6 ms·

> Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to inter

> Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue. Wait, how did you make that determination? In Musk's most recent letter to employees he said Tesla made a 4% profit in Q3 2018 and the forecast was lower for Q4 -- you think companies should be obligated to pay for employees they don't want or need? Just because they're a big a company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee? I don't understand this POV at all, can you explain?

geofft 8y ago
Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Is this POV comprehensible to you? In that same letter, Musk wrote, "we grew by 30% last year, which is more than we can support". I think that it is good for society and good for people and good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring.
- ordinaryperson 8y ago
  > Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds Wait, how do you determine this criterion? Take, for example, Trump's tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods. Retaliatory tariffs by China have made Tesla's cars far more expensive. That's not Tesla whimsically changing its mind about its employees, that's the financial and global politically situation rapidly changing. You think Elon Musk is morally obligated to pay for employees Tesla can no longer afford because Trump pulled the rug out from under him?
  - geofft 8y ago
    A little subtler than that, but somewhat yes. The global financial / political / market situation can change for the better or for the worse, unrelated to the quality of the company's own work. Musk is exposed to the upside of these changes. We could have had, for instance, a president who cracked down firmly on fossil fuels and made electric cars much more competitive. (Or leave the US out; the rest of the world could have driven up the prices of fossil fuels.) He should be exposed, in turn, to the downside of these changes beyond the company's control. That's how investments and gambles and ventures work. (Alternatively, if we think it's good as a society for him not to be exposed to the downsides, we should find a productive means to insulate / insure him; transferring the risk onto low-level employees seems like a pretty unproductive approach IMO!) Given that this employee was compensated significantly in bonuses and not in base pay ("it was okay that @Tesla didn't pay much because the bonuses were going to make up for it over time"), if he was compensated significantly in stock, then I think it's fine for him to be exposed to the risk because he's also exposed to reward if the company does well. But in such a case, a) they should not have canceled his existing stock grants and b) there should have been no need to lay him off immediately, they should have budgeted his base pay based on forecasts of possible not-great 2018s, and given him the option to continue working for base pay + weaker stock. But if he was compensated in cash, I think Musk should be obligated - not "morally" obligated (I have strong opinions informed by my religious beliefs on moral employment agreements, but that's a different argument entirely), just obligated in the sense of logically necessary to produce robust outcomes that make effective use of the market and place appropriate incentives to maximize long-term productivity for society - to bear the risk of things going unexpectedly wrong in the market.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law without needing anything separate? And sometimes you don't want that, e.g. you may have to stay in a hotel for an indeterminate period of time because your house was damaged by a storm, but still want be able to check out whenever you want instead of having to give two months notice. > That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Rents being sky-high actually is a sign that landlords are unwilling to participate in the market, but it's more likely caused by restrictive zoning (causing new construction to be unwilling/unable to participate in the market) than some kind of lease requirements that may or may not exist there.
  - wyattpeak 8y ago
    > But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law without needing anything separate? Contract law only really works for two people in similar bargaining positions. Good luck to you if you have poor credit history or are barely making ends meet and have to rent from whoever will take you. If that's the only protection, then it's precisely the people who can't afford to be kicked out suddenly who won't have protection against it.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      Contract law works for everybody. People in a better bargaining position get a better deal, but the contract didn't create their bargaining position. There are two lease contracts the landlord can offer you. One has a lower rent but allows them to evict you at any time without notice, the other has a higher rent and gives you two months notice. You can pass a law against the first one, but then you're left with the second one. And then the person barely making ends meat has to pay more in rent.
      - wyattpeak 8y ago
        That's an academic distinction, honestly nearing the point of bad faith. What's that line - the law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges? I would rather a situation where people actually can't afford housing, which forces a solution, to one where we can pretend people are fine until they aren't. A similar argument is used against minimum wages, and yet the poor are almost universally better off in countries where minimum wages are high.
- antipropaganda 8y ago
  > I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? In laws and in government I look for measures to maximize my liberty. I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. I am ultimately responsible for my happiness. I don't think governments can make people happy and I don't think they should try > I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." If landlords are in the business of doing things like this, I would like to start a company that doesn't treat it's customers like garbage and take money out of the pockets of such landlords
  - jhanschoo 8y ago
    I'm not interested in arguing primarily in the discussion at hand, but you seem to have a position based in some philosophical/ideological claims that I think may hold up to scrutiny very well. > I don't think governments can make people happy. The government does positive actions (i.e. not merely preventing bad actors from doing bad stuff) for maintaining national parks. I chose this example because the happiness of enjoying a national park is very direct, and the government's positive actions in maintaining these parks (e.g. controlling burns) is very uncontroversial. So it turns out that the government can make people happy. > I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. Does the government have a duty to defend its citizens from natural causes and from itself? If you agree with this, the there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for, with the difference in productivity compensated by the government.
    - brennebeck 8y ago
      >[...]there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for[...] Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? >[...]with the difference in productivity compensated by the government. Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made?
- rmtech 8y ago
  > I think it's good for society as a whole people thought communism was good for society as a whole.. turns out it isn't Key insight is that you have to consider the bigger picture and the incentives that your proposed rule creates. > good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring how careful though? So careful that you rarely hire or fire anyone at all? So careful that it's impossible to disrupt an industry like Tesla is doing? Who should decide these things? Ever wonder why innovation mostly happens in the US rather then Western Europe? I think there are sensible rules to regulate corps BUT I don't think these rules should be of the form of giving out freebies (which is what you want here). Regs for corps in dealing with individuals should be focused on creating a level playing field, such as laws against companies having too large a market share (because a person can almost never have a large market share), laws penalising unclear or confusing contracts, etc.
- canthonytucci 8y ago
  >Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. Then people need to form guilds and demand this be standard practice in contracts. Forcing this kind of thing through the middleman of a government seems like a great way to make a lot of people upset and not really get the progress desired.
- SatvikBeri 8y ago
  Historically, there have been plenty of companies that tried offering terms like "neither party can end employment without significant penalties without a year of notice" – for example, see non-competes in finance, which require the employer to keep paying the employee while they're on leave. Employees in the US tend not to prefer such agreements. It seems like most people prefer job mobility to guaranteed tenure.

geofft 8y ago

Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Is this POV comprehensible to you? In that same letter, Musk wrote, "we grew by 30% last year, which is more than we can support". I think that it is good for society and good for people and good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring.

ordinaryperson 8y ago
> Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds Wait, how do you determine this criterion? Take, for example, Trump's tariffs on Chinese manufactured goods. Retaliatory tariffs by China have made Tesla's cars far more expensive. That's not Tesla whimsically changing its mind about its employees, that's the financial and global politically situation rapidly changing. You think Elon Musk is morally obligated to pay for employees Tesla can no longer afford because Trump pulled the rug out from under him?
- geofft 8y ago
  A little subtler than that, but somewhat yes. The global financial / political / market situation can change for the better or for the worse, unrelated to the quality of the company's own work. Musk is exposed to the upside of these changes. We could have had, for instance, a president who cracked down firmly on fossil fuels and made electric cars much more competitive. (Or leave the US out; the rest of the world could have driven up the prices of fossil fuels.) He should be exposed, in turn, to the downside of these changes beyond the company's control. That's how investments and gambles and ventures work. (Alternatively, if we think it's good as a society for him not to be exposed to the downsides, we should find a productive means to insulate / insure him; transferring the risk onto low-level employees seems like a pretty unproductive approach IMO!) Given that this employee was compensated significantly in bonuses and not in base pay ("it was okay that @Tesla didn't pay much because the bonuses were going to make up for it over time"), if he was compensated significantly in stock, then I think it's fine for him to be exposed to the risk because he's also exposed to reward if the company does well. But in such a case, a) they should not have canceled his existing stock grants and b) there should have been no need to lay him off immediately, they should have budgeted his base pay based on forecasts of possible not-great 2018s, and given him the option to continue working for base pay + weaker stock. But if he was compensated in cash, I think Musk should be obligated - not "morally" obligated (I have strong opinions informed by my religious beliefs on moral employment agreements, but that's a different argument entirely), just obligated in the sense of logically necessary to produce robust outcomes that make effective use of the market and place appropriate incentives to maximize long-term productivity for society - to bear the risk of things going unexpectedly wrong in the market.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law without needing anything separate? And sometimes you don't want that, e.g. you may have to stay in a hotel for an indeterminate period of time because your house was damaged by a storm, but still want be able to check out whenever you want instead of having to give two months notice. > That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Rents being sky-high actually is a sign that landlords are unwilling to participate in the market, but it's more likely caused by restrictive zoning (causing new construction to be unwilling/unable to participate in the market) than some kind of lease requirements that may or may not exist there.
- wyattpeak 8y ago
  > But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law without needing anything separate? Contract law only really works for two people in similar bargaining positions. Good luck to you if you have poor credit history or are barely making ends meet and have to rent from whoever will take you. If that's the only protection, then it's precisely the people who can't afford to be kicked out suddenly who won't have protection against it.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Contract law works for everybody. People in a better bargaining position get a better deal, but the contract didn't create their bargaining position. There are two lease contracts the landlord can offer you. One has a lower rent but allows them to evict you at any time without notice, the other has a higher rent and gives you two months notice. You can pass a law against the first one, but then you're left with the second one. And then the person barely making ends meat has to pay more in rent.
    - wyattpeak 8y ago
      That's an academic distinction, honestly nearing the point of bad faith. What's that line - the law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges? I would rather a situation where people actually can't afford housing, which forces a solution, to one where we can pretend people are fine until they aren't. A similar argument is used against minimum wages, and yet the poor are almost universally better off in countries where minimum wages are high.
antipropaganda 8y ago
> I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? In laws and in government I look for measures to maximize my liberty. I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. I am ultimately responsible for my happiness. I don't think governments can make people happy and I don't think they should try > I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." If landlords are in the business of doing things like this, I would like to start a company that doesn't treat it's customers like garbage and take money out of the pockets of such landlords
- jhanschoo 8y ago
  I'm not interested in arguing primarily in the discussion at hand, but you seem to have a position based in some philosophical/ideological claims that I think may hold up to scrutiny very well. > I don't think governments can make people happy. The government does positive actions (i.e. not merely preventing bad actors from doing bad stuff) for maintaining national parks. I chose this example because the happiness of enjoying a national park is very direct, and the government's positive actions in maintaining these parks (e.g. controlling burns) is very uncontroversial. So it turns out that the government can make people happy. > I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. Does the government have a duty to defend its citizens from natural causes and from itself? If you agree with this, the there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for, with the difference in productivity compensated by the government.
  - brennebeck 8y ago
    >[...]there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for[...] Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? >[...]with the difference in productivity compensated by the government. Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made?
rmtech 8y ago
> I think it's good for society as a whole people thought communism was good for society as a whole.. turns out it isn't Key insight is that you have to consider the bigger picture and the incentives that your proposed rule creates. > good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring how careful though? So careful that you rarely hire or fire anyone at all? So careful that it's impossible to disrupt an industry like Tesla is doing? Who should decide these things? Ever wonder why innovation mostly happens in the US rather then Western Europe? I think there are sensible rules to regulate corps BUT I don't think these rules should be of the form of giving out freebies (which is what you want here). Regs for corps in dealing with individuals should be focused on creating a level playing field, such as laws against companies having too large a market share (because a person can almost never have a large market share), laws penalising unclear or confusing contracts, etc.
canthonytucci 8y ago
>Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period. Then people need to form guilds and demand this be standard practice in contracts. Forcing this kind of thing through the middleman of a government seems like a great way to make a lot of people upset and not really get the progress desired.
SatvikBeri 8y ago
Historically, there have been plenty of companies that tried offering terms like "neither party can end employment without significant penalties without a year of notice" – for example, see non-competes in finance, which require the employer to keep paying the employee while they're on leave. Employees in the US tend not to prefer such agreements. It seems like most people prefer job mobility to guaranteed tenure.