In a series of posts on X Monday night, Musk said that he would not want to grow Tesla to become a leader in artificial intelligence and robotics without a compensation plan that would give him ownership of around 25% of the company’s stock. That would be about double the roughly 13% stake he currently owns.

Just casually asking for a roughly 80 Billion dollar pay raise. But at this point would Tesla be better off without him?

  • No1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Every time I leave my house, I see dozens of Teslas driving around. If they’re not profitable, then they’re horrifically bad at making money. They’re ubiquitous. Pretty impressive market penetration for a business run by people who don’t know what they’re doing.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      Their single biggest revenue stream is selling carbon credits. They’re basically a regulatory arbitrage business with a side hustle in cars.

      • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just like Amazon who is a cloud computing company with a side hustle in e-tail or Google which is an ad company with a side hustle in tech.

        In general most people don’t really understand this about big companies.

        • guacupado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah but in their cases the “hustle” got them the funds to move into their current space. Musk just had so much money that Tesla outlasted all the red it was in. Same thing going on with Twitter.

          We all know it’ll never fully go under, he has too much money for it too. It’ll last long enough to sooner or later come back up.

          • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            We all know it’ll never fully go under

            No, it likely won’t, and part of that is also because of who’s invested in the company’s success. Just another example of “too big to fail”.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That depends on how bullshit the numbers really are. If it is just Jack Welch level of financial shenanigans, you can see a stump version of the company eventually surviving. If it is worse than that, then probably not.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Enron was a huge business that had millions of customers. It just happened to lose money while doing so. The crime was that they hid that last part.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Also they deliberately turned off people’s power for more money. Like, scum-of-the-earth.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Might be area dependant. Lots of them where I work at not many at all where I live at about an hour away.