https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discr...
Equal.
> Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter.
I don’t see evidence for this. Sure any examples of discrimination like those in the article are bad. Is it deserving of $137 million in punitive damages that are arbitrarily decided? I don’t think so. But regardless of that case, I am fairly certain most people in Tesla and Musk himself feel race should be a protected class.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...
It's absolutely disgusting whether you agree with his politics or not. As Americans we're better than this.
If that's accurate then the way they're holding it against him is making him follow the existing rules. But maybe that's a smokescreen? I'm unsure how to judge that situation.
But for the topic article, if he's going to be inside the group of people that are cutting federal EV subsidies, I don't think he gets to complain about not getting EV subsidies.
In my opinion 16 years is long enough for the experiment, and it is an appropriate time to discuss the usefulness of EV subsidies going forward.
Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this".
And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff.
E.g, Twitter/X is still flourishing in the US while regulators in the EU frequently threaten it.
Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing.
Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and what the people want are rarely aligned. The Texas government knows this. The people know this (ex Texan here). Its cleverly and not secretly crafted to make it nearly impossible for the state to go blue.
Ted Cruz is a Senator - gerrymandering plays 0 role in his victory, which was far more dominant in 2024 than 2018.
I had a different experience. Watching a Cybertruck which had flat-bottomed itself in sand as my Subaru winched it out made me think more about getting an F-150 lightning.
Both Cybertruck and F-150 are trucks, not cars or SUVs.
> We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait
Just as soon as someone can define what “political views” are and aren’t, I guess? To choose an extreme example: if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected?
It’s very, very difficult to define where “politics” starts and stops.
Bad views are protected. That's the point of it. Not difficult.
Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.
Based on what?
> We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations.
Why would we want to do that? It's also totally impractical because everything is politicized.
Isn't there room for a different "better product" for each individual?
You may like a MacBook and I may prefer a ThinkPad. One is not better than the other, it depends on our individual needs.
My Kia EV6 is a much better car for me than any Tesla.
Just a few of the many reasons:
Physical controls that are so much like my old gas Kia: A stalk for the lights. Another for the wipers. Plenty of buttons on the steering wheel that I can find by touch. And regen paddles like the gear shift paddles on some gas cars, so I can adjust the regen level without taking my eyes off the road. I only rarely have to use the touchscreen while driving.
Dual displays, with essential driving information right in front of me, and "infotainment" functions on the center display.
"Vegan suede" seats that feel like a high quality cloth seat and keep me cooler than a leather seat (vegan or not).
Of course if a Tesla is a better car for you, I have no quarrel with that. I'm glad you found the best car for yourself, just as I have.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...
If this has the same goal (encourage new entrants, diverse sources) then what do you suggest they do?
Here, Newsom is proposing an entirely new incentive that he has designed specifically to exclude Tesla.
Of course the very best thing here would be for the Federal government to maintain the subsidies of the IRA, and then California wouldn’t have to step in with its more limited capabilities in the first place. If that’s important to Tesla, I’m sure they have someone who can talk to the incoming administration about it.
The only justification for such harmful economic policy is political retaliation against Musk. But it is not the role of the government to use taxpayer funds for political retribution against opponents.
Tesla was once a company that was a shining star of environmental hope. The legacy of Tesla providing economic paths to viable EVs shielded the company from the, uh, controversy of its CEO, which my comment history has a history of somewhat reluctant defense.
Tesla is no longer that company. It is a barrier and a hinderance to EV adoption. Tesla is a luxury car company that is only interested in establishing economic moats to its relative monopoly of EVs in America.
- They no longer have any drivetrain or battery technological advantage in the marketplace. They possibly have a minor economic advantage in packaging/integration than US competitors, but while I would once say they had a two year lead on US competitors, they have less than a year now I would roughly guess.
- They DESPERATELY want to keep Chinese EVs out of the marketplace, who have superior economics, possibly superior or at least equal drivetrain/system integration ability, and likely better and more flexible battery pack architectures especially for all the chemistry types (NMC, LFP, Sodium Ion). Thus they want tariffs.
- Tesla has no plan for a mass market city car and other mixed mode electric transportation like motorcycles and mopeds. This is the car of the EV revolution, powered by the revolutionary economics of the sodium ion battery, which should cost 1/3 or less of NMC once it scales. The city car, which I'm actually envisioning as a 10-15k car with 200 miles or range, would help push out USED ice vehicles from the system, not just take a share of new ICE car sales.
- Kind of related to the city car, the EV revolution requires the realization of the cheaper-than-ICE car. Tesla is possibly able to do this, but shows no inclination to deliver this. China or a US-China car company partnership is probably what will deliver this. Tesla is only interested in resisting this prospect.
- IMO Tesla could have pushed its brand and battery economics to lots of two-stroke engine tools and taken the electric lawnmower / leafblower / etc from the "luxury green virtue signalling" category like eGo brands, to a "beats ICE tools".
- Tesla is opposing subsidies, which from a mass market replace-ICE standpoint are absolutely still needed, especially since the total-ownership factor of EVs is now superior in the general sense. But buyers need the immediate price superiority to seal sells.
- Tesla's supercharging network is one of its moats already, and it has done some nods to opening it, but generally Tesla's expansion of the supercharger network hasn't really exploded beyond the needs of what it thinks its own EVs need. Arguably it has disrupted or resisted universal plug interfaces and other standards in favor of its standard.
You can say Tesla isn't obligated to live up to any of this, but their double-mouthed CEO has spouted ideals for a decade, and to some degree they delivered in previous years, but it is clear to me that in recent years they are no longer in the "do no evil".
- EVERYONE wants to keep chinese EVs out of their marketplaces, EU included. It's gov on gov subsidies fighting and you either accept your own markets being crushed by loss-leaders or you don't. The fact that people see this as a red v blue stuff is mind boggling.
- you play politics with your companies, you pay the price. This current admin had an EV summit and didn't invite the top dog? I mean, politics is supposed to be that thing where you swallow your pride and meet with people you don't like. They couldn't do that. What do they expect now?
In general the retconning and my team vs their team you do in the US right now is really on a different level. You have traditional eco camps shitting on ev companies, traditional anti-reds military hawks wanting to stay out of literally rendering the traditional enemies useless, you have that middle east stuff where camps are literally 180 of what they were 10 years ago. This world is going whack, and I can't believe people on the Internet don't see it, and still try to find ways to argue for "their team".
Luckily the people I meet IRL aren't as hyper radicalised as the online folks are. In both red and blue states, the people are ok. Reading stuff online you'd think there's a literal war going on. Hopefully this will pass in a few years...
The EU has plausible progress from its mainline car makers in EV scaling. It can shield an entire industry with tariffs or targeted subsidies. The US is basically Tesla, some early stage startups, and the US companies only doing it because their activist shareholders would fire the US leadership of GM or Ford if they weren't being active.
The US is one company, and per my argument that company is no longer helping the overall health of the EV market. Honestly I think Chinese EVs would be a welcome kickstart to adoption in the US. At a minimum it would probably drive a vast amount of domestic manufacturing for onshore/nearshore chinese car factories, a sort of reverse-transfer of manufacturing technology/practice back to the US from China (from companies that are probably desperate to diversify their global footprint with the dire demographic and authoritarian future of China that is apparent).
If Musk wants to temper tantrum over that little meeting, then he is again not being a CEO. Again, HALF OF THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE DEMOCRATS. So not the middle third/half of Americans, not the quarter-right. You cannot alienate half of your customer base, and Tesla is going to find out what happens if a CEO plays politics.
Tesla is a company of passionate progressive thinking people that were willing to jump on board a radically new car company. Politics will be important to these buyers, because it is part and parcel of the brand identity.
This is marketing 101. Brands == Emotions == Identity == Investment. Musk has shattered the emotional and identity link of a huge amount of current and probably most future customers. For many, it won't just be weakened with some dose of comparmentalization/cognitive dissonance. For a large number, and probably some of the most passionate defenders (like me), it is poisoned.
So the CEO should have swallowed politics and played to his customer base. That is what CEOs and business is about. But that's not what happened.
Almost all Tesla owners I know were proponents and advocates for a decade. Since the election, they are now, at best, rationalizers. Many others regret the purchase and now will just ride out the current car/lease and "Never Tesla" again.
Unless Trump is about to slap tariffs on all EV imports, not just China, it looks like a matter of time before the likes of Hyundai, Honda and Nissan are coming to eat their lunch (and maybe some day the Europeans or Toyota as well, though I'm sceptical).
Especially as Tesla is stuck with fundamentally flawed self-driving features while the others are working to get e.g. Waymo in their cars.
Yes Chinese EVs have superior economics. It's quite difficult to have both high labor rates "living wages!" and cheap cars. Tesla is still the most competitive in this regard vs. other US automakers.
Tesla just announced their mass market robocar. Do you believe they won't actually produce it?
Makes sense to oppose subsidies, Tesla's stance has always been if you remove the subsidies for gas cars then EVs will already be highly competitive just on merit alone.
Tesla has already fully opened the supercharging network including the plug interface. What other company would do that? Imagine if Comcast were forced to share all their cable lines.
It's time Democrats took the lesson.
They're deliberately trying to bolster smaller industry starters... the market in in danger of being a monopoly split between 1 or 2 US brands and the flood Chinese brands...
Tesla is in no danger from this piece of legislation.
Musk committed CEO malpractice. Utter malpractice. One of the cornerstone pillars of Tesla is environmentalist progressivism. There is no way any democrat or environmentalist or liberal can look at this election and stomach buying a Tesla in the future.
At LEAST 50% of Tesla's existing customer base is identified democrats. Every time Trump speaks in the next four years, identified democrats will viscerally feel that, and remember Musk, and blame Tesla.
A car company's MOST IMPORTANT customers are recurring customers. Brand loyalty is paramount to a car brand. Tesla does not have enough right wing converts, especially since they are generally in rural areas underserved or not served by charging infrastructure, to make up for the customer loss.
IMO Musk's stewardship of Tesla has shown huge amounts of failed opportunities:
Primarily, is that after 17 years, Tesla basically sells two cars: a crossover and a sedan, with two sizes. Medium sized and slightly bigger. No delivery trucks, minivans, real pickups, city cars, kei cars, station wagons, sports cars, convertibles, large SUVs, large pickups/commercial vehicle platforms. No heavy machinery, heavy equipment.
To that end, Tesla likely had ample opportunity to push its battery tech, drivetrains, and expertise into far more markets and segments by simply acquiring or partnering with a struggling ICE company (pick any one of a half-dozen that Geely or China have acquired in the last decade).
Tesla could have pushed for advanced/capable PHEVs of high quality (think the Chevy Volt but better) with that cross-partnership and achieved electrification and profits and education of mass market buyers into EV advantages much more quickly and at scale
Tesla could have used the acquired company for downmarket branding and cheaper EVs. It could allow the use of conventional OEM design to more rapidly bring vehicle types to market.
Tesla has not scaled production sufficiently in the last couple years in my opinion. A lot of that is lack of diversification of models, an inability/resistance to use OEM suppliers, and no longer being interested in "gigafactory" construction with the same aggression.
Home solar and home storage is basically a joke and forgotten in Tesla, again, a waste of their once-great brand.
Repairability, quality, customer service, parts availability is pathetically bad, again because of resistance to OEM usage.
Finally, Tesla is likely the least favorite company of the three major ones he heads. He is AWOL from leadership essentially, and it shows.
I guess one could argue that a tax on ICE vehicles are to pay for the externalities of pollution
To reduce air pollution and combat climate change. To encourage ICE manufacturers to switch.
I love my EV that I daily drive back home, but if I, someone who already has the apps and knows how things work, have a problem with it, it's gonna really suck for those who don't. CA should really consider improving local charging infrastructure before sponsoring more EVs on the road.
A significant number of homes only have street parking available, thus no place to plug in. Not having access to home charging makes EV ownership a burden.
A lot of people live in massive multi-family dwellings, where charging infra is difficult or impossible to provide for all residents. If every resident switches to an EV, that's either a lot of load or everyone is left fighting over a limited number of charging stations.
Up north, EV range drops 30-50% during the winter. Maybe that's not a problem if you don't drive much, but most EVs already have shorter ranges than gas.
It seems incredibly impractical to have to schedule your life around EV shortcomings.
The opportunity cost of a world that refuses to stop emitting greenhouse gases because its "impractical to schedule your life around it" gets to pay the costs of climate disaster, food shortages and such. That cost is much higher, but in the future so (perhaps irrationally) time-discounted to appear lower currently.
That said, the BEST solution to commuting is being able to walk to your workplace, but unfortunately with America's terrible zoning policies everything will likely remain super far apart and unusable without a car forevermore.
Then I tried tesla, who really planned for the long term. Many charging locations. Many charging stalls. All of them extremely high power. Their cars had much better range than the competition (at the time). All of that made charging a tesla predictable and dependable. (In stark contrast to the rest)
For example, I didn't know how to lock the car. When I hit lock on the center console, then got out, it would unlock it. Finally had to google to figure out the two ways to lock the car. one was opening the door first, hitting lock, and then closing the door - it stayed locked. The other was to put the card key on the middle pillar.
Same issues charging. Called in and it turned out the j1772 adapter was in the trunk with the charging kit
after that it went smoother.
All the hotels I stayed at had charging.
Using tesla superchargers is great - always working, always plenty of stalls.
And the tesla would drive itself on the freeway - other cars wouldn't. Best.
If you "stay with family" I assume this is a few hours or overnight. Even slow charging from a regular outlet gives enough over night or a 6 hour stay. In Europe a regular outlet can give 3-4kW, so 6 hours is enough to go another 100km.
At work they installed a lot of 11kW chargers. Sure - some might need them, but most people would be fine with topping up their cars every day on a single phase charger. You park there for 6-8 hours, even at 3-4kW that would be enough for a daily 200km commute (which is rare, that guy can go to the 11kW charger).
I stayed in rural Italy with really old crappy electricity. Even there I could hookup the car on single phase at 1kW and keep charging. Two days later it was full again.
Not even close. We don't have a fast charger at home, so just charging from regular outlet. We charge from midnight to 3pm, or 15 hours a day (these are the cheaper hours with PG&E, although still a ripoff).
That's not enough to charge fully in a day. Fortunately my partner only goes to work every other day, so it's ok. If we needed the car every day, it wouldn't work.
I have a Tesla EV. I drive to rural Idaho several times a year to visit family who only have standard 120v20a plugs.
120v * 20a = 2400w - 20% = ~1900w charging.
Now, that's in the summer. In the winter... It's a lot worse. Because to charge, the battery has to be warm. For the battery to be warm, it takes most of those 1900w. Winter charging comes down to about +1 range mile per hour.
Now, I can work around this, and I do. But let's not pretend that charging from a regular outlet is realistic for most people. Hell, 120v charging wouldn't even cover my daily commute. At home, I have the benefit of having a 240v50a outlet, which gives me +45mph, which makes charging something I don't even have to think about.
As for the politicization of this company through his owner, that law is nothing more than a small speed bump because for the 4 next years, people will be outraged the other way around - no doubt that a lot of laws will be passed to favor Tesla (and SpaceX, Starlink, etc.)
Arguably, the only reason Musk has decided to wade into politics is exactly this kind of shit - how can one build a business in an arbitrarily regulated environment, where it’s one rule for me, and one for thee? The regulatory environment is supposed to be impartial, and to act for the greater good - not to be a political weapon to wield against your enemies.
Things which spring to mind:
- the FCC excluding starlink from rural broadband subsidies
- never ending DFEH investigations in California
- disproportionate NHTSA scrutiny compared to other automakers and self-drive systems
- federal EV tax credit exclusion
- FAA foot-dragging over starship
I’m not saying that these are universally regulatory harassment, but one can readily see from how his perspective this paints a pretty damning overall picture, and I can’t say that in his shoes I wouldn’t be going the same way.