The proposed $4,500 personal income tax credit would go to the buyer of a car built by union workers.
Of course the oddity in this determination is that the workers choose whether do unionize, not the company or its customers.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
The proposed $4,500 personal income tax credit would go to the buyer of a car built by union workers.
Of course the oddity in this determination is that the workers choose whether do unionize, not the company or its customers.
That......would not hold up in any courtroom. Period. I'd maybe recommend looking into similar court cases of a similar actions being taken/said. There's zero chance NHSTA would go to court using that argument. You can't claim incompetence........it would actually even further weaken their case and open up the entire agency to questions of it's competence in the legal system. Lots of ramifications there.
I won't respond to anymore posts on this topic, don't want sidetrack the thread. But I would really suggest people looking into how the court/legal system works. In every possible way, the NHSTA collecting data from other L2 systems makes it 10X harder for them to try and go after Tesla's L2 system alone.
Last edited:
Exactly, especially knowing that people aren’t going to plug in the hybrids anyway (charging a small battery is has to be done frequently and for little monetary gain per charge. And it comes in addition to fueling up. Not attractive to do for lazy, eh, efficient induhviduals). For oil companies it will be mostly business as usual, small decline over time. Their representatives in the Houses will be able to live with that.
The NHSTA is setting up a comparison for the Tesla data, simple as that. Which I think we can reasonably say that Tesla has more and better data from their fleet. If the NHSTA then says you can't have level 2 without ___ tracking, other automakers are in more trouble than Tesla (because Tesla is likely far ahead of the curve). If Tesla is demonstrably less safe than competitors (unlikely), there will have to be data to support that... which Tesla will then fix. This is a nothing burger.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
No I do not believe they would be able to do that. I believe that doing something along those lines would be their intention and the calculus would be to hurt Tesla while making it seem like it was across the board.
EDIT: You have to look at what they are aiming to do and then figure out how they will try to get there. What they want is to shut down the release of beta AP/FSD software to consumers (read: the fleet data lead). This is what the OEMs feel gives Tesla an [waaa, unfair] advantage. The competition’s employees/shills always parrot this narrative online - about how Tesla is “irresponsible” putting beta software on the road, and the focus on emergency vehicle crashes is to show how everyone else is in danger, not just the beta users who take responsibility for using the software.
So given the goal….how will NHTSA try to arrive there while avoiding singling Tesla out?
Last edited:
Why are we talking about the New Hampshire School Transport Association?
Sorry I know I said no more posts from me on this but I had to.
If the NHSTA were to try and suspend all ADAS, they would have to list out the exact reason/stipulation for the suspension of all ADAS systems including what would need to be addressed for any ADAS to become active again. Given that we're talking about Tesla here......Tesla would likely have a software update out within a matter of two weeks that addresses the new "requirements" for a ADAS system to be activated. Legacy auto makers on the other hand......would be completely out of luck.
So no, that scenario wouldn't really hurt Tesla and would really cripple all legacy auto. Would take them many months, if not years, to meet the requirements to re-active their ADAS systems.
I actually think when Tesla brings highway driving onto the FSD stack, they will have fundamentally "fixed" all of the issues the NHSTA is calling them out on. Elon said they were planning on combining the stacks with V10, but that it got pushed to V10.1
Speaking of safety and FSD rollouts, does anyone else feel like the next wave of beta testers should not be every FSD unit out there, but rather a selected group of folks from each region to be the early adopters and help with overall risk of inattentiveness among average drivers? Tesla must know whose better at taking over (100's of disengagements, zero collisions here). The same algorithm used for their insurance could be applied here I think. And let SF have at it for wide deployment as the local safety data will obviously suggest. That just seems safest (to my investment and the Tesla brand). I've been seriously trained to drive with this car, it's automatic now, I should be next for Chandler Az. Maybe I'll send another letter to Tesla...
Can anyone argue my point, or are we eager for the full impact of FSD revenue in Q3 and just give the button for all who paid? I myself am quite content in having the small number of Beta testers to this point and perhaps a bit longer. Maybe they can put enough safeguards on forcing user interaction and decisions on when to proceed etc. But still, are most going to even watch the road after just 15 min of using it - it's so good! And so the habitual phone people will just stare at their phones. That's kinda scary. It takes 3 to make an accident now if one of the vehicles is on FSD. If the 2 humans are checked out, there's an added risk for Tesla.
Can anyone argue my point, or are we eager for the full impact of FSD revenue in Q3 and just give the button for all who paid? I myself am quite content in having the small number of Beta testers to this point and perhaps a bit longer. Maybe they can put enough safeguards on forcing user interaction and decisions on when to proceed etc. But still, are most going to even watch the road after just 15 min of using it - it's so good! And so the habitual phone people will just stare at their phones. That's kinda scary. It takes 3 to make an accident now if one of the vehicles is on FSD. If the 2 humans are checked out, there's an added risk for Tesla.
copyhacker
Member
The car makers get the benefit of still not selling any, and being able to point out that no one wants EVs even with such huge subsidies, so can we all just go back to ICE now?
This is possible. Just like they go into Texas to sell trucks, Germany to sell the luxury, and China for the volume cookie cutter and a win/win.
Clearly Tesla does not shy, but instead "holds their enemy even closer" as they say.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
I very much hope you are right. I am not opining whether any such effort on NHTSA’s part would actually be successful or whether Tesla would have the ability to counter. Certainly we all hope and assume that Tesla’s technological expertise and plentiful data will always be able to win in the end.
But in the meantime the other side is not going play fair, increasingly so. That should be obvious with the laughable EV rebate we’ve been discussing.
For the record, none of this affects my long-term investment thesis. It’s not fear I have but frustration with entities who will delay progress, circumvent increased safety, and attempt to stifle innovation purely because they are being out-innovated into a better future. Their behavior is predictable and despicable.
NHTSA finding possible faults brakes 
down into two parts:
1) Is Tesla worse than other systems in avoiding emergency vehicles? Seems extremely doubtful. But if so, Tesla might be forced to raise to other automaker’s standards.
2) Are Tesla drivers less attentive resulting in more accidents? If so:
down into two parts:1) Is Tesla worse than other systems in avoiding emergency vehicles? Seems extremely doubtful. But if so, Tesla might be forced to raise to other automaker’s standards.
2) Are Tesla drivers less attentive resulting in more accidents? If so:
Is the reason that AP is so much better, drivers have more confidence? Don’t know what NHTSA could do here
is the reason that Tesla’s driver monitoring system is inferior? Tesla might be forced to improve driver monitoring.
From all of the NHTSA wording, I believe worst case is Tesla has to use cabin cam to monitor drivers. And I believe they are already starting to do this, so it probably would not be a big deal at all.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
NHTSA finding possible faults brakes
1) Is Tesla worse than other systems in avoiding emergency vehicles? Seems extremely doubtful. But if so, Tesla might be forced to raise to other automaker’s standards.
2) Are Tesla drivers less attentive resulting in more accidents? If so:
Is the reason that AP is so much better, drivers have more confidence? Don’t know what NHTSA could do hereis the reason that Tesla’s driver monitoring system is inferior? Tesla might be forced to improve driver monitoring.From all of the NHTSA wording, I believe worst case is Tesla has to use cabin cam to monitor drivers. And I believe they are already starting to do this, so it probably would not be a big deal at all.
Funny you ask that second point. Fredtrek just ran a story yesterday about a published study on that very question. Interesting timing.
You mean the button that Elon called «public opt in request button»? I do still not think he would so elaborately name it if it was an «on»-button for FSD…
As @mongo explained, this tweet is about rendering on the display.
However running the vehicle in pre-mapped areas ala Waymo, Cruise et al, makes unknown object in the road problem FAR easier (so long as maps are up to date
.‘The concrete pillars problem wouldn’t exist because they would have pre-mapped and the car would never attemp driving through them.
And because they already know where the driveable paths are and the exact elevation of every centimeter of the road, any foreign object in the road would stick out because the sensors are seeing a difference between the map and what they’re detecting.
jhm
Well-Known Member
I think the basic intent here is to increase demand for union-made vehicles and thereby create or sustain more union jobs. I'm not arguing that this is good policy. It could just lead to the creation of new unions that merely organize social events for workers.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
This is exactly what will happen and why it is such poor legislation. Do not underestimate Tesla factory workers’ dedication to the mission and the response to it being so blatantly disadvantaged. A bone for unions is fine. Maybe 500 or 1000 could fly without anyone caring. 4500 is bollocks.
Who receives the credit depends on demand. The benefit is definitely split in some way.
Perhaps Tesla can suggest to their workers that they create a non-binding union that only does that sort of thing. In return the union will receive $1k per car built to be doled out to members on a quarterly basis. Prevents Unions from choking Tesla, helps Tesla employees, and gives the UAW the biggest middle finger possible.
Rivian begins production, and Gordon is confused.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Tesla could easily play the game. Encourage all Tesla workers to form an independent union. Tesla could grant the union a certain number of shares per vehicle sold, and the union could distribute the pool of shares to union members in any manner that the union members vote to approve. This sort of union-distributed stock grant would align the union and member to unit production goals, cars per unit of labor productivity gains, and general shareholder value creation.
It'd be hard for the UAW or any other traditional union to offer a better deal.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
