Probebly because media articels are not representative of most of what happens. And the difference between a job at a Musk company and at comparable job in a different company is far smaller then it is claimed.
He has demonstrated that he played KSP and read the funny parts of Ignition!, and therefore is at least as smart as an average person in IT, and therefore a genius.
> Over the previous year, he had been living out of a suitcase, putting in 13-hour days, seven days a week.
This story is a good reminder not to do this. The company will usually not return the favour, you rarely get properly rewarded for crazy hours, yet it has a major impact on your health (both mental and physical) in the long run. Not worth it.
> It was not a 9 to 5 company. People were already working hard; now Musk was implying they needed to do more.
No wonder things were going to shit. Nobody can do good work if they don't get enough rest and have too much stress.
> Three months after that, it would report profits of $312 million, well beyond Wall Street’s expectations.
How much of this money did the employees get for all the overtime they were forced to work?
> Tesla, ... that some aspects were “overly dramatized,” “abbreviated,” and “ultimately misleading anecdotes that completely lack essential context.” ... “Elon cares very deeply about the people who work at his companies. ...
For the sake of everybody working for him, I really really hope this is true and not just PR firefighting and that the story misrepresented what actually happened. I'm not convinced, based on Musk's twitter outbursts and such, but I still hope this story is mostly false.
When working for Tesla I can only assume the dynamic is different. For many it IS worth it, and will work crazy hours without recompense, because in their eyes it pushes humanity further forward. They work for the joy of innovation.
I think, this might be true for some people in the beginning, but according to this article and other similar articles, a lot of people are leaving the company. So I'm not so sure this idealism is all that accurate.
Also, you don't need to treat your employees with that level of disrespect if you want to "push humanity forward" with them.
Perhaps I kept my comment too brief. I'm not endorsing Musk's behaviour in the slightest; it's abhorrent. I was speaking solely in reference to the initial comment about the obscene hours these employees seem to do, and conjecturing a reason as to how the employee might justify it to themselves.
Obviously they’re rationalising and justifying it to themselves or they wouldn’t be doing it. I get it. But that doesn’t make it a bad decision. I’ve heard a LOT of stories where people went way above and beyond what they had to and then got dropped like they were nothing when it didn’t suit the employer anymore and very, very, very few stories where it worked out well for the employee.
Is Tesla really on the "for flexing it" side of luxury? I'm in Argentina and never met anyone who owns or drives one, let alone get into one save for on a trip and it was in a showroom. I was under the impression it's the kind of luxury were your money is worth because no one else does an EV that's as comfortable, dependable, fast and with good range.
I mean it's luxurious as eating wagyu beef is, there's a barrier to entry but not as artificial as in for example buying Gucci loafers, and if you really want the taste/experience you have to cough up the money.
I work at Google, and there's a lot of them (both S and 3 and a few Xs) in the parking lot here, but that's because of Google salary. They're bloody expensive. The "$35,000" model is nowhere to be seen, and even when it comes, it'll be stupidly expensive still here in Canada.
Working class people buy used cars, below $15k at least.
That’s true about the buyers, but go read Elon’s grand plan. He has no interest in making luxury cars, but you can’t launch a mass market cheap car from nothing. He has gone from a 250k roadster, to a 100k luxury sedan, to a 55k fully loaded sedan, and soon to a 35k sedan. As soon as he can drop it further, he will. And in 20 years, the car transportation landscape will have been transformed.
This is the typical cycle for a new good. You could have said that the first cell phone, which cost a fortune, or the first smartphone, were each luxury goods for wealthy people to show off. Which was true, but now years later, all that money drove innovation to the point where nearly the entire world has one, interconnecting humanity to a much greater degree than before.
> This story is a good reminder not to do this. The company will usually not return the favour, you rarely get properly rewarded for crazy hours, yet it has a major impact on your health (both mental and physical) in the long run. Not worth it.
And yet it's also a perfect example of the one time it does make sense to do so, which is when you own a decent chunk of the company that you're doing it for.
> No wonder things were going to shit. Nobody can do good work if they don't get enough rest and have too much stress.
Yeah, that kind of effort is not sustainable for more than a few months at most. Trying to push too hard just burns out your best people, even (especially?) if they're part owners.
I would be amazed if it were sustainable for even that long. My recollection is that it's a couple of weeks before productivity ends up back where it would be if you were just working reasonable hours. And then you rapidly descend into less and less productive states. (There used to be a great presentation with linked research about this here [1], but their website seems shaky.)
I think it's an especially bad idea at high levels of the company, because of the long feedback loops. If a line worker makes a mistake, they will hopefully catch that within hours. If they make a bunch, somebody's going to come talk to them in short order. If an executive makes a mistake, it can be months or years before the problem is obvious. But the more tired I am, the more my focus shifts short-term and the less I notice subtleties and small mistakes. increased error rates and long feedback loops are a very bad combination.
To be fair, very very few engineers are in a position where a mistake would result in sudden unexpected lethality. Usually it's more like "if an engineer makes a mistake, something breaks and a lot of money is wasted, or everything is overengineered and a a lot of money is wasted."
That's true in general, but it's less overwhelmingly true when the product is 4000 lb and traveling at >60mph. I'm especially concerned that this appears to be a cultural tendency at Tesla, so a large portion of the engineers are likely working close this point. I hope they all are allowed a solid night's sleep before their design reviews; hopefully they can catch each other's mistakes there at least.
> And yet it's also a perfect example of the one time it does make sense to do so, which is when you own a decent chunk of the company that you're doing it for.
For Musk it might make sense, but I doubt it makes sense for most of his employees. Its not worth fucking your health and social life up over a payout, unless its huge. The typical Tesla worker isn't going to make enough from it to make it worth it, in my opinion.
> Yeah, that kind of effort is not sustainable for more than a few months at most.
Agreed, although likely you'll experience negative effects much sooner, although you may not properly burn out for a few months. There were some posts on HN recently about the long-lasting health impact stress has.
I just don't get how we just can't over turn them politically state by state in State Elections. How is this not a thing? I live in an At Will State (PA) and it pretty much sucks to have the knowledge I can be fired for any reason and sure I still can sue but I can still lose even though I am 100% in the right.
There's going to be a lot of money thrown at propaganda to convince voters that requiring employers to treat employees fairly will reduce jobs. And as soon as anyone mentions unions, it's all over. Every (right-of-centre) American knows that they're the only hardworking person in the country and the entire rest of the workforce is lazy good-for-nothings who need the constant threat of firing to achieve anything. /s
> as soon as anyone mentions unions, it's all over
Isn't there a technical solution to this? Something like an outwardly anonymous social network with "proof" of employment from LinkedIn, where you can pledge to unionize once participation reaches critical mass for your workplace. Yes laws are better, but this could be a decent workaround.
What is not achievable? We're talking about collective bargaining, how is that not achievable without outside help and involving the government? People got it working just fine 100 years ago... Of course back then laws were not favoring corporations that much (in my country where it worked then, not the USA).
Getting collective bargaining started requires assembling the collective - this is a lot harder to do if the employer can just fire anyone seen organising.
Traditionally bootstrapping into a situation where union organising could happen safely and peacefully required a period of violence on the picket lines. There used to be quite a lot of this in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
These days it's even harder in some ways; the more "virtual" an organisation is, the easier it is for the company to just disband and restart it and the harder it is to picket. It's not clear if the various strikes against Uber by its workers have achieved anything.
Why would laws be better? I absolutely don't see how any law could be better than something the people did themselves. Comparable - maybe, but a law is usually way more expensive in the long run and not exactly flexible - and if you were from eastern European state you would know how unions work here (they mostly don't).
Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals; union organising needs to be a protected activity.
Surely the big Eastern European union success story was Solidarity? Although I can understand how unions would struggle to operate in the post-communist era.
> Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals; union organising needs to be a protected activity.
Could you please explain why, in the age of e-mail and Facebook? People in my country have zero problem organising political events on Facebook, attracting several tens of thousands of visitors to their demonstrations.
If you're organising a union on Facebook, and you're under American-style at-will employment, and it wasn't banned under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_concerted_activity , then the employer would simply immediately fire whichever people were seen to be the ringleaders.
> Generally in order for unions to exist at all they need a certain amount of protection from reprisals;
This reverses cause and effect: in order for unions to receive any legal protection, they have to exist and fight for it (many members paying very high prices.) The unions precede the legal protection, not the other way around.
Can we make it mandatory for everyone that is anti-Union to have to report to work on Labor Day and also they need to work the previous Saturday since it was normally a six day work week before Unions?
I still don't understand American working force's love affair with the filthy rich individuals and corporations. I am constantly told, "This is just how economy works" from my Father-In-law and other "conservatives."
When I mention that we as the working class are getting less and less of the GDP pie and more is going to the corporations and rich. The feeling is this has always been that way. I immediately say "I'm talking percentage" and sadly the average American is stuck at a 4th grade math level and I guess 4th grade doesn't cover the meaning of percentages.
The filthy rich's best warriors are conservative leaning voters right now and I have no idea how that will ever change.
Don't forget that the filthy rich waged literal wars using hired thugs armed with guns against unions and their leaders around the turn of the century.
There's precious little mention of this in history lessons.
Local story for me on how bad the Labor Unions fight was with Police doing the bidding of the companies in 1910.
Bethlehem Steel had a strike, 9,000 workers complaining about the 12 hour work days and the unsafe work conditions. A policeman shot and killed union striker Joseph Szambo while he was drinking a beer and his wife gave birth to their child a few hours later. This caused Congress to get involved and to actually make Bethlehem Steel change their practices and the Labor Union won.
http://bethlehem.thelehighvalleypress.com/2012/09/12/bethleh...
Now fast forward to the 1980s and Bethlehem Steel wasted millions in tax dollars on building a huge corporate office and didn't redo their old steel works and had to go out of business. People like to blame the Union but it was Corporate waste of resources that was the demise of the company. https://www.mcall.com/opinion/white/mc-bw-bethlehem-steel-pl...
> I just don't get how we just can't over turn them politically state by state in State Elections. How is this not a thing?
Do most people want to overturn them? I think you're assuming that start state and it's perhaps not the case.
> I can be fired for any reason
And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.
> And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.
False dilemma [1]. There's no reason to assume that by giving up at-will employment, you'll also lose the right to resign for any reason. In fact, there are lots of countries where you can resign for any reason, but can't be fired for every reason.
The person I was replying to said 'at-will employment laws ...
I just don't get how we just can't over turn them.' The law is both parts of it. You probably wouldn't want to overturn the law, because you'd overturn your protection as well.
At least in the states near me that have tried (unsuccessfully ) to pass at will laws, no part of the law that I saw would have taken away employees rights to resign at anytime they wanted for any reason. Is this actually part of at will laws else where?
>And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.
That's not symmetrical, or if it is, it's symmetrical in the same way as "heads I win, tails you lose." Being fired and quitting both place the entirety of the risk of unemployment on the employee, there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer.
If health insurance wasn't tied to employment in the US, or if there were something like UBI, then the dynamics of at-will employment might be at least more symmetrical.
> there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer
If there is no power or risk on the part of the employer then why do some countries have a law requiring that you give the employer a notice period? It's to reduce their risk.
In my country can sued for their damages if you leave without a notice period - real damages such as having to hire more expensive temporary staff to do your job until they can find someone else permanent. That's their risk.
Fair enough, some risk exists, and how much probably depends on the position ... although in my country as far as I'm aware, there is no requirement to give notice (it's just a courtesy) and, of course, no such requirement exists on the part of employers.
In the linked article, it's mentioned that Elon felt a constant need to fire people that he sometimes had to be talked down from, so if the employer risk exists, it doesn't seem to be particularly high in most cases. If the risk for employers was significant, then at-will employment laws wouldn't even exist, because the entire purpose of such laws is to make it arbitrarily easy to fire employees.
The only way at-will employment could truly be symmetrical is if I could walk into work and literally fire any of my managers or the CEO with the same ease with which they could fire me.
But of course, actually applying the power dynamic of at-will employment both ways would just be insane wouldn't it?
Well, you can also quit for any reason, at any time. Sure, I know that in most cases the employer has more power than the employee, but what's the reasonable alternative?
If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business? One of the guys who reports to me just turned in his 2 weeks notice completely out of the blue. It puts me in a bind because we have more work than people to do it, but I don't harbor any ill will towards him.
I can understand your concern (somewhat), but at the same time, being an at will employee simply isn't something that's even on my radar.
The alternative is something like 3 months notice guaranteed by law after 3 months of employment. This benefits both parties as it’s very problematic to loose employees on projects without any warning.
Sure, but my point is that as an employee I like knowing I can leave at any time I want. I consider having that freedom a reasonable price to pay for my employer being able to let me go at any time they want.
If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business?
I frequently hear this being trotted out as the reason why at-will employment is a good thing. This is, however, not the reality. You can fire employees for many reasons: Poor performance, breaking the rules, and - yes - lack of money.
What you cannot do is fire people on the spot for any random reason. You can fire people, but you have to follow a process that is designed to protect both the employer and the employee.
I have had to fire people in my employ a few times, and every time I was annoyed at the length and complication of the process I had to follow. I never once thought that at-will employment was a good alternative. As an employer, I strongly believe that the practice is barbaric and uncivilized.
Well, you can also quit for any reason, at any time
And...? If your business is structured in such a way that this situation would pose an existential threat to your business, you have failed as a business manager. If this situation doesn't pose an existential threat to your business, it is just an annoyance - sucks to be you, I guess. As a reward for the risks and hardships of being a company owner, you get to take home your profits.
I'm trying to understand how in this and my other comment I am failing to communicate as you seem to be reading the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
First, in an at-will state in the US, except for those cases relating to protected classes, you can indeed legally let any employee go for any random reason you desire. Any "complications" involved have been added by your company, in an attempt to protect them from employee lawsuits.
Let me just cut to the chase and say this as simply as I can. I think at-will employment is a good thing. As an employee I like knowing I can simply decide to quit on a whim and I see no reason an employer shouldn't have the same freedom.
I live in a country that does not have at-will employment. I can quit at any time with one months notice (or, at the employers discretion, less). A person can be fired for the reasons mdekkers mentioned (bad behaviour, bad performance, lack of money) but there is a procedure to go through (eg for bad performance, you must give warnings first). It works well for employees, who don’t have to worry about the possibility of an asshole manager going on a firing rampage (as the article states happens in Tesla) and it works well for employers because they can fire when necessary, they just cannot legally abuse it.
> I see no reason an employer shouldn’t have the same freedom
Because its not an equal relationship. Unless the company is very, very small or badly managed, losing an employee or two is much less of a deal for employers than losing their jobs is for the average employee. If the employer really wants rid of the employee for a legitimate reason, they can do so, they just have to jump through a few hoops. If they want to get rid of the person just because, then no, they can’t do that and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed to either. It encourages an abusive or unfair work environment (work longer/harder/more dangerously or I’ll fire you! for example).
For the average person, losing their job is devistating. For the average company, losing an employee barely registers. Remember, that most employees don’t have the same flexibility and job availability that most of us on HN do, yet the laws still apply the same.
> I can be fired for any reason and sure I still can sue but I can still lose even though I am 100% in the right
Yet at the same time companies are extremely paranoid about firing people without a good excuse for fear of getting sued. These two sentiments don't really line up.
... yet Tesla pushed the entire world to electrify transport.
I remember years ago reading article after article and forum post after forum post about how once we finally deplete oil transportation will revert to the 19th century. I don't read that anymore.
I have little doubt that without Tesla you wouldn't see a dozen other EVs on the market. You might have one or two crappy "compliance cars," but nobody else would be striving to make EVs anyone actually wants to buy.
I am not arguing with you. I don't disagree with much of anything that you wrote.
One of the things that keeps me up at night and frankly depresses me is the question: can you lead or otherwise achieve great things without being an asshole?
Steve Jobs? Asshole. Winston Churchill? Asshole. Stanley Kubrick? Asshole. Bill Gates? Quieter, but judging from MS's behavior in the 80s and 90s, asshole. I could go on.
I'm a founder and have been trying for quite a while to build something great without being an asshole or a total workaholic. It's hard, and I sometimes worry that I'm failing.
Anyone got any good inspiring counterexamples?
I have a speculation about why this might be. The human brain is wired for the much slower, simpler life of a hunter-gatherer. In a modern context most people exist in a state of low-grade depression. We're not really all that driven and our appetite for opportunity and action is calibrated for a world where opportunities for those things are much more rare.
There are ways of tweaking oneself chemically (pun intended): caffeine, amphetamine, cocaine, modafinil. Unfortunately all these have side effects. They accelerate thought but they also muddle or impair it.
But...
Occasionally you get people who are naturally wired with an extreme degree of drive and charisma. It's not that these people are necessarily smarter than everyone else, though some are certainly smart. It's that they operate naturally at a pace that fits the modern world.
Here's where the magic comes in.
Humans are deeply mimetic. We pick up and unconsciously mirror the states of those around us. It's part of why concentrated centers of excellence such as those found in urban settings are often so mysteriously alluring and powerful. When we are around people who are driven to excellence, it increases our drive to excellence.
So you get this positive emotional-mimetic field around these people. Everyone else around them gets tweaked up too.
Unfortunately these traits seem coincident with narcissism, antisocial personality disorders, even full on psychopathy in some cases. So you have these inspiring, driven, animating assholes that seem superhumanly powerful simply because they are not (in modern terms) naturally depressed and anhedonic.
Like I said it's depressing. This is one of those thoughts where if I were proven to be wrong I'd celebrate.
I have thought about this as well and I think the problem is that this is a tautology. To be a dominant figure requires that you dominate. There could never be such a thing as a Good King because monarchic structure requires oppression. The question that we have for ourselves is Do we need kings?
Historically we do seem to need "kings" of some form or another. This makes the requirement socially tautological. Kings have to be assholes because people need asshole kings.
My depressing hypothesis is that because the average human is essentially depressed, un-driven, and anhedonic, we depend on being dominated by hyper-driven assholes to reach our full potential.
What's weird about this is that in a way we are using or even enslaving the king. There's an anthropological hypothesis out there that monarchy evolved in part from the practice of human sacrifice, and when a king's company or country does not perform we still do sacrifice them at least in word if not in deed.
I hypothesize that the conventional model of the "great man" has it wrong. It's not the genius of Steve Jobs or Elon Musk that is driving excellence. It's the drive itself. The actual work at SpaceX or Tesla is being done by the employees, but I question whether the employees could drive themselves to do that work given that we are naturally wired to sit around a campfire, eat, fuck, and occasionally go hunting or berry picking. My hypothesis is that without drive and charisma to emotionally mime, most people don't do much.
I've wondered for a long time if the solution might not be superior stimulant medications. Could we have a king in pill form? Could a simple emotional or even metabolic tweak (again pun intended) eliminate much of the need for inspiring leaders to motivate us?
Now I'm incubating this goofball speculation that the post-enlightenment-era rejection of monarchs was driven in part by importation of coffee reducing the need for kings, which is hilarious and utterly insane. I better get back to work.
Edit:
This whole line of thinking has a big question mark after it. I am speculating and philosophizing, not pronouncing dogma.
I also do not intend anything I wrote as a personal insult against anyone. I've never met Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, and regardless of the circumstances I do think the things they're doing (or did in the former case) are making the world a better place.
I'm just asking if we can find a better way to make the world a better place that is also more compassionate and pleasant at the immediate interpersonal level. You don't solve problems by denying unpleasant realities, so I'm exploring what I see as an unpleasant reality.
I’m loving your comment, and speaking of stimulants, you write like you’re on adderall lol :)
We do need drive and charisma to emotionally mime. But the implication of what you’re writing is that the Kings among us manufacture that drive and charisma ourselves.
I have a different hunch about the best way to produce this charisma than you: we don’t need stimulants. We just need placebos and placebo thoughts.
The solution isn’t in “superior stimulant medications” because it seems like the main value people really stimulants is their value as placebos. The solution, IMO, is either in superior PLACEBO medications, or superior methods for people to simply trick themselves into becoming manic.
Like dude just try it as an experiment. Wake up tomorrow and don’t drink coffee. You really think you’re going to crave a king to mimic? What if — just what if — you turn out to be the king ? And what if the only difference between the two outcomes was your willingness to ingest and embrace a “placebo thought” like “IM THE KING!” (Or Zuck’s “Im CEO, Bitch.”) rather than a “superior stimulant medication”?
You don’t need coffee or adderall or “superior stimulants” bro, all stimulants are mostly placebos. All you need is superior “placebo thoughts” that allow you to go from a state of normality/anhedonia/“slight depression” to mania without chemical assistance, IMO.
My 2¢ btw: maybe coffee actually increased the need for kings , because suddenly everyone’s adrenals were fried in the afternoon and they all craved naps and sedatives more. Equally plausible IMO but I like ur theory too.
> yet Tesla pushed the entire world to electrify transport
Oil prices, pollution laws and incentives did, Tesla was the only one in position to profit for it timely
Every company has an electric car in their blueprints, Tesla is the right size to benefit for the small demand that the market created on its own
They turned a hundred million so profit this year right? That's not even enough to consider ending the market for the larger companies. Comparatively they could earn those profit just by tweaking a decimal on their car financing services interest.
I'm less optimistic about the conventional auto industry. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that conventional auto companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming into marketing desirable EVs. The conventional auto industry is full of ICE heads and hates EVs, and many of the dealers and unions and auto ecosystem companies also hate EVs because EVs require less maintenance. No oil changes, less moving parts, etc.
Most people will resist change until they are forced into it. Even then some people will literally go down with the ship.
> The conventional auto industry is full of ICE heads and hates EVs
That doesn't correspond with the practical realities. Here are some battery electrics that will be released across the next two years, some of which are already available:
Hyundai (with Kia) produces EV versions of the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro, two battery electrics with good range at a more affordable price than the luxury EVs:
As I said, everyone has plans but the market is quite small for the big companies to move.
GM turned a loss selling nine million vehicles or so, opening a whole line to enter a market which is moving just one million units or so competing with players like Tesla that operate at almost a loss make zero sense.
They'll keep their design fresh and up to date to be ready when the time comes, but so far it's territory of steps and smaller companies that can profit from small production runs
As I said, there is a reason they are all switching to EVs.
The Tesla Model S, in its main US market, is the leader in the luxury car market. Model 3 is the #1 selling car by revenue.
Production is limited to 2 US factories. Worldwide numbers go up fast when they have a Euro factory, Chinese factory, etc.
> GM turned a loss selling nine million vehicles or so, opening a whole line to enter a market which is moving just one million units or so competing with players like Tesla that operate at almost a loss make zero sense.
they're all sitting on a lot of technology, the current volume doesn't justify them to push into production, where tesla could use their gung-ho startup attitude and startup capital to run off the equivalent of rounding error for the establishment
Here's a thing I've noticed about achievement, in sports and e-sports more so than in business, but I believe the same applies.
What separates the high achievers, apart from any basic talent and training, is a personality that doesn't experience the relevant kind of pain or discomfort that would discourage them from the task.
For a lot of sports, that means overcompetitive asshole. For a lot of businesses, the same. That personality gets a lot of leeway to optimize towards linear goals. But then you go looking at certain niches and there is nuance. Sometimes it's endurance - masochism. Someone who runs ultramarathons, or repeatedly starts over a speedrun of a classic video game. Sometimes it's a poker player or day trader who can't feel the weight of moving around big stakes. There are many roles where the successful personality isn't the competitive narcissist. But in the specific case of small companies that get very big very quickly, they are prolific.
And that's a point which helps me personally, since I know some things about my comfort zone by now and where the standard advice is going to fail. Only some people are numbed enough to simply "hustle" and succeed. For the rest it's more like a quest to find the right kinds of challenges, the ones that they are most likely to engage with at a high level. When they can do that, people call them a genius. But from their own perspective, it's ordinary, or only somewhat more painful than doing nothing. And this quality of personality matching a high level skillset runs throughout our fictional characters, despite Western society nominally engaging with beliefs of anyone being equally able to learn to do anything. I think we know this and turn our back on it because it uproots several of our major founding myths about society and its potential and whom we should support and how.
Although I haven't seen the movie, other coverage of Alex Honnold has definitely got my mind going on this topic. He's an excellent example of a personality eminently suited to the task.
Musk is a great marketer and communicator, he convinces people that making luxury cars is saving the world because they are electric. The people buying them also feel like they are heroes saving the world. Humans have a need to feel like they are a part of something bigger than themselves and Musk provides it.
Steve jobs did the same thing, their marketing was all about pushing how apple users think different and are changing the world by being mindless consumers
I would be quite useful for this conversation to see what the wages/overtime pay and stock options are for past employees and new hires. Without that the conversation is just wild speculation and not really worth pursuing.
I didn't read the article, so perhaps I'm missing something:
> How much of this money did the employees get for all the overtime they were forced to work?
Did someone somehow compel someone else to work those hours? I imagine most Tesla employees are at the top of their field, and have many jobs to choose from. If someone chose to work like that, there must have been a motivation, it doesn't seem like they would have been forced.
Wow, capitalism (& employement obviously) is shit. What a surprise!
Thank you HN to sharing this and reminding us that our great leaders are geniuses but bad to us in the same time and we should get on with it.
It strikes me that many very successful people are incredibly smart and driven but seem to have the emotional maturity, or personal introspection, of a 10 year old. Maybe it's just a necessary combination for this kind of success, but it's also a bit paradoxical. Case in point: buying 5 mansions in Bel Air when you spend all your time at work, literally sleeping under your desk. Another is insisting on burning the candle at both ends by sleeping 4 hours a night, when it has been proven beyond doubt that it's extremely counter-productive to do so, both in terms of mental ability and overall health.
Emotional development and personal growth don't happen automatically with age. Time and effort must be devoted to it - although for most people that is not an issue because the things that allow you to grow are mostly things that we instinctively seek, like interpersonal relationships.
It's a well known fact that people who suffer from severe addictions (drugs, etc) get stuck in the emotional stage of development they were at when the issue started. It wouldn't be crazy to assume that the same effect (to a less extreme degree) will occur for people who devote all their time and effort to very specific facets of their lives.
There's also the fact that the usual social feedback and consequences that regular folk are subjected to don't necessarily apply to successful people: They might not ever be challenged by their circle of yes men, they don't depend on other people to survive so critics can be safely ignored, etc.
He doesn't actually spend all his time at the factory. He's mostly in LA. There are people on Twitter who track the flights of his private jet. He's mostly in LA, he'll go to the bay area maybe for a day a week. More rarely to Reno. If he's spending all his time working, it's at SpaceX of anything. But more likely he spends his time at home searching his own name on Twitter.
The insane work hours stories are just part of the mythology.
I find it interesting you can read this negative article about him and choose to believe the bad things, but dismiss the parts you think some might consider a positive
One day he will catch an employee stealing, fly into a rage and fire the entire workforce. He'll lock the iron gates to the factory and sequester himself from the public eye for several decades sparking all kinds of rumours about his fate. Then one day he'll announce a competition for children to win golden tickets to visit his once grand factory and we'll finally discover the real story of Elon Musk and his Gigafactory.
They aren't even sustainably producing the 5k/week that they said they would be doing a year ago.
In both 2016 and 2017, they said they'd get to a sustainable 5k by the end of 2017. At the end of 2017, they pushed that to Q1/2018. In Q1/2018, they pushed that to Q2. In Q2 they give up on the sustainable part of that and just said they'd do 5k. At the beginning of Q3/2018 they said they'd get to a sustainable 6k/week in Q3. By the end of Q3 they still weren't able to sustain 5k/week. As we approach the end of Q4, everything indicates that they still can't sustain 5k/week.
> Musk “would say ‘I’ve got to fire someone today,’ and I’d say, ‘No you don’t,’ and he’d say, ‘No, no, I just do. I’ve got to fire somebody,’ ”
Musk really is the asshole abusive boss who gets a pass because of his media fame.
I urge anyone in a situation similar to the employees mentioned in the article to simply quit. Giving up your life and dignity for "the cause" isn't worth it. You aren't changing the world, just killing yourself to make some rich people richer.
It's Lundy Bancroft's, "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". It's the single most astute thing I've ever read. The guy spent more than a decade as a counselor for abusive men, most of them ordered to him by the courts. It's clear he heard an ocean of bullshit and became very good at seeing through it.
It's targeted at domestic abuse, but his insights are so clear and well-explained that it's easy to apply the lessons elsewhere. E.g., a couple of years back my boss got pushed out, so suddenly I was being managed by his boss. I walked out of my first meeting with him wondering what the fuck had just happened; everything I said he jumped on aggressively. But the pattern rang a bell, so I thumbed through the book. He lists a variety of abuser styles, and the one called "Mr. Right" fit him perfectly. In one meeting he hit something like 2/3rds of the items in the checklist.
Had I not read that, I would have probably walked away thinking that the problem was me, even though my original boss had been happy with me and my work. Instead, I was prepared for what came next: a couple more abusive meetings and then a surprise, no-notice "layoff" where I and the other manager my boss hired were pushed out. (And where we were asked to sign a no-disparagement clause if we wanted any severance. Seeing it a further abuser-style manipulation, I passed.)
Over the years I've given away maybe 15 copies of the book, often to people who were in abusive relationships without recognizing it. If you ever even begin to wonder, I strongly recommend reading the book.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are a lot of parallels to Jobs' Macintosh factory. He was similarly overeager with automation, and even coerced the executives to have the machines painted.
Jobs kind of had a point. Americans appear to have a tolerance for filth and grime in the workplace that people from other developed countries do not. I'm to understand that German auto mechanics, for instance, keep their workplaces spotlessly clean in contrast to the "grease monkeys" that prevail in the USA. And Jobs had always wanted to bring the same style and refinement from the best European product design studios to his own products...
Watching inside spacex there seemed to me to be a very tense and cautious relationship between Musk and people who had to interact with him. Apart from any nerves about launching. This article clarifies what I saw.
I posted this article because I'm really afraid that many young entrepreneurs take Elon Musk (and Steve Jobs, etc.) as role models and get the impression that in order to be successful you have to be an abusive brick.
I've recently read Walter Isaacson's "The Innovators" and there seem to be at least a couple of counterexamples (Robert Noyce for instance). Any other examples of tech leaders who lead their companies in a friendly and open manner and are successful despite (or probably because) of that?
You see the same debates about military leadership - some very famous military leaders were apparently pretty unpleasant at a personal level - then at the other end of the spectrum you have people like Leonard Cheshire who was tough but thoroughly decent and treated everyone at all levels with respect:
Why would anyone get the impression they have to be an abusive brick? No one is claiming that, are you saying young entrepreneurs are sheep and blindly follow Elon's behavioral patterns?
This piece is okay, it provides a number of anecdotes by former employees, how do we verify these are accurate and not misleading? They square with some former reports, but do not square with other positive anecdotes I've read. This is the problem with using anecdotes as evidence.
In my view, executives and other high-ranking individuals are often mean and unfair due to extreme ambition and very high, sustained stress levels. Could someone without extreme ambition have even gotten to this point with Tesla? Do you recall how many bullshit hit pieces, legal obstacles, and issues there have been standing in Tesla's way?
"He had a great simplicity of manner, and while on a campaign lived as a private soldier, sleeping on straw and contenting himself with the humblest fare.[43] Suvorov was adored by his men and considered victory dependent on the morale, training, and initiative of the front-line soldier. In battle he emphasized speed and mobility, accuracy of gunfire and the use of the bayonet, as well as detailed planning and careful strategy. He abandoned traditional drills and instead communicated with his troops in ways that proved clear and understandable. Suvorov also took great care of his army's supplies and living conditions, reducing cases of illness among his soldiers dramatically."
I used to be neutral or slightly positive about Musk but this year really changed my view on him. He's a pathological liar, attention-seeker, vengeful narcissist, obsessed about his public image who's unable to handle criticism.
I guess we all have these things in side of us and given the wrong circumstances people let them out. I am definitely compassionate towards Musk, as I for myself have made the experience that stress can bring out very negative sides within you, if you don't stay aware and relaxed to not get carried away of such feelings. It cannot be an apology and hopefully Musk recognizes that it is not his true self acting but stress and anxiety projected on others.
Why would anyone do what he's doing? There is no way to be be in the public eye and manage this and be total. He grew up outside the US is in the cold war being told every day that a dispute between countries he didn't live in would wipe the world clean. Assange grew up in the same hacker environment. Different tracks for sure. The world gave a smart kid nothing but terror. He said he'll fix it AND leave at the same time. A mix of PTSD, pathalogical demand avoidance, giftedness and opportunity.
No one that had a brain would want the guys job. I'm not using it as an excuse, he's not a savior. He is doing neat shit, but he wants an unreal hat trick and is just the same as the rest of us on this rock. Even if/when he leaves, it'll all still be with him.
I think his cars are fun and rockets are cool, but if I think about the human side... it's more than a bit mad.
None of us should aspire to emulate this way to greatness. You'll lose everything and for your reward, people will say, he was successful. If you can ever find someone who does not know you, maybe you could pretend to be different and they might like you, but you won't like yourself.
Imagine a bunch of equally capable people work 9-9-6 with lower pay. Now I know why China’s engineering and manufacturing growth is wild. No bullshit, take your money and get shit done. You complains? Look, thousands lined up outside.
Musk reminds me of the North Korean man-child, touring the factories to dole out his expertise. The only difference is Musk can’t put you in a concentration camp.
I wish more people realised the truth behind the PR construction that is Elon Musk and stop calling him an 'inventor' and 'engineer'. He is neither. He got lucky a few times and has somehow managed to persuade people that he 'invented' Paypal (he didn't - and was in fact sacked when X.com was bought), that he 'invented' the electric car (nope, the Victorians did that), that he 'invented' the Hyperloop (again, the Victorians) and that he 'invented' reusable rockets (again, not him). He is a massive fraud and a paper tiger.
Most of the things you claim that he says he never did say. The idea that he claims that he invented the electric car or reusable rockets is utter nonsense and you will not find one quote that makes that statment.
Claiming that he is not an engineer is just more nonsense. He is the chief engineer of the falcon rocket and many people inside and outside of SpaceX have said to be highly impressed with what he does.
If you don't like Elon that is fine, but this post is just nonsense.
Sorry I should have said 'they' rather than 'he' in referring to those prosletysing his mythos. Also, he is not a qualified engineer, whatever he calls himself. I imagine many of those depending on his good favour are 'impressed with what he has done at SpaceX', including his employees - but designing rockets is not one of those things. I have no personal beef with him, I just object to him being elevated beyond his true abilities.
Why would anyone work there if this is the case? I agree that Tesla cars are very futuristic, but glory all goes to the company and Elon. Do employee get like a huge bonus or something if they survived long enough? There's got be a reason this article is not mentioning.
The entire Mars, gonna save the world shtick? It's a recruitment ploy. Most of his claims don't hold up to closer scrutiny, but it's aimed at young tech professionals who _really want_ for their job to make sense, so much, that they're willing to overlook both the evidence it might not _and_ the bad quality of a job offer, just to hook themselves to someone who has a "bright vision."
Truth is, much of tech nowadays doesn't even pretend to care about any benefit to society. And spotting a scam, when a part of the scam is literally offering you a sense of self-worth? That requires some rather painful introspection.
> Doesn’t hold up? What other company is there is making a bigger impact pushing us to electrify?
Zurich public transport, every single train company. Claiming electric personal cars are a solution to anything is a joke.
> And the “Mars is a conspiracy” is just not true. Musk can be sincere in his motivations while still not being pleasant to work with.
I'm sure he's sincere about colonising Mars. It's just that it's a terrible idea and making it appear as a benefit to society requires some significant mental exercises. But ever since at least Lenin it's pretty much common knowledge that just increases commitment amongst the converted.
If I were the dictator and could force everybody to do as I say tge world would be so much better.
You live in an utter delusional fantasy world if you believe that public transport and trains can replace cars.
And you can believe about mars whatever you want. Even if collonisation doesnt happen, getting to mars alone is already a huge achievment. Just the tech the have done so far has been a huge achievment.
There will be millions of cars sold for many, many years to come. Far, far more then we can now produce EV. Large parts of the world are not gone be served by trains.
Cars right now are a huge part of total oil consumption replacing that is hugely important. Trains are established technology and no train company in the world is gone reduce total oil consumption at the rate that Tesla is producing cars now DIRECTLY competing against an oil driven resource that is gone be around for 20+ years.
So tell me what other company right now is doing more to reduce oil consumption in transportation and even more important, is growing at the rate Tesla is growing. And that is even without the impact of Tesla on the vehicle market.
> So tell me what other company right now is doing more to reduce oil consumption in transportation and even more important, is growing at the rate Tesla is growing. And that is even without the impact of Tesla on the vehicle market.
Edit: also, a true devotee like you should be aware that Musks main motivation is his hate for traveling with other people, not "reducing the oil consumption."
It might not be a poly, Elon probably sincere about that. It doesn't change the fact that it's terrible working for someone treat his employees like that. I think probably it's a strategic thing. I have given it some thoughts, it probably works somewhat like this.
Mars, well, Elon is a recruitment tool. So, recruiting talents hasn't been an issue for Tesla.
There is a natural turnover rate for technical staff either case. Elon figures so long his metrics is okay, everything will be fine, which is "incoming talents ~= outgoing talents" (adjust the operator as company expand or reduction).
So far the company has expanded too fast, so Elon let his ego take over to abuse at will. Also probably due to stress, etc. I called "controlled let go." (both the employees and his self control) Haha.
His passion, geniuses, quirkiness, and yes that include his "abusive" behavior is exactly the reason why I continue buying tesla stock. I hold no other individual company stock except tsla, everything else is index fund.
People like Musk are necessary. You can't create great things without a mind outside of the norm, and a mind outside of the norm is often unstable. Most people wouldn't manage (psychologically) to be in Musk's position, much less get to the point where he is now.
It isn't fair (what happened to this engineer), but hardly anything in life is fair. What's important is to realize this and be able to move on. As an engineer in the US, he is already one of the luckiest people on Earth.
I agree. Without somewhat maniacal (of the obsessive enthusiasm variety) personalities grand achievements would be difficult to realize. It takes that kind of person.
I tend to dislike hatchet-jobs like this article, as they're flush with stories that appear absolutely bonkers on the surface, and very light on detail of positive interactions of any kind. The man may be a bit bananas, but all great men and women are, at least a bit. As a cautionary tale, it's a powerful article. But I hardly see it has objective in it's reporting, and serving a somewhat click-baity audience already dubious of the man.
Definitely. At a meta level, this is quite dangerous. This deep hatred and misunderstanding of the outcasts will have us shrink as a society. A society of wimps will just be overtaken by another in time. We can't be a civilization without Musks.
There are several billion people on this planet. If we push out the asshole savants, then there will be room for the respectful savants who have been there all along.
There are too many well-educated, compassionate, clever people out there for “nobody else can do it but this specific abusive asshole” to stand up as an argument.
If you push out the asshole "savants", you must also say farewell to all great things our civilization has to offer today: art, architecture, literature, technology and so on. Great achievers have rarely been driven by compassion.
I wonder what great historical works we would have today had aggressive assholes not taken the space of more compassionate contemporaries. Or do you truly think nothing of value would have been created by the considerable non-abusive population?
You can't go through a great lot of pain without the competitive drive, the hunger for greatness. In other primates, it's expressed in form of strength, in humans in the shape of great accomplishments.
If we were all nice people who don't mind being last, we wouldn't be "here" now.
Of course, the "non-abusive population" (you name it) have done great things, they help maniacally driven people like Musk to archive things, but they are the ones who lack the assertiveness and initiative, they're the cogs in the machine.
So what are you then, dgut? You seem to believe society is divided up between great men who do and lesser men who serve. Are you a top or a bottom? Ubermensch or Untermensch?
The real assholes are the german car company executives who kill people by lying about diesel exhaust of the cara they're manufacturing.
I'm sure that they are nice with everybody, but their real toxic impact is so much bigger than Elon's, it's just uncomparable.
What is stopping the non-asshole savants from succeeding now? Would a lack of competition improve things further? And of course who decides who is an asshole and making sure they aren't the biggest one of all.
Also one is dealing with far ends of the bell curve by definition - there may not be a replacement with every desired trait. Overfiltering on the irrelevant is the action of literal historical losers like trying "German Physics" or Lysenkoism instead of Bourgeoisie genetics.
Not to mention there are plenty of non-savant assholes in charge - if we want to get rid off assholes wouldn't it make sense to oust the savants last as they have actual utility above the norm?
I think they are but they are also rarer although certainly not impossible.
Part of it might be the "unreasonable man" effect based upon the Shaw quote paraphrased as "A reasonable man adapts to the world while the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself - therefore all hope of progress rests upon the unreasonable man.
Essentially making advances ahead of everyone else requires disregarding what everybody else thinks and not being deterred. So not caring what the naysayers think kind of becomes a prerequisite. One can dissent and not be an asshole but patience is limited.
That can be a hazard for assholishness which combined with some level of obsessiveness means many probably fall into the category of being considered assholes rightfully or not.
The perception itself of being an asshole is itself biased towards the status quo - just look at Eartha Kitt's blackballing over answering the question of the why juvenile delinquency and disaffection was on the rise by pointing out the dissatisfaction over the Vietnam war and being called to give their lives for it.
Why do you guys say this is a negative article about Musk? Did you read the whole of it? It's quite a fair story about the downs and ups of Tesla in the past couple of years, and some of Musk's weird behaviors.
In the end, as the article mentioned, Tesla got through the 'production hell', October's financial reports were positive and Musk's emotions went back to (more) normal levels.
For the last year or so, the mass of Tesla negativity around here at least used to pretend to be around their product or market or finances. Now that they're doing really well, all thats left is a torrent of increasingly comical over-the-top denunciations of Musk.
And to think that some people think of him like he is/was some sort of demi-god, saviour, genious, mankind's last hope. In fact guys like Musk or Steve Jobs are just arrogant assholes with big egos, happy to take credit for the hard work of all the fruits of their engineers doing bulk of the work.
Even after reading this, I do think Musk genuinely, truly wants to change humanity for the better and believes that that's what he's doing. And I think he actually is to a large extent. But stuff like the examples in this article and his social media behavior show he has no problem regularly being an abusive, cruel, immature, rageful, narcissistic, despotic asshole to individual people to get there - even to the people who've sacrificed and contributed so much to help him get there.
I don't think he should be written off entirely, but he has a lot of learning and growing to do.
171 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] threadWhy would anyone want to work in places like this?
Would you call Wayne Gretzky a genius?
That sounds like Kim in a factory posing as important. You have to wonder if he even knew what "this" was.
> Over the previous year, he had been living out of a suitcase, putting in 13-hour days, seven days a week.
This story is a good reminder not to do this. The company will usually not return the favour, you rarely get properly rewarded for crazy hours, yet it has a major impact on your health (both mental and physical) in the long run. Not worth it.
> It was not a 9 to 5 company. People were already working hard; now Musk was implying they needed to do more.
No wonder things were going to shit. Nobody can do good work if they don't get enough rest and have too much stress.
> Three months after that, it would report profits of $312 million, well beyond Wall Street’s expectations.
How much of this money did the employees get for all the overtime they were forced to work?
> Tesla, ... that some aspects were “overly dramatized,” “abbreviated,” and “ultimately misleading anecdotes that completely lack essential context.” ... “Elon cares very deeply about the people who work at his companies. ...
For the sake of everybody working for him, I really really hope this is true and not just PR firefighting and that the story misrepresented what actually happened. I'm not convinced, based on Musk's twitter outbursts and such, but I still hope this story is mostly false.
Also, you don't need to treat your employees with that level of disrespect if you want to "push humanity forward" with them.
Don't get me wrong, I drive an EV. They're great. But let's not exaggerate what Tesla is.
I mean it's luxurious as eating wagyu beef is, there's a barrier to entry but not as artificial as in for example buying Gucci loafers, and if you really want the taste/experience you have to cough up the money.
Working class people buy used cars, below $15k at least.
This is the typical cycle for a new good. You could have said that the first cell phone, which cost a fortune, or the first smartphone, were each luxury goods for wealthy people to show off. Which was true, but now years later, all that money drove innovation to the point where nearly the entire world has one, interconnecting humanity to a much greater degree than before.
And yet it's also a perfect example of the one time it does make sense to do so, which is when you own a decent chunk of the company that you're doing it for.
> No wonder things were going to shit. Nobody can do good work if they don't get enough rest and have too much stress.
Yeah, that kind of effort is not sustainable for more than a few months at most. Trying to push too hard just burns out your best people, even (especially?) if they're part owners.
I think it's an especially bad idea at high levels of the company, because of the long feedback loops. If a line worker makes a mistake, they will hopefully catch that within hours. If they make a bunch, somebody's going to come talk to them in short order. If an executive makes a mistake, it can be months or years before the problem is obvious. But the more tired I am, the more my focus shifts short-term and the less I notice subtleties and small mistakes. increased error rates and long feedback loops are a very bad combination.
[1] http://www.lostgarden.com/2008/09/rules-of-productivity-pres...
> If an executive makes a mistake, it can be months or years before the problem is obvious
To finish the parable: If an engineer makes a mistake, it might not be noticed until users start to die while operating the product.
For Musk it might make sense, but I doubt it makes sense for most of his employees. Its not worth fucking your health and social life up over a payout, unless its huge. The typical Tesla worker isn't going to make enough from it to make it worth it, in my opinion.
> Yeah, that kind of effort is not sustainable for more than a few months at most.
Agreed, although likely you'll experience negative effects much sooner, although you may not properly burn out for a few months. There were some posts on HN recently about the long-lasting health impact stress has.
I just don't get how we just can't over turn them politically state by state in State Elections. How is this not a thing? I live in an At Will State (PA) and it pretty much sucks to have the knowledge I can be fired for any reason and sure I still can sue but I can still lose even though I am 100% in the right.
Isn't there a technical solution to this? Something like an outwardly anonymous social network with "proof" of employment from LinkedIn, where you can pledge to unionize once participation reaches critical mass for your workplace. Yes laws are better, but this could be a decent workaround.
I don't think it's achievable without outside help and political organisation.
Traditionally bootstrapping into a situation where union organising could happen safely and peacefully required a period of violence on the picket lines. There used to be quite a lot of this in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
These days it's even harder in some ways; the more "virtual" an organisation is, the easier it is for the company to just disband and restart it and the harder it is to picket. It's not clear if the various strikes against Uber by its workers have achieved anything.
(someone is downvoting you, but it's not me!)
Surely the big Eastern European union success story was Solidarity? Although I can understand how unions would struggle to operate in the post-communist era.
Could you please explain why, in the age of e-mail and Facebook? People in my country have zero problem organising political events on Facebook, attracting several tens of thousands of visitors to their demonstrations.
This reverses cause and effect: in order for unions to receive any legal protection, they have to exist and fight for it (many members paying very high prices.) The unions precede the legal protection, not the other way around.
Can we make it mandatory for everyone that is anti-Union to have to report to work on Labor Day and also they need to work the previous Saturday since it was normally a six day work week before Unions?
I still don't understand American working force's love affair with the filthy rich individuals and corporations. I am constantly told, "This is just how economy works" from my Father-In-law and other "conservatives."
When I mention that we as the working class are getting less and less of the GDP pie and more is going to the corporations and rich. The feeling is this has always been that way. I immediately say "I'm talking percentage" and sadly the average American is stuck at a 4th grade math level and I guess 4th grade doesn't cover the meaning of percentages.
The filthy rich's best warriors are conservative leaning voters right now and I have no idea how that will ever change.
There's precious little mention of this in history lessons.
Bethlehem Steel had a strike, 9,000 workers complaining about the 12 hour work days and the unsafe work conditions. A policeman shot and killed union striker Joseph Szambo while he was drinking a beer and his wife gave birth to their child a few hours later. This caused Congress to get involved and to actually make Bethlehem Steel change their practices and the Labor Union won. http://bethlehem.thelehighvalleypress.com/2012/09/12/bethleh...
Now fast forward to the 1980s and Bethlehem Steel wasted millions in tax dollars on building a huge corporate office and didn't redo their old steel works and had to go out of business. People like to blame the Union but it was Corporate waste of resources that was the demise of the company. https://www.mcall.com/opinion/white/mc-bw-bethlehem-steel-pl...
Do most people want to overturn them? I think you're assuming that start state and it's perhaps not the case.
> I can be fired for any reason
And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.
False dilemma [1]. There's no reason to assume that by giving up at-will employment, you'll also lose the right to resign for any reason. In fact, there are lots of countries where you can resign for any reason, but can't be fired for every reason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
That's not symmetrical, or if it is, it's symmetrical in the same way as "heads I win, tails you lose." Being fired and quitting both place the entirety of the risk of unemployment on the employee, there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer.
If health insurance wasn't tied to employment in the US, or if there were something like UBI, then the dynamics of at-will employment might be at least more symmetrical.
If there is no power or risk on the part of the employer then why do some countries have a law requiring that you give the employer a notice period? It's to reduce their risk.
In my country can sued for their damages if you leave without a notice period - real damages such as having to hire more expensive temporary staff to do your job until they can find someone else permanent. That's their risk.
In the linked article, it's mentioned that Elon felt a constant need to fire people that he sometimes had to be talked down from, so if the employer risk exists, it doesn't seem to be particularly high in most cases. If the risk for employers was significant, then at-will employment laws wouldn't even exist, because the entire purpose of such laws is to make it arbitrarily easy to fire employees.
The only way at-will employment could truly be symmetrical is if I could walk into work and literally fire any of my managers or the CEO with the same ease with which they could fire me.
But of course, actually applying the power dynamic of at-will employment both ways would just be insane wouldn't it?
I did not say that. You've either mis-read what I said or you're wilfully misunderstanding.
I said that the law is symmetrical. I didn't say the relationship was. I also didn't say that the risk was.
If I run a business and I can't afford you, then I have to continue employing you to the detriment of the rest of the business? One of the guys who reports to me just turned in his 2 weeks notice completely out of the blue. It puts me in a bind because we have more work than people to do it, but I don't harbor any ill will towards him.
I can understand your concern (somewhat), but at the same time, being an at will employee simply isn't something that's even on my radar.
What gives you the idea that you cannot leave anytime you want as an employee?
I frequently hear this being trotted out as the reason why at-will employment is a good thing. This is, however, not the reality. You can fire employees for many reasons: Poor performance, breaking the rules, and - yes - lack of money.
What you cannot do is fire people on the spot for any random reason. You can fire people, but you have to follow a process that is designed to protect both the employer and the employee.
I have had to fire people in my employ a few times, and every time I was annoyed at the length and complication of the process I had to follow. I never once thought that at-will employment was a good alternative. As an employer, I strongly believe that the practice is barbaric and uncivilized.
Well, you can also quit for any reason, at any time
And...? If your business is structured in such a way that this situation would pose an existential threat to your business, you have failed as a business manager. If this situation doesn't pose an existential threat to your business, it is just an annoyance - sucks to be you, I guess. As a reward for the risks and hardships of being a company owner, you get to take home your profits.
First, in an at-will state in the US, except for those cases relating to protected classes, you can indeed legally let any employee go for any random reason you desire. Any "complications" involved have been added by your company, in an attempt to protect them from employee lawsuits.
Let me just cut to the chase and say this as simply as I can. I think at-will employment is a good thing. As an employee I like knowing I can simply decide to quit on a whim and I see no reason an employer shouldn't have the same freedom.
> I see no reason an employer shouldn’t have the same freedom
Because its not an equal relationship. Unless the company is very, very small or badly managed, losing an employee or two is much less of a deal for employers than losing their jobs is for the average employee. If the employer really wants rid of the employee for a legitimate reason, they can do so, they just have to jump through a few hoops. If they want to get rid of the person just because, then no, they can’t do that and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed to either. It encourages an abusive or unfair work environment (work longer/harder/more dangerously or I’ll fire you! for example).
For the average person, losing their job is devistating. For the average company, losing an employee barely registers. Remember, that most employees don’t have the same flexibility and job availability that most of us on HN do, yet the laws still apply the same.
Yet at the same time companies are extremely paranoid about firing people without a good excuse for fear of getting sued. These two sentiments don't really line up.
I remember years ago reading article after article and forum post after forum post about how once we finally deplete oil transportation will revert to the 19th century. I don't read that anymore.
I have little doubt that without Tesla you wouldn't see a dozen other EVs on the market. You might have one or two crappy "compliance cars," but nobody else would be striving to make EVs anyone actually wants to buy.
I am not arguing with you. I don't disagree with much of anything that you wrote.
One of the things that keeps me up at night and frankly depresses me is the question: can you lead or otherwise achieve great things without being an asshole?
Steve Jobs? Asshole. Winston Churchill? Asshole. Stanley Kubrick? Asshole. Bill Gates? Quieter, but judging from MS's behavior in the 80s and 90s, asshole. I could go on.
I'm a founder and have been trying for quite a while to build something great without being an asshole or a total workaholic. It's hard, and I sometimes worry that I'm failing.
Anyone got any good inspiring counterexamples?
I have a speculation about why this might be. The human brain is wired for the much slower, simpler life of a hunter-gatherer. In a modern context most people exist in a state of low-grade depression. We're not really all that driven and our appetite for opportunity and action is calibrated for a world where opportunities for those things are much more rare.
There are ways of tweaking oneself chemically (pun intended): caffeine, amphetamine, cocaine, modafinil. Unfortunately all these have side effects. They accelerate thought but they also muddle or impair it.
But...
Occasionally you get people who are naturally wired with an extreme degree of drive and charisma. It's not that these people are necessarily smarter than everyone else, though some are certainly smart. It's that they operate naturally at a pace that fits the modern world.
Here's where the magic comes in.
Humans are deeply mimetic. We pick up and unconsciously mirror the states of those around us. It's part of why concentrated centers of excellence such as those found in urban settings are often so mysteriously alluring and powerful. When we are around people who are driven to excellence, it increases our drive to excellence.
So you get this positive emotional-mimetic field around these people. Everyone else around them gets tweaked up too.
Unfortunately these traits seem coincident with narcissism, antisocial personality disorders, even full on psychopathy in some cases. So you have these inspiring, driven, animating assholes that seem superhumanly powerful simply because they are not (in modern terms) naturally depressed and anhedonic.
Like I said it's depressing. This is one of those thoughts where if I were proven to be wrong I'd celebrate.
Historically we do seem to need "kings" of some form or another. This makes the requirement socially tautological. Kings have to be assholes because people need asshole kings.
My depressing hypothesis is that because the average human is essentially depressed, un-driven, and anhedonic, we depend on being dominated by hyper-driven assholes to reach our full potential.
What's weird about this is that in a way we are using or even enslaving the king. There's an anthropological hypothesis out there that monarchy evolved in part from the practice of human sacrifice, and when a king's company or country does not perform we still do sacrifice them at least in word if not in deed.
I hypothesize that the conventional model of the "great man" has it wrong. It's not the genius of Steve Jobs or Elon Musk that is driving excellence. It's the drive itself. The actual work at SpaceX or Tesla is being done by the employees, but I question whether the employees could drive themselves to do that work given that we are naturally wired to sit around a campfire, eat, fuck, and occasionally go hunting or berry picking. My hypothesis is that without drive and charisma to emotionally mime, most people don't do much.
I've wondered for a long time if the solution might not be superior stimulant medications. Could we have a king in pill form? Could a simple emotional or even metabolic tweak (again pun intended) eliminate much of the need for inspiring leaders to motivate us?
Now I'm incubating this goofball speculation that the post-enlightenment-era rejection of monarchs was driven in part by importation of coffee reducing the need for kings, which is hilarious and utterly insane. I better get back to work.
Edit:
This whole line of thinking has a big question mark after it. I am speculating and philosophizing, not pronouncing dogma.
I also do not intend anything I wrote as a personal insult against anyone. I've never met Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, and regardless of the circumstances I do think the things they're doing (or did in the former case) are making the world a better place.
I'm just asking if we can find a better way to make the world a better place that is also more compassionate and pleasant at the immediate interpersonal level. You don't solve problems by denying unpleasant realities, so I'm exploring what I see as an unpleasant reality.
We do need drive and charisma to emotionally mime. But the implication of what you’re writing is that the Kings among us manufacture that drive and charisma ourselves.
I have a different hunch about the best way to produce this charisma than you: we don’t need stimulants. We just need placebos and placebo thoughts.
The solution isn’t in “superior stimulant medications” because it seems like the main value people really stimulants is their value as placebos. The solution, IMO, is either in superior PLACEBO medications, or superior methods for people to simply trick themselves into becoming manic.
Like dude just try it as an experiment. Wake up tomorrow and don’t drink coffee. You really think you’re going to crave a king to mimic? What if — just what if — you turn out to be the king ? And what if the only difference between the two outcomes was your willingness to ingest and embrace a “placebo thought” like “IM THE KING!” (Or Zuck’s “Im CEO, Bitch.”) rather than a “superior stimulant medication”?
You don’t need coffee or adderall or “superior stimulants” bro, all stimulants are mostly placebos. All you need is superior “placebo thoughts” that allow you to go from a state of normality/anhedonia/“slight depression” to mania without chemical assistance, IMO.
My 2¢ btw: maybe coffee actually increased the need for kings , because suddenly everyone’s adrenals were fried in the afternoon and they all craved naps and sedatives more. Equally plausible IMO but I like ur theory too.
Oil prices, pollution laws and incentives did, Tesla was the only one in position to profit for it timely
Every company has an electric car in their blueprints, Tesla is the right size to benefit for the small demand that the market created on its own
They turned a hundred million so profit this year right? That's not even enough to consider ending the market for the larger companies. Comparatively they could earn those profit just by tweaking a decimal on their car financing services interest.
Most people will resist change until they are forced into it. Even then some people will literally go down with the ship.
That doesn't correspond with the practical realities. Here are some battery electrics that will be released across the next two years, some of which are already available:
https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/hottest-new-...
Look at what a company like Hyundai is doing. Hyundai produces hydrogen fuel cell cars:
https://www.hyundai.de/Modelle/NEXO.html
Hyundai (with Kia) produces EV versions of the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro, two battery electrics with good range at a more affordable price than the luxury EVs:
https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric
https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/
Hyundai also has plans for on-car solar:
https://electrek.co/2018/10/31/hyundai-kia-solar-roof-electr...
I don't think any of this adds up to them hating EVs. Hyundai is ahead of most companies on the road to the practical, affordable EV.
There is a reason GM, Audi, Daimler etc are shifting to electric vehicles.
GM turned a loss selling nine million vehicles or so, opening a whole line to enter a market which is moving just one million units or so competing with players like Tesla that operate at almost a loss make zero sense.
They'll keep their design fresh and up to date to be ready when the time comes, but so far it's territory of steps and smaller companies that can profit from small production runs
The Tesla Model S, in its main US market, is the leader in the luxury car market. Model 3 is the #1 selling car by revenue.
Production is limited to 2 US factories. Worldwide numbers go up fast when they have a Euro factory, Chinese factory, etc.
> GM turned a loss selling nine million vehicles or so, opening a whole line to enter a market which is moving just one million units or so competing with players like Tesla that operate at almost a loss make zero sense.
And yet they are doing it.
Yes that why they killed the volt
They have those blueprints because of Tesla, they were not going to be nearly as quick to market with electric cars before hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/ZEROEMISSION/HISTORY/RNESSA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
they're all sitting on a lot of technology, the current volume doesn't justify them to push into production, where tesla could use their gung-ho startup attitude and startup capital to run off the equivalent of rounding error for the establishment
They're currently down about $15 billion dollars (and a couple billion more in incentives).
What separates the high achievers, apart from any basic talent and training, is a personality that doesn't experience the relevant kind of pain or discomfort that would discourage them from the task.
For a lot of sports, that means overcompetitive asshole. For a lot of businesses, the same. That personality gets a lot of leeway to optimize towards linear goals. But then you go looking at certain niches and there is nuance. Sometimes it's endurance - masochism. Someone who runs ultramarathons, or repeatedly starts over a speedrun of a classic video game. Sometimes it's a poker player or day trader who can't feel the weight of moving around big stakes. There are many roles where the successful personality isn't the competitive narcissist. But in the specific case of small companies that get very big very quickly, they are prolific.
And that's a point which helps me personally, since I know some things about my comfort zone by now and where the standard advice is going to fail. Only some people are numbed enough to simply "hustle" and succeed. For the rest it's more like a quest to find the right kinds of challenges, the ones that they are most likely to engage with at a high level. When they can do that, people call them a genius. But from their own perspective, it's ordinary, or only somewhat more painful than doing nothing. And this quality of personality matching a high level skillset runs throughout our fictional characters, despite Western society nominally engaging with beliefs of anyone being equally able to learn to do anything. I think we know this and turn our back on it because it uproots several of our major founding myths about society and its potential and whom we should support and how.
Steve jobs did the same thing, their marketing was all about pushing how apple users think different and are changing the world by being mindless consumers
> How much of this money did the employees get for all the overtime they were forced to work?
Did someone somehow compel someone else to work those hours? I imagine most Tesla employees are at the top of their field, and have many jobs to choose from. If someone chose to work like that, there must have been a motivation, it doesn't seem like they would have been forced.
It's a well known fact that people who suffer from severe addictions (drugs, etc) get stuck in the emotional stage of development they were at when the issue started. It wouldn't be crazy to assume that the same effect (to a less extreme degree) will occur for people who devote all their time and effort to very specific facets of their lives.
There's also the fact that the usual social feedback and consequences that regular folk are subjected to don't necessarily apply to successful people: They might not ever be challenged by their circle of yes men, they don't depend on other people to survive so critics can be safely ignored, etc.
The insane work hours stories are just part of the mythology.
I feel like this is exactly the kind of quirky thing he'd do anyway, without all that negative stuff.
The only problem is that then they actually have to manufacture enough cars to drive a competition like that.
[0] https://electrek.co/2018/11/15/tesla-model-3-production-7000... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
In both 2016 and 2017, they said they'd get to a sustainable 5k by the end of 2017. At the end of 2017, they pushed that to Q1/2018. In Q1/2018, they pushed that to Q2. In Q2 they give up on the sustainable part of that and just said they'd do 5k. At the beginning of Q3/2018 they said they'd get to a sustainable 6k/week in Q3. By the end of Q3 they still weren't able to sustain 5k/week. As we approach the end of Q4, everything indicates that they still can't sustain 5k/week.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/comments/6i5aef/wp_a...
Musk really is the asshole abusive boss who gets a pass because of his media fame.
I urge anyone in a situation similar to the employees mentioned in the article to simply quit. Giving up your life and dignity for "the cause" isn't worth it. You aren't changing the world, just killing yourself to make some rich people richer.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000Q9J0RO
It's Lundy Bancroft's, "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". It's the single most astute thing I've ever read. The guy spent more than a decade as a counselor for abusive men, most of them ordered to him by the courts. It's clear he heard an ocean of bullshit and became very good at seeing through it.
It's targeted at domestic abuse, but his insights are so clear and well-explained that it's easy to apply the lessons elsewhere. E.g., a couple of years back my boss got pushed out, so suddenly I was being managed by his boss. I walked out of my first meeting with him wondering what the fuck had just happened; everything I said he jumped on aggressively. But the pattern rang a bell, so I thumbed through the book. He lists a variety of abuser styles, and the one called "Mr. Right" fit him perfectly. In one meeting he hit something like 2/3rds of the items in the checklist.
Had I not read that, I would have probably walked away thinking that the problem was me, even though my original boss had been happy with me and my work. Instead, I was prepared for what came next: a couple more abusive meetings and then a surprise, no-notice "layoff" where I and the other manager my boss hired were pushed out. (And where we were asked to sign a no-disparagement clause if we wanted any severance. Seeing it a further abuser-style manipulation, I passed.)
Over the years I've given away maybe 15 copies of the book, often to people who were in abusive relationships without recognizing it. If you ever even begin to wonder, I strongly recommend reading the book.
Excerpts from Walter Isaacson's biography: https://imgur.com/a/WlJ7wsD
Some videos: http://strategosinc.com/articles/strategy/apple-foxconn-stra...
I've recently read Walter Isaacson's "The Innovators" and there seem to be at least a couple of counterexamples (Robert Noyce for instance). Any other examples of tech leaders who lead their companies in a friendly and open manner and are successful despite (or probably because) of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire
Edit:
Worth reading the list of missions he was on then the description of how he led:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire#Cheshire_as_o...
This piece is okay, it provides a number of anecdotes by former employees, how do we verify these are accurate and not misleading? They square with some former reports, but do not square with other positive anecdotes I've read. This is the problem with using anecdotes as evidence.
In my view, executives and other high-ranking individuals are often mean and unfair due to extreme ambition and very high, sustained stress levels. Could someone without extreme ambition have even gotten to this point with Tesla? Do you recall how many bullshit hit pieces, legal obstacles, and issues there have been standing in Tesla's way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov#Assessment
"He had a great simplicity of manner, and while on a campaign lived as a private soldier, sleeping on straw and contenting himself with the humblest fare.[43] Suvorov was adored by his men and considered victory dependent on the morale, training, and initiative of the front-line soldier. In battle he emphasized speed and mobility, accuracy of gunfire and the use of the bayonet, as well as detailed planning and careful strategy. He abandoned traditional drills and instead communicated with his troops in ways that proved clear and understandable. Suvorov also took great care of his army's supplies and living conditions, reducing cases of illness among his soldiers dramatically."
No one that had a brain would want the guys job. I'm not using it as an excuse, he's not a savior. He is doing neat shit, but he wants an unreal hat trick and is just the same as the rest of us on this rock. Even if/when he leaves, it'll all still be with him.
I think his cars are fun and rockets are cool, but if I think about the human side... it's more than a bit mad.
Yeah China nowadays practice social Darwinism
Claiming that he is not an engineer is just more nonsense. He is the chief engineer of the falcon rocket and many people inside and outside of SpaceX have said to be highly impressed with what he does.
If you don't like Elon that is fine, but this post is just nonsense.
Truth is, much of tech nowadays doesn't even pretend to care about any benefit to society. And spotting a scam, when a part of the scam is literally offering you a sense of self-worth? That requires some rather painful introspection.
And the “Mars is a conspiracy” is just not true. Musk can be sincere in his motivations while still not being pleasant to work with.
Zurich public transport, every single train company. Claiming electric personal cars are a solution to anything is a joke.
> And the “Mars is a conspiracy” is just not true. Musk can be sincere in his motivations while still not being pleasant to work with.
I'm sure he's sincere about colonising Mars. It's just that it's a terrible idea and making it appear as a benefit to society requires some significant mental exercises. But ever since at least Lenin it's pretty much common knowledge that just increases commitment amongst the converted.
You live in an utter delusional fantasy world if you believe that public transport and trains can replace cars.
And you can believe about mars whatever you want. Even if collonisation doesnt happen, getting to mars alone is already a huge achievment. Just the tech the have done so far has been a huge achievment.
You live in an utter delusional fantasy world if you believe that's what I wrote, but we both know that you're consciously strawmanning.
Cars right now are a huge part of total oil consumption replacing that is hugely important. Trains are established technology and no train company in the world is gone reduce total oil consumption at the rate that Tesla is producing cars now DIRECTLY competing against an oil driven resource that is gone be around for 20+ years.
So tell me what other company right now is doing more to reduce oil consumption in transportation and even more important, is growing at the rate Tesla is growing. And that is even without the impact of Tesla on the vehicle market.
Regardless of your non-sequiturs and strawmanning, the Zurich public transport authority http://photo.tramscape.com/trolleybus/2013_mini_trolleybus.j...
Edit: also, a true devotee like you should be aware that Musks main motivation is his hate for traveling with other people, not "reducing the oil consumption."
Mars, well, Elon is a recruitment tool. So, recruiting talents hasn't been an issue for Tesla. There is a natural turnover rate for technical staff either case. Elon figures so long his metrics is okay, everything will be fine, which is "incoming talents ~= outgoing talents" (adjust the operator as company expand or reduction). So far the company has expanded too fast, so Elon let his ego take over to abuse at will. Also probably due to stress, etc. I called "controlled let go." (both the employees and his self control) Haha.
Of course this is just speculation.
It isn't fair (what happened to this engineer), but hardly anything in life is fair. What's important is to realize this and be able to move on. As an engineer in the US, he is already one of the luckiest people on Earth.
I tend to dislike hatchet-jobs like this article, as they're flush with stories that appear absolutely bonkers on the surface, and very light on detail of positive interactions of any kind. The man may be a bit bananas, but all great men and women are, at least a bit. As a cautionary tale, it's a powerful article. But I hardly see it has objective in it's reporting, and serving a somewhat click-baity audience already dubious of the man.
There are too many well-educated, compassionate, clever people out there for “nobody else can do it but this specific abusive asshole” to stand up as an argument.
If we were all nice people who don't mind being last, we wouldn't be "here" now.
Of course, the "non-abusive population" (you name it) have done great things, they help maniacally driven people like Musk to archive things, but they are the ones who lack the assertiveness and initiative, they're the cogs in the machine.
In my mind, this guy should just have "walked it off". But I've developed a thick skin because of my past.
The mind is delicate and fuzzy.
Also one is dealing with far ends of the bell curve by definition - there may not be a replacement with every desired trait. Overfiltering on the irrelevant is the action of literal historical losers like trying "German Physics" or Lysenkoism instead of Bourgeoisie genetics.
Not to mention there are plenty of non-savant assholes in charge - if we want to get rid off assholes wouldn't it make sense to oust the savants last as they have actual utility above the norm?
Part of it might be the "unreasonable man" effect based upon the Shaw quote paraphrased as "A reasonable man adapts to the world while the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself - therefore all hope of progress rests upon the unreasonable man.
Essentially making advances ahead of everyone else requires disregarding what everybody else thinks and not being deterred. So not caring what the naysayers think kind of becomes a prerequisite. One can dissent and not be an asshole but patience is limited.
That can be a hazard for assholishness which combined with some level of obsessiveness means many probably fall into the category of being considered assholes rightfully or not.
The perception itself of being an asshole is itself biased towards the status quo - just look at Eartha Kitt's blackballing over answering the question of the why juvenile delinquency and disaffection was on the rise by pointing out the dissatisfaction over the Vietnam war and being called to give their lives for it.
In the end, as the article mentioned, Tesla got through the 'production hell', October's financial reports were positive and Musk's emotions went back to (more) normal levels.
I don't think he should be written off entirely, but he has a lot of learning and growing to do.