MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I already started a thread. Hoping to get some questions answered from someone in Austin before I post a follow up.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I'd rather have access to inside information. I believe it's more fun to be shooting fish in a barrel.
I'd love to have 3-4 factory tours per year hosted by IR.
Last edited:
Tesla offers ‘$30,000 showroom discounts’ and lowers interest rates to boost sales before end of the quarter
Model S/X Interior refresh coming??
Model S/X Interior refresh coming??
Reciprocity
Active Member
Dont know why I never checked this before.. Montana Skeptic has 975 followers on twitter, about as many as my gold fish. Speigel has 3000ish, about as many as the cat that ate my goldfish. They spend all day on Twitter and that is all they have to show for it? It would be joke if it wasnt so sad.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
I really appreciate seeing opinions from people from other parts of the country, in SF Bay Areas you don't find too many Trump voters to discuss politics with.
OT discussion regarding govt assistance:
At least in SF Bay Area, I don't see how someone making minimum wages can make ends meet, when it costs $2K-$3k to rent a 1-bdroom apart in San Jose, which is not even close to some of the more desirable neighborhoods in the area. If you make $10/hr, and work 40hrs, you can't even make enough to cover the rent. So solution is to live 2 hours away, and work longer hours, like a 12 hr work day + 4 hr commute, so you make ~$3K a month, and still spend $1K on rent, even living 2 hrs away from your job. So you have $2K left for taxes, food, car, bills, try to save up for retirement, maybe even have to pay for healthcare, and if you want to have kids you're pretty much screwed. Education is not always the solution because someone will always be doing these minimum wage jobs.
The best way out IMO is to pay high enough wages so people can actually live on their jobs. But that's not the case. Right now businesses are squeezing profits out of their payroll, and passing on to consumers as low prices. And in turn the govt taxes businesses and consumers and pass some of those tax money go back to the minimum wage people who needs help. I would rather prefer seeing this money go directly to people via a higher minimum wages in the 1st place, instead of passing through the govt, which introduces inefficiency.
Buddyroe
Active Member
Well, speaking of SF and other western cities, I'm about sick of hearing the term "living wage". The plain and simple fact is, the market should ALWAYS decide what a job pays. NEVER in a million years can you artificially pay someone enough to live on. It simply cannot happen. Take Walmart for example (since you hear about their workers in the news constantly). For the most part, those jobs are unskilled, no-education required type jobs. Those jobs are NOT the kinds of jobs we want people working in if we want to grow our economy and provide a higher level of wealth for everyone. Here's why you can never artificially pay people enough to get out of poverty for unskilled jobs. If you pay Walmart workers $25 an hour, what is the welder, or the electrician helper, or whatever mid-level skill job worker going to say - "hey, I can go to work at Walmart and make as much as I can doing this hot, crappy job. And so, he either gets a raise, or he goes and finds a cushy job like a Walmart job. But that isn't going to happen. The person he works for WILL pay to keep these workers (or take the business overseas). Then, the supervisor of these jobs thinks the same thing - "hey, my workers are making almost as much as me. I want a raise too." You see, the labor market will ALWAYS adjust for minimum wage or whatever you try to pay the unskilled workers. And what you wind up with is nothing more than inflation. Every product and service cost will rise be exactly the percentage the unskilled workers wages rose by. The person who used to make $10 an hour who thought life would be much better at $25 an hour simply has to pay more to live - and ends up in the same position. So you can't artificially pay someone a salary and think you're helping them. You won't. It's just a basic math and economics fact. No one will EVER be able to change that. If $15 an hour would help people out of poverty, let's just pay them $50 an hour and we can all live good!
And further, the worst thing you can do for your labor pool is pay people to stay in non-skill jobs. How good do you think our economy will be if we become a country who can only sell Chinese products at Walmart or flip burgers at McDonalds? No, those jobs should be HARD to fill and taken by high school / college students, 2nd incomes, and the elderly who more work to fill their time than for the money. We want to make those jobs be as crappy as possible so people will IMPROVE themselves with job training, technical skills, or college degrees. These are the workers we need. That's how you grow your economy and raise the standard of living - not trying to pay unskilled workers more. We have a shortage of skilled and college educated workers in this country because people are content to work at Walmart and collect Welfare. If those people were simply left to fend for themselves, and we instead used that money to make technical school and college very accessible (for those with the drive to go get that training/education), people would work hard to move into those higher paying jobs and companies would have a much greater labor pool. Instead, most companies have to leave America not because the necessarily want to, but because they simply can't find workers in America.
So when you say you'd rather just pay people instead of supplementing their income with welfare - you are 100% correct. But, that is done by the person themselves bettering themselves and moving into a position that pays them enough to live on.
I'll stop the rant now.
PS: I can't STAND Donald Trump. And I didn't vote for him.
Buddyroe
Active Member
I can't believe this would be news to Tesla investors. The first thing I check every morning is the teslainventory.com page to see the cars added that night - these $30k+ discounts have been out there for about 5 or 6 days now.
Of course, I have added incentive to watch that list - I'm trying hard to buy my wife an S.
larmor
Active Member
Pre release known news and facts prior to release of unknown news--model 3 deliveries, industrial scale TE, etc. Yin and yang...I can't believe this would be news to Tesla investors. The first thing I check every morning is the teslainventory.com page to see the cars added that night - these $30k+ discounts have been out there for about 5 or 6 days now.
Of course, I have added incentive to watch that list - I'm trying hard to buy my wife an S.
SebastianR
Active Member
That's my reading of it. Gotta clear out those high-end cars for those who need the latest and greatest before the latest and greatest is "only" the second latest and greatest... (<= if that makes any sense to anybody)
Mod ResponseWritten during Colonoscopy prep....not responsible for small details like dates...mods, please move this post to the "TMI" thread.
Or maybe to a "Colonoscopy Prep" thread. I've created a couple of posts like that myself.
A more cynical take is that they want to hit the 25000+ target and since this quarter the margin will jump the shark anyway (thanks to the model 3) they can hide it.
BTW. Since when liberals care about the poor, look what happened to poor Bernie in your pre election LOL
This definitely bodes well for Q3 numbers. I've come around to the conclusion that InsideEVs numbers are usually directionally correct, absent any information we have that Tesla is prioritizing a certain region's deliveries more than others (which could throw off ratios, InsideEVs is only good for US estimates).
An increase from 5190 to 6800 is significant, and even more so when you consider that the inventory push for Q3 sales (see S and X threads on this) will not hit at all until September numbers are out. To me, it appears they are going for a repeat of 2016 Q3, where they cleared out inventory in Q3 and then put out an update in October to drive Q4 sales.
Hopefully they can spring a surprise on us for Q3 and not telegraph it in a leaked Elon letter to employees! They have already lowered expectations with margins given the Model 3 ramp but I think they will come on strong with S/X sales. They already hinted at increased S/X demand in the Q2 release. Big S/X numbers would be hugely bullish and could drive the stock re: Q3 earnings, putting another nail in the coffin for bears' baseless argument that Model 3 would crater S/X sales.
erthquake
Active Member
Yep. Dead giveaway that someone can't sing and voice is heavily auto-tuned is that you don't hear any vibrato on sustained notes, if there even are any sustained notes. Also obvious auto-tuning when he sings "again" at 0:28 *cringe*.
Last edited:
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Taking it further OT, besides the auto-tune, The Millennial Whoop really ticks me off. One more algo bot we need to kill off.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Cadillac's Super Cruise-equipped CT6 sedan to start at $71,300
DETROIT -- Top-end Cadillac CT6 models with the Super Cruise semiautonomous driving system will start at about $71,300 -- in-line with an entry-level, tax-credited Tesla Model S equipped with similar technology.
Uwe Ellinghaus, Cadillac chief marketing officer, on Thursday confirmed Super Cruise will be a $5,000 option beginning this fall on the CT6 Premium Luxury trim, which starts at $66,290, including shipping. The system, as first reported by Automotive News, will be standard on the top-end CT6 Platinum model. That model will start at $85,290, including shipping -- a $500 increase from the 2017 model year but the same as the initial 2018 pricing.
DETROIT -- Top-end Cadillac CT6 models with the Super Cruise semiautonomous driving system will start at about $71,300 -- in-line with an entry-level, tax-credited Tesla Model S equipped with similar technology.
Uwe Ellinghaus, Cadillac chief marketing officer, on Thursday confirmed Super Cruise will be a $5,000 option beginning this fall on the CT6 Premium Luxury trim, which starts at $66,290, including shipping. The system, as first reported by Automotive News, will be standard on the top-end CT6 Platinum model. That model will start at $85,290, including shipping -- a $500 increase from the 2017 model year but the same as the initial 2018 pricing.
Don't believe this has been posted in either of the "roundtable" threads, but, apparently Morgan Stanley issued yesterday what Barron's called a "massive" report, that "explore{s} nearly every aspect of the electric vehicle universe from the automakers to infrastructure to metals demand from batteries."
I know we've seen very varied quality of analysis from Adam Jonas... from assertions it is hard to imagine he actually believes himself, to deep and quite well predictive analysis looking at developments far further out into the future than nearly all other WS brokerage analysis (such as, their March 2011 upgrade to $70 based on seeing the EV future, Tesla thriving in the 2020s, and arriving at his price target by modeling revenues and profits 10-15 years out into the future (I believe the first on WS to do so by quite a wide margin) ).
The Barron's piece doesn't include much from the new MS report, but it's interesting to know this new very broad analysis is out there. Perhaps the report is part of Jonas setting the stage to move away in the coming months from his current narrative on Tesla Auto and its anemic volumes. While it could be gibberish, it may be that this report has quite a lot of value.
Tesla: The Right Electric Vehicle at the Right Price?
I know we've seen very varied quality of analysis from Adam Jonas... from assertions it is hard to imagine he actually believes himself, to deep and quite well predictive analysis looking at developments far further out into the future than nearly all other WS brokerage analysis (such as, their March 2011 upgrade to $70 based on seeing the EV future, Tesla thriving in the 2020s, and arriving at his price target by modeling revenues and profits 10-15 years out into the future (I believe the first on WS to do so by quite a wide margin) ).
The Barron's piece doesn't include much from the new MS report, but it's interesting to know this new very broad analysis is out there. Perhaps the report is part of Jonas setting the stage to move away in the coming months from his current narrative on Tesla Auto and its anemic volumes. While it could be gibberish, it may be that this report has quite a lot of value.
Tesla: The Right Electric Vehicle at the Right Price?
Last edited:
Great headline from Anton Wahlman on Seeking Alpha: "August Sales Are In: Chevrolet Bolt EV Outsold Tesla Model 3 To The Tune of 28:1"
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
