model becomes outdated (e.g. car manufacturers, oil/gas companies).
[deleted]
Depends on what 'quick' is: 1 week?, 1 month?, 1 year? It's possible for that to happen but I doubt it will be that quick. My suspicion tells me it may be longer than expected and as always, the market needs to go down first before it rises up, hence why I said the 2020 market rally had to end some day.
The startups who are paranoid of the markets and prepare in advance for profitability will continue to survive and the startups constantly raising money each week and making little to no revenue will be caught swimming naked when the market retraces. Fast is a prime example of this.
We could have another dotcom style crash and it may take another 3 - 4 years to get back to the same all time highs again where that is still possible.
The startups who are paranoid of the markets and prepare in advance for profitability will continue to survive and the startups constantly raising money each week and making little to no revenue will be caught swimming naked when the market retraces. Fast is a prime example of this.
We could have another dotcom style crash and it may take another 3 - 4 years to get back to the same all time highs again where that is still possible.
I’m not sure. How will the government make the recovery short when inflation is still at 8%? They can’t QE to kick the can down the road in this environment without making inflation 10+%
I wouldn’t be surprised if we just go sideways for a year or two in the market as fed tries to balance inflation and growth to get out of the Covid bubble without a disaster
I wouldn’t be surprised if we just go sideways for a year or two in the market as fed tries to balance inflation and growth to get out of the Covid bubble without a disaster
Musk is a narcissistic boss with a moon-sized ego to match.
Shocking - it was in no way obvious Tesla was trying to trim headcount /s https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31580739
It's really starting to feel more and more like the end of 2007 and start of 2008. Stocks on a steady downward trend. Layoffs starting here and there. Growth slowing across various industries.
I took a macro economics course at university that year, taught by a professor who was just about to retire after 40 years of teaching the subject. He was blunt with us: "I don't know what's going to happen, but I bet it's going to be interesting!".
I don't even know if he's still alive (he was in his 70s then and still teaching!) but I bet if he is, he's saying the same things now.
I took a macro economics course at university that year, taught by a professor who was just about to retire after 40 years of teaching the subject. He was blunt with us: "I don't know what's going to happen, but I bet it's going to be interesting!".
I don't even know if he's still alive (he was in his 70s then and still teaching!) but I bet if he is, he's saying the same things now.
Thinking the same. I think the main difference is that we have inflation AND real economic constrains. Anyway what is the best way to hedge? Some say cash is king, but it is kind of counter intuitive, since inflation is high.
It’s really tough rn. I’m of the opinion that cash is trash. There’s a million ways to skin the cat and nobody knows what’s for sure the best. It kind of boils down to an individual preference.
Other comments suggest a collar or TIPS which are both fine suggestions. I wouldn’t mess with options unless you know what you’re doing. I threw a bunch of extra cash into a TIPS etf with ticker “TIP”. I’m also selling puts on commodities futures, bought US energy stocks, and bought a house last year (as rent is skyrocketing and inflation will eat away at my debt). I STILL have a shitload of cash idk what to do with…
Some people like gold but I don’t get it personally. Don’t copy me I’m tolerating quite a bit of risk.
Other comments suggest a collar or TIPS which are both fine suggestions. I wouldn’t mess with options unless you know what you’re doing. I threw a bunch of extra cash into a TIPS etf with ticker “TIP”. I’m also selling puts on commodities futures, bought US energy stocks, and bought a house last year (as rent is skyrocketing and inflation will eat away at my debt). I STILL have a shitload of cash idk what to do with…
Some people like gold but I don’t get it personally. Don’t copy me I’m tolerating quite a bit of risk.
If you want to hedge your portfolio, do a costless collar.
Sounds interesting, how does it work?
https://www.optionsplaybook.com/option-strategies/collar-opt...
Basically, you sell a call option, and use the proceeds to buy a protective put option.
You can buy a protective put directly, but that costs money. This helps offset the cost buy selling a call. You can play with the strike prices of each to get more/less insurance depending on your risk tolerance.
For example, you might sell a call 5% above current prices (expiring in a year), buy a put for 10% below prices (expiring in a year), and pocket the difference.
Basically, you sell a call option, and use the proceeds to buy a protective put option.
You can buy a protective put directly, but that costs money. This helps offset the cost buy selling a call. You can play with the strike prices of each to get more/less insurance depending on your risk tolerance.
For example, you might sell a call 5% above current prices (expiring in a year), buy a put for 10% below prices (expiring in a year), and pocket the difference.
Careful though. Do your reading and make sure you understand those contracts. At least understand how to roll them and how exercising works. You’ll need 100x shares of whatever you’re protecting to have the contracts match 1:1
Inflation protected securities
Day by day I am getting dissolutioned by Musk
Pedo malarkey didn’t convince you already?
Honestly it didn't. It seemed juvenile and egoistic. But not nefarious. I still hope Elon comes back to what he does the best.
Any idea why Tesla is laying people off? I figure it has to be systemic supply chain / logistics failures, or maybe lack of confidence in their product moving forward.
The article says "super bad feeling about the economy", and that their Shanghai factory hasn't been able to reopen. The former sounds like BS.
Then it talks about inflation concerns, but that's not a good reason to get rid of employees that will be locked into pre-inflation salaries for the next N years.
Other than "we're not fixing the factory any time soon", the only thing I can think of is that they're looking at early market share info, and expect to be steam rolled by the existing auto manufacturers in the next few years (to the point where they can make more cars than they can sell, which is currently unthinkable!)
[Edit: A sibling comment says this won't touch the manufacturing parts of the company. So, they're laying off sales, management and engineering, I guess? That's a better fit with Elon's ego. I guess the plan is to just coast for a few years during the downturn? If so, that's a textbook mistake big companies make during recessions -- when the economy recovers, they're surprised that they're not competitive anymore!]
The article says "super bad feeling about the economy", and that their Shanghai factory hasn't been able to reopen. The former sounds like BS.
Then it talks about inflation concerns, but that's not a good reason to get rid of employees that will be locked into pre-inflation salaries for the next N years.
Other than "we're not fixing the factory any time soon", the only thing I can think of is that they're looking at early market share info, and expect to be steam rolled by the existing auto manufacturers in the next few years (to the point where they can make more cars than they can sell, which is currently unthinkable!)
[Edit: A sibling comment says this won't touch the manufacturing parts of the company. So, they're laying off sales, management and engineering, I guess? That's a better fit with Elon's ego. I guess the plan is to just coast for a few years during the downturn? If so, that's a textbook mistake big companies make during recessions -- when the economy recovers, they're surprised that they're not competitive anymore!]
This sounds like a petulant move. Musk has been acting like a child lately. The government is after him, the libs are after him. Everyone is just STIFLING his freedom to do whatever it is he can't do.
I bet he is doing this out of spite. The man has been acting really strange in the past few months.
I bet he is doing this out of spite. The man has been acting really strange in the past few months.
Announced right around the time of another stronger-than-expected jobs report so I think spite is definitely on the table.
The clarification email Musk sent to all staff had this to say:
> Tesla will be reducing salaried headcount by 10%, as we have become overstaffed in many areas. Note, this does not apply to anyone actually building cars, battery packs or installing solar. Hourly headcount will increase.
This addresses any confusion about how two new factories could ramp if overall headcount was going to take a 10% hit. But to be fair to CNBC, they probably didn't have this context when they wrote the article and headline.
Source: https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1532728341865943040
> Tesla will be reducing salaried headcount by 10%, as we have become overstaffed in many areas. Note, this does not apply to anyone actually building cars, battery packs or installing solar. Hourly headcount will increase.
This addresses any confusion about how two new factories could ramp if overall headcount was going to take a 10% hit. But to be fair to CNBC, they probably didn't have this context when they wrote the article and headline.
Source: https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1532728341865943040
Anybody care to speculate on the chance that Twitter forces their sale to him, and then TSLA goes down far enough that Musk gets a margin call on the loan he's using to finance the purchase, and he loses everything? Or at least half of everything?
Musk is no longer funding a portion of the deal with a margin loan.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/elon-musk-equity-component-tw...
https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/elon-musk-equity-component-tw...
It's semantics. He doesn't have the cash, so one way or another he's leveraging up.
> He doesn't have the cash, so one way or another he's leveraging up
He's illiquid, not insolvent. Selling equity in Twitter or selling his equity in Tesla would be two ways to gain liquidity without leverage.
He's illiquid, not insolvent. Selling equity in Twitter or selling his equity in Tesla would be two ways to gain liquidity without leverage.
Go read Matt Levine's latest .. He already massively changed the part that is margin, etc. because of the huge drop in TSLA price.
Why would twitter "force their sale to him"? My impression is that either side can back out by paying $1B
That is incorrect. The $1B fee only applies if the deal cannot close due to factors outside of Twitter or Elon's control (like being vetoed by antitrust regulators), and it only goes out of the buyer's pocket. Neither party can just choose to back out.
I think it's a very high likelihood. Why? Because Musk is idea-driven and doesn't really care about money, so he is the perfect person to harness with financial and legal obligation, because he will continue to pull no matter what. Sure it's slavery with extra steps, plus so many people hate Musk there's not even a cultural downside!
Wait a minute.. Are you suggesting it’s slavery to hold a billionaire businessman to his contracts?
> Sure it's slavery with extra steps, plus so many people hate Musk there's not even a cultural downside!
Musk is a slave? Best conspiracy theory I've heard this month.
Musk is a slave? Best conspiracy theory I've heard this month.
I'm just saying his counter-parties have good reason to go for blood, because he's got a lot of it .
He doesn't care about money which is why he complains about taxes all the time?
After you have a binding deal like the one he signed, it's very hard to get out of it. Being forced to complete the deal anyway has precedent, like 2 years ago when LVMH tried to back out of their Tiffany deal due to Covid.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1324006/tiffany-lvmh-lower-m...
https://www.law360.com/articles/1324006/tiffany-lvmh-lower-m...
[deleted]
Just curious, how much money they can save firing 10% employee? so they can survive almost 10% more days, right? It seems to me it is not that much effective.
Wait, no, that's not right. Say you have $100 in the bank and you make $100/month and spend $110/month on people and that's the only expenditure.
You're going to survive 10 months.
Suppose you fire 10%, so now you spend $99/month and let's say revenue is linear, so now you make $90/month. You're now going to last 100/9 = 11.11 months and that's more than 10% longer already.
Now if you fire from positions that you got in anticipation of them contributing but they don't then you could even go negative to positive.
So it's not 10% more days even in the worst case where you are running something like a consulting business where revenue is proportional to number of heads and for complex operations it can make you profitable.
You're going to survive 10 months.
Suppose you fire 10%, so now you spend $99/month and let's say revenue is linear, so now you make $90/month. You're now going to last 100/9 = 11.11 months and that's more than 10% longer already.
Now if you fire from positions that you got in anticipation of them contributing but they don't then you could even go negative to positive.
So it's not 10% more days even in the worst case where you are running something like a consulting business where revenue is proportional to number of heads and for complex operations it can make you profitable.
They're profitable, so it's not that they're trying to stretch out some fixed pool of money. One big thing that reducing costs can do is help them stay profitable as the economy gets worse, although that's not the only reason they might want to do something like this.
Are they profitable in the context of uniform standard accounting practice?
Yes, pretty strongly so. Their GAAP profit was $5.5 billion in FY 2021.
Is he still at Saint Tropez with the company jet?
I believe that it's not recession, but a downturn of the boom created due to covid. It would be corrected and settle.
Time to short TSLA for some nice, easy cash?
I wonder if him coming out as a Republic was a similar tactic as the "return to office" memo?
He might be thinking he can get 5% of the people to quit just based on differences in values, making his remaining employees more homogenous and giving them a common culture.
He might be thinking he can get 5% of the people to quit just based on differences in values, making his remaining employees more homogenous and giving them a common culture.
I wonder if him coming out as a Republic was a similar tactic as the "return to office" memo?
He came as Republican not as a Republic. Give it a few more years.
He came as Republican not as a Republic. Give it a few more years.
Most companies I’ve ever worked at top grade yearly and lay off 5-10% of the workforce as a business practice. The fifth quartile it’s been called. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening here to be clear. But a 10% RIF isn’t unusual.
If people are afraid for their jobs (or more generally about the economy) they are more likely to do what you say..
WFH.. criticism about Twitter.. all things better discussed when economy recovers.. how convenient..
WFH.. criticism about Twitter.. all things better discussed when economy recovers.. how convenient..
All that huffing and puffing about remote workers having to return to office was just more of his immature bluster hiding the fact that he was eliminating positions anyway.
This makes sense in regards to comments about remote work. Sometimes it’s cheaper to give people a reason to leave instead of firing them.
Also, this is supply chain related.
Also, this is supply chain related.
[deleted]
The board should start with Mr. Musk.
That explains the back to office bold stance.
People are much more compliant when afraid of losing their livelihoods
People are much more compliant when afraid of losing their livelihoods
I wonder if the shrinking of Tesla business translates to others in the electric car industry.
Boring old legacy automakers are starting to eat their pie I bet. Self driving is their stated advantage but that’s still unknown if or when it’ll work well enough for general use. Meanwhile Ford and VW and one day Toyota will figure out how to build the much simpler cars (compared to gas ones) and undercut with better prices
Came here hoping for insightful thoughts about the layoffs and market conditions only to be presented with a tidalwave of hate seemingly stemming from a lot of personal dislike of the Tesla CEO. There's been a lot of chatter lately about how HN is getting more and more negative, and this appears to be evidence of valid criticism.
I appreciate wanting proper discussion but if you genuinely thought that any comment section discussing Elon Musk was going to be productive I would like to ask for a counter example where one has occurred. It would be very instructive in many ways on how to build such a community and platform.
I get your point. Is that an excuse for HN to give into the same? If I wanted outrage and ranting on personalities, there's a lot of other places I could go for that. I came here a few years back because it was a less hostile, more objective community. Genuinely bums me out that we're giving this a pass now just because of the subject matter.
I get your point but at this point there isn’t any place that can constructively hold this conversation. I still this type of conversations can happen but it is difficult because of the inherent biases against and for the people conveying the messages that is going to be much stronger in the cohort that uses HN.
More and more folks are flipping on their opinion of Elon. His antics are beginning to overshadow his accomplishments.
HN comments have been going downhill for years.
HN comments have been going downhill for years.
Same. I wouldn't have expected this amount of vitriol on a site for science and technology enthusiasts and hackers -- people who often are the builders in society -- about a guy who ... successfully builds electric cars and spaceships.
It's a shame because the thoughtful, moderate commenters just leave and are less likely to come back.
And btw SpaceX laid off around the same pct of workers a while back and they're doing fine now. Same with a lot of companies, some of which I was working for at the time, and I don't think their leadership was evil.
It's a shame because the thoughtful, moderate commenters just leave and are less likely to come back.
And btw SpaceX laid off around the same pct of workers a while back and they're doing fine now. Same with a lot of companies, some of which I was working for at the time, and I don't think their leadership was evil.
> Elon Musk feels ‘super bad’ about economy
Considering how bad Elon is at making predictions, this is actually great news.
Considering how bad Elon is at making predictions, this is actually great news.
Can you say more?
Musk is the world’s wealthiest individual. I’m having trouble seeing see how being bad at making predictions results in that outcome.
Musk is the world’s wealthiest individual. I’m having trouble seeing see how being bad at making predictions results in that outcome.
Just top of my mind:
"Covid will be gone by April 2020":
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960
"FSD will be achieved by 2018":
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920
"Neuralink in human brains by 2020":
https://news.yahoo.com/everything-know-neuralink-elon-musks-...
Being wealthy has also a lot to do with being at the right place, at the right time, inherited wealth, and outsourcing efficiently.
"Covid will be gone by April 2020":
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960
"FSD will be achieved by 2018":
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920
"Neuralink in human brains by 2020":
https://news.yahoo.com/everything-know-neuralink-elon-musks-...
Being wealthy has also a lot to do with being at the right place, at the right time, inherited wealth, and outsourcing efficiently.
Thank you for those examples. I agree that they are examples of predictions made by Musk that did not pan out.
That being said, do you think the majority of the predictions he makes in going about his every day business are wrong?
To get to the point Musk has reached, it seems to me that that would, over a lifetime, require a person making billions (?) of small predictions that no one ever hears about. I think it must be the case that he’s very good at making those kinds of predictions.
I agree with you that being wealthy does confer a great advantage to people. I don’t think it explains everything about Elon Musk and the success he has achieved to date.
To be clear, I don’t believe in free will. It seems like an error to me to look at a successful person and claim that they achieved their success single-handedly.
That being said, do you think the majority of the predictions he makes in going about his every day business are wrong?
To get to the point Musk has reached, it seems to me that that would, over a lifetime, require a person making billions (?) of small predictions that no one ever hears about. I think it must be the case that he’s very good at making those kinds of predictions.
I agree with you that being wealthy does confer a great advantage to people. I don’t think it explains everything about Elon Musk and the success he has achieved to date.
To be clear, I don’t believe in free will. It seems like an error to me to look at a successful person and claim that they achieved their success single-handedly.
| do you think the majority of the predictions he makes in going about his every day business are wrong?
OP is discussing his prediction about the economy though.
OP is discussing his prediction about the economy though.
[deleted]
> Musk is the world’s wealthiest individual.
On paper.
He bet big on EVs, which the market rewarded. Same happened with Microsoft and computers maybe thirty years ago, main difference being that Tesla is not holding a semi monopoly, and competitors are catching up quickly.
On paper.
He bet big on EVs, which the market rewarded. Same happened with Microsoft and computers maybe thirty years ago, main difference being that Tesla is not holding a semi monopoly, and competitors are catching up quickly.
>and competitors are catching up quickly.
How do you measure that? All sales figures show the contrary.
Also, two days ago https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-01/vw-ceo-sa...
>Volkswagen AG said Tesla Inc. is moving twice as quickly as the rest of the industry that needs to pick up the pace in the shift to making electric vehicles packed with software.
How do you measure that? All sales figures show the contrary.
Also, two days ago https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-01/vw-ceo-sa...
>Volkswagen AG said Tesla Inc. is moving twice as quickly as the rest of the industry that needs to pick up the pace in the shift to making electric vehicles packed with software.
Tesla sales growth, but slower than the EV market. Tesla is thus loosing market share (in EV) while increasing revenue.
Not agreeing or disagree that Elon is bad at predictions (do predictions even matter from somebody as unstable and fickle as Elon?) but there are plenty of people who have made one or two good bets and then got nothing else right.
> do predictions even matter from somebody as unstable and fickle as Elon?
When they command the attention and loyalty of millions of people who believe everything they say, yes they matter a great deal.
When they command the attention and loyalty of millions of people who believe everything they say, yes they matter a great deal.
Agreed, I misspoke. What I meant to say is, I don't take believe Elon says is an honest "prediction" because I wouldn't be surprised if he reversed course completely within the same day, or was, "just trolling"
So.. Did I get this right now? In order to avoid effects of a hypothetical recession, Tesla will cut 10% of the jobs and by doing that, Tesla will be one of the bigger causes of that recession to actually take place?
I really don't think Tesla employment count has that big an effect on the broader US economy. Do you?
I'd be surprised if it had a negative impact. Since they are currently hiring production staff for new plants, its likely that overall staffing will still be higher 12 months from now than today.
I'm not sure on butterfly effects among subcontractors and whether all the affected employees quickly find a new job, but I don't feel this adds up to a positive effect.
One read is that Elon and others actively want to cause a recession.
I'm so glad I changed my contract to be remote first!
I guess Tesla can pretend to employ them.
they have a list ready no in person, no job
Let me get this straight:
"Work 80 hr weeks! Be just like me!"
Musk: becomes worlds richest person
Employees: laid off
What planet do you live on where you see this as a sustainable, world-improving system for the world and for compensation? Anyone that works 50 hr weeks for this dude is out of their mind.
"Work 80 hr weeks! Be just like me!"
Musk: becomes worlds richest person
Employees: laid off
What planet do you live on where you see this as a sustainable, world-improving system for the world and for compensation? Anyone that works 50 hr weeks for this dude is out of their mind.
I yet have to see a wealthy individual working 80h/week, in an environment as physically and mentally demanding as their employees. Musk is not exception.
Given how terminally online and meme-aware he is, there is no way he doesn't spend a significant part of his waking day just browsing shitposts.
I understand the desire of people to hate others just because others a richer but I’ve seen a bit too much assumption about how he runs his company from people and how he should be spending his time in their opinion, and it’s not just Elon Musk that gets this. Which CEO would be better, one that gets on the assembly line of the product and spends 80 hours a week helping employees put together the product, or a CEO that in two hours a week thinks of improvements that cut employees time needed to spend on assembly by 50% and increase quality of the product so that sales go up by 10 fold? Obviously productivity measures made in hours spent are ridiculous for both you, me, and CEOs.
What does his net worth have to do with the fact that he’s obviously spending hours a day looking at the latest memes?
> I understand the desire of people to hate others just because others a richer...
Is that the case, though.
I for one don't care if Musk is the wealthiest person on Earth, or just some random middle class Joe. Fact is, he absolutely _loves_ to tout how much harder and longer he works than anyone else. That alone screams "bad leader" all around, and in my experience, anyone going public on matters like this, is overcompensating.
> ... it’s not just Elon Musk that gets this.
This is a very specific issue we are talking about. I cannot recall Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page... making public statements about how much more they work than their employees, or how lazy and entitled their employees are. So while other wealthy individuals may get some hate, it's certainly not because they very publicly insult their workers.
Is that the case, though.
I for one don't care if Musk is the wealthiest person on Earth, or just some random middle class Joe. Fact is, he absolutely _loves_ to tout how much harder and longer he works than anyone else. That alone screams "bad leader" all around, and in my experience, anyone going public on matters like this, is overcompensating.
> ... it’s not just Elon Musk that gets this.
This is a very specific issue we are talking about. I cannot recall Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page... making public statements about how much more they work than their employees, or how lazy and entitled their employees are. So while other wealthy individuals may get some hate, it's certainly not because they very publicly insult their workers.
I don’t think Elon did public insult his workers, he said he doesn’t appreciate workers that don’t work, are they even workers at that point? It’s like if I said I hate when someone steals from me, does that mean I hate you? If so they you are probably a thief. I get you have an opinion of him and that’s fine but how nice and humble a leader is is only a minor factor. What you get when hyper focused on tiny, in my opinion insignificant details and not the big picture is a poor judgement. Forget all the improvements and leaps forward his companies have made because a few times he said good things about himself? Your going to tell me in an interview you have never boasted and pretend none of those leaders you mentioned have ever talked about hard much work it took to get where they are? In actuality those leaders have written entire books on how good of a leader they are and what it takes to be one. I’m still trying to figure out what has irked so many people that Elon did?
This piece of yours is quite revealing. Essentially you have reduced the discussion to:
1. Musk didn't act like an asshole to his employees.
2. Even if he was an asshole to his employees, that is irrelevant.
3. Even if it was relevant, he is right about it, so it doesn't matter.
4. Even if he was wrong and an asshole, his supposed contributions are enough to forgive it.
5. In any case, _I_ would have behaved similarly about certain things (not true), so I'm a hypocrite I guess?
Gotta say, my parents don't love me half as much as Elon's fanboys love him. Must be nice to be him.
1. Musk didn't act like an asshole to his employees.
2. Even if he was an asshole to his employees, that is irrelevant.
3. Even if it was relevant, he is right about it, so it doesn't matter.
4. Even if he was wrong and an asshole, his supposed contributions are enough to forgive it.
5. In any case, _I_ would have behaved similarly about certain things (not true), so I'm a hypocrite I guess?
Gotta say, my parents don't love me half as much as Elon's fanboys love him. Must be nice to be him.
I see the opposite actually. Are you saying all of those arguments are incorrect without disputing them? All of the “even if..” stuff doesn’t that only make a stronger case? I wouldn’t call myself a fanboy but it seems like you may definitely be a hater, but why?
> I wouldn’t call myself a fanboy...
Of course you wouldn't.
Of course you wouldn't.
Bo, when people act like idiots I like to call it out. But you haven’t explained to me why you dislike, hate, or even it seems dislike people who like him?
People should be free to make that decision for themselves. At a low enough resolution basically nobody works at Tesla. It's a big world and there are lots of options.
Depend on your values.
Most job are bullshit job these day.
A lot of companies are actively making society worse for their profits.
Almost all product fabrication have left the US for China.
Most job are bullshit job these day.
A lot of companies are actively making society worse for their profits.
Almost all product fabrication have left the US for China.
[deleted]
There’s a more general idea here: don’t work more than you want to, after the amount you’re required to.
The thing is, all other systems have been VIOLENTLY worse
The OP seems to be referring to "working tons of overtime to get ahead" and not "capitalism in general".
Nonetheless, both China and Russia have switched from communism to capitalism while remaining violently bad, so it seems dubious that this is determined by the economic system rather than the political system.
Nonetheless, both China and Russia have switched from communism to capitalism while remaining violently bad, so it seems dubious that this is determined by the economic system rather than the political system.
How about reading the article instead of the headline.
"Tesla CEO Elon Musk has a “super bad feeling” about the economy and needs to cut about 10% of jobs at the electric carmaker"
"Musk has warned in recent weeks about the risk of a recession, but his email ordering a hiring freeze and staff cuts was the most direct and high-profile message of its kind from the head of an automaker."
"Musk’s gloomy outlook echoes recent comments from executives including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs President John Waldron.
A “hurricane is right out there down the road coming our way,” Dimon said this week."
In other words, he's doing his job and preparing the company to weather a very likely recession. Judging from the tone of your comment though, I imagine you would prefer if he neglected his responsibility to the company and its shareholders in order to spare some of his workers the inconvenience of looking for another job. That way the entire company can suffer together and lose even more positions.
"Tesla CEO Elon Musk has a “super bad feeling” about the economy and needs to cut about 10% of jobs at the electric carmaker"
"Musk has warned in recent weeks about the risk of a recession, but his email ordering a hiring freeze and staff cuts was the most direct and high-profile message of its kind from the head of an automaker."
"Musk’s gloomy outlook echoes recent comments from executives including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs President John Waldron.
A “hurricane is right out there down the road coming our way,” Dimon said this week."
In other words, he's doing his job and preparing the company to weather a very likely recession. Judging from the tone of your comment though, I imagine you would prefer if he neglected his responsibility to the company and its shareholders in order to spare some of his workers the inconvenience of looking for another job. That way the entire company can suffer together and lose even more positions.
> How about reading the article instead of the headline.
"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is a fundamental problem with the US corporate model: responsibility to shareholders should carry no more weight than responsibility to employees. This is more the German model (see VW) where a company's workers and a company's shareholders have similar representation on the corporate board and both share in the decision-making process. It's also no surprise that the main pushback against the 'back to the office' move is coming from workers in Germany.
Probably in this case the shareholder representatives on the board are privately pressuring Musk to do layoffs. People seem either ignorant of this fact or unwilling to comment on this fact, but the major shareholders (mutual and institutional funds) can be seen here:
https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...
Maybe the bigger point is that while blue-collar workers in the USA have been treated like disposable units for years under the neoliberal program, now the white-collar workers who thought they were above all that are going to get the same treatment, much to their shock and dismay. Should have seen it coming.
Probably in this case the shareholder representatives on the board are privately pressuring Musk to do layoffs. People seem either ignorant of this fact or unwilling to comment on this fact, but the major shareholders (mutual and institutional funds) can be seen here:
https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...
Maybe the bigger point is that while blue-collar workers in the USA have been treated like disposable units for years under the neoliberal program, now the white-collar workers who thought they were above all that are going to get the same treatment, much to their shock and dismay. Should have seen it coming.
A company is not formed for the benefit of the employees and private industry shouldn't be run like a welfare system. What you see as disposable units I see as free agents, adding more regulation and removing the freedom of choice of both the employer and the employee is ruinous to both. We should be striving to make it easy to fire as well as easy to hire, if you tie up one side or the other or both then you end up with unproductive workers or stagnant businesses or both.
I'd argue that in most corporations, the majority of seats on the board of directors are the optimal candidates for AI automation: all they really do is report to the shareholders. And what practical value do shareholders bring to a corporation? To they have skills in the corporation's business domain? Are they improving the quality of the products? Are they streamlining and improving the manufacturing lines? What value does a shareholder have, really?
Now, if the shareholders were all working employees of the corporation, that would make sense. Otherwise what role do they serve?
Now, if the shareholders were all working employees of the corporation, that would make sense. Otherwise what role do they serve?
Absolutely, any position within a corporation should be automated if it makes sense and improves the performance of the company as a whole. The original purchasers of the shares served the purpose of providing money to the corporation, the subsequent purchasers are participating in a secondary market and help in adjusting the value of the corporation's shares. The corporation can benefit from this by issuing new shares to generate further funding. Voting shares also provide input from outside the company which can be a healthy perspective to have especially when it is coming from serious analysts who spend a lot of time looking at other corporations in the same industry, it can be detrimental as well but because the share owners have skin in the game they are less likely to vote against their own interests and those with the most interest have the most votes.
I have nothing against employee owned corporations. If people want to get together and run and work for their own corporation then more power to them. I don't think it should be the only type of corporation though, we need a variety of models to adapt to changing circumstances and service different needs.
I have nothing against employee owned corporations. If people want to get together and run and work for their own corporation then more power to them. I don't think it should be the only type of corporation though, we need a variety of models to adapt to changing circumstances and service different needs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You act like exploitation of employees is exclusive to Tesla, or even the tech industry. The reality is far worse than you can even imagine.
> You act like exploitation of employees is exclusive to Tesla, or even the tech industry.
Where did the OP say or imply that?
Where did the OP say or imply that?
The part where he complains that an exchange of 50 hours of labor for compensation at the top 5% of the world is somehow unfair or abusive, and is otherwise surprised by the concept of at-will employment.
> surprised by the concept of at-will employment
I seriously doubt the OP was surprised by the concept of at-will employment. What the OP said was "Anyone that works 50 hr weeks for this dude is out of their mind." In other words, they are doing it voluntarily, but it's still a bad idea for them, maybe even delusional.
If you've ever had a bad exit from an employer, you start to rethink the sacrifices you made for the employer while you were there.
I seriously doubt the OP was surprised by the concept of at-will employment. What the OP said was "Anyone that works 50 hr weeks for this dude is out of their mind." In other words, they are doing it voluntarily, but it's still a bad idea for them, maybe even delusional.
If you've ever had a bad exit from an employer, you start to rethink the sacrifices you made for the employer while you were there.
Reuters headlines are mostly hit pieces on Tesla.
Doesn't these company fire the low 10% ranked employer like every year? Maybe it's news this year because it stopped the during covid, but it's a pretty standard modus operandi.
That's an IBM-ism that has a lot of mind-share but is far from the standard operating procedure of most tech cos.
"Tesla expanded massively during Covid, as of now half of the dev team(including me) don’t have parking space or desk. It’s physically impossible for everyone to return to office.
"Should I ignore the email, or should I drive to the office and sit under the stairs?"
Commenters' general feeling was that it was a soft layoff, and some speculated that it might amount to constructive dismissal.