This won't cut the workforce, it will vastly expand it; hundreds of millions of robots doing the back breaking, mind numbing jobs people used to have to do. And jobs they weren't doing. I want a Rosie; I want a clean house and home cooked meals.

The last 200 years of capitalism is trickle-down in action. New tech or processes are invented, they're expensive at first, and then later they're available to everyone. The entrepreneurs are the innovators, improving the world for everyone so they have something to sell. And it's not government; just look at what SpaceX has achieved in the last 5 years vs. NASA in the last 50.

To see trickle-down check out these inequality charts, Figures 1 and 2 at https://www.cbpp.org/research/.... Figure 1 is growing much faster, but everyone is gaining. By the way, Figure 1 shows what happened when we got off of the gold standard and they started "managing" the money supply. That's what happens when you let people control the economy, it benefits their family and friends instead of everyone, and that's the deliberate lie that you're believing.

And I'm not fucking new, I'm fucking old.

I wasn't slinging shit, you're the one that resorted to name calling. CA has high taxes, high unemployment, high homelessness, and the highest emigration rate, so when those failed policies have a single good result, people aren't impressed, fucking deal with it.

The EV revolution could still sputter out; the legacy automakers keep cutting back and postponing, and they still need Tesla as a real EV competitor (maybe not if Chinese companies are allowed to sell without trade barriers worldwide).

And Tesla is just getting started. Their vehicle to grid technology, bundled with their cars, is going to add a major source of electricity storage, which should even out power generation without needing a lot more capacity.

I still have high hopes for their solar roofs, that when they figure out the installation and get costs down that those will cause a step change in solar generation adoption.

Their self-driving tech, when it finally arrives, will allow for autonomous taxis everywhere, vastly reducing the need for every household to own their own cars.

Their robots could vastly reduce the costs of labor, making high quality goods available to everyone.

Then there's their AI, not sure what that might accomplish, besides enabling their self driving and robots.

... and their Semis making shipping cleaner and cheaper, home and grid storage, etc.

They most likely won't win in most of these areas, but they're a competitor driving the technologies forward.

With the gigacasting, the jury is still out on the environmental impacts, but the cost savings will cars much more affordable, so it helps people living paycheck to paycheck afford cars. You say it all goes to their profit, but they've been trying to drive down the price of their cars to serve their mission statement. Replacement factor: if there's enough damage to a gigacasting, another car in the same accident would most likely have been totaled and scrapped. The gigacastings are also lighter, so they improve efficiency, saving 'fuel', so they're good for the environment that way.

By the way, Tesla started gigacastings in cars, but lots of other car manufacturers are going to start using them, too. I could be wrong, and the gigacastings might be more expensive (dollars/pollution) than they're worth, but this type of technological change is a big reason I like Tesla; they're willing to rethink the fundamentals and try vastly different processes; some things might work and others won't, but without change you can't progress.

We probably have a lot in common, and would agree on a lot.

I'm against authoritarian governments, whether they're left or right, which is why I believe government power must be kept in check. I'm against the endless wars, and I'm much more concerned with a nuclear apocalypse than with the slow erosion of the environment, but I'm concerned with that, too—that's why I'm such a big supporter of Tesla.

That's where I am. If we don't have anything to discuss, then I hope you find peace and joy in your life. Cheers.

Sounds like you're trolling, but just in case you're not, this might help you from getting in trouble with someone who gives a shit: https://theconversation.com/co...

You're talking about spreading CAs failing policies nationwide; Marx proposed socialism as a path to communism, and if it either really worked, we'd be there already.

You were using that as an excuse for employment in CA being lower. If it's not that, because that is a net benefit, why do you think CA has the highest unemployment rate of all of the states in the country?

That's the common communist refrain, and then hundreds of millions end up dead.

That's the most racist thing that's happened to me in a long time. Go fuck yourself.

So more jobs giving welfare to people is drawing in more people to collect welfare... good job, CA. If this had a net effect on job creation, why are you claiming this is why CA's unemployment rate is so high?

CA is a large economy, it's more planned and centralized than many others, and it's failing because planned centralized economies do not work.

Sounds like we need to make the risk not worth taking. The death penalty would kill three birds with one stone:

1. 1. Get rid of immoral people
2. 2. Decrease the demand for housing, lowering the prices
3. 3. Decrease the supply of workers, raising the wages

I wasn't saying $27M isn't that much, but claiming that $27M is what's driving up prices is innumerate.

If you can run a publicly traded company for less, then you should and show us how it's done. My guess is you won't be able to get capable and well connected people in leadership positions, and your company wouldn't make it.

Yes, it's a good thing, but at what cost? What else was given up? E.g. did this increase expenses, which makes smaller companies less viable, decreases employment, and causes more homelessness? California has the highest level of unemployment in the country and the highest levels of homelessness, and there are reasons for that; that's what's being criticized.

The Ford CEO made $27M in 2023, but there were 175k employees making an average of $75k; the CEO makes about .2% of the total labor costs. The executive pay is a lot, but it's hardly what determines the high prices.