6 ms·

The workers also contributed to that 92% increase in profit.

• waynesonfire 3y ago
  And they got 18.1% for it.
  • toomuchtodo 3y ago
    The effort is to close that gap. Can’t build cars without workers. Elon famously tried and failed. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-says-humans-are-underrated-calls-teslas-excessive-automation-a-mistake/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-says-humans-are-... (“Elon Musk says ‘humans are underrated,’ calls Tesla’s ‘excessive automation’ a ‘mistake’”)
    • dgacmu 3y ago
      Tangent: This is a mathematically muddled discussion that turns out to be about right anyway. If profits went from $5 per year to 10, they increased by 100%, but that doesn't mean that you have room for a 100% increase in everybody's salaries. A much better way to have this discussion would be to look at the dollar value increase in profits versus salaries. Profits are forecast to be about $32b in 2023, up from about $19b in 2013. At about 240k total employees, and an average union pay of about $30/hr - call that about $90k year fully burdened per employee - a 40% increase would cost the company about $8.6B, or about 2/3 of the growth in profits. That may be overestimating the costs, as there are only 146k workers in the union, in which case the $5.2b increase in employee costs is... 40% of the profit growth, which seems like an entirely reasonable split of employee vs shareholder gains.