6 ms·

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

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.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
But not because the CEO fired off an email based on his gut feeling about the economy. That’s wacky.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > 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.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    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.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > 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.
      - marvin 4y ago
        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.
        scythe 4y ago
        >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!
        marvin 4y ago
        Good points, thanks for providing the nuance.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        > 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.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Getting into a pedo flame war with a literal hero?
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    > 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.
softmango3 4y ago
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.
rvba 4y ago
> 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.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

But not because the CEO fired off an email based on his gut feeling about the economy. That’s wacky.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> 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.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  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.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > 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.
    - marvin 4y ago
      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.
      - scythe 4y ago
        >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!
        marvin 4y ago
        Good points, thanks for providing the nuance.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        > 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.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Getting into a pedo flame war with a literal hero?
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  > 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.

softmango3 4y ago

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.

rvba 4y ago

> 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.