On the course we're currently on, most of the management team is in jeopardy before the labor is. Ai can rapidly streamline operations, but it can't build a 100 million robots in short order.
That article should be considered satire.
When all else fails, just use the "derangement syndrome" tactic. ?
Put yourself back in 1910. When the buggy whip manufacturers were being put out of business by the automobile, would you have envisioned jobs in the computer industry? In aerospace? In biotech? No. If we knew what the next big invention or advancement would be a few decades later, we'd be billionaires. But that doesn't mean there won't be big inventions and advancements. Mankind will always come up with innovations and advancements. It's our nature.
The FAANG software engineers are all master and doctorate degrees competing in 5-7 rounds of interviews to get there for 6-10 jobs with 5,000 people applying day and night differences. Highly competitive market for those.. FAANG - Facebook Amazon
The FAANG software engineers are all master and doctorate degrees competing in 5-7 rounds of interviews to get there for 6-10 jobs with 5,000 people applying day and night differences. Highly competitive market for those.. FAANG - Facebook, Apple, Amazon Netflix Google. The top of the top on of employers.
I would tend to disagree…
I'll bet that $3k, 100#, numerous plastic 'beauty covers' and hundreds of feet of copper wire could come off the top of the MSRP if there were a true 'base model' that did not have any 'extra smart' sensors, cameras, infotainment, power-seats, power frunks, power hatch lifts, etc.
This reminds me of an interesting study that I read about once. In an attempt to determine if luck was an intrinsic factor or something more tangible, people engaged in the study were sorted into two groups: those who thought they were lucky, and those who thought they were unlucky. They then did a few exercises. In the first, people were asked to count the number of times a certain word appeared throughout the newspaper, and were timed. Yet there was a trick: on the second page, hidden away in an advertisement slot, was some phrasing that said "you can stop: this word appears 27 times." As you might expect, people who felt they were lucky were more likely to notice this than people who felt they were unlucky. Some other observations noted that those who felt they were lucky were more likely to make eye contact and smile, which are known (in American culture, at least) to be actions that increase the likelihood of engaging someone in conversation. Social connections, it was posited, are also more likely to lead to more opportunities. So while the study can't exactly prove or disprove luck, it did show that in many cases what people perceive as luck is actually the actions of being observant and social.
A lot of that sounds reasonable, but there are plenty of points that also don't quite match up with what little I know of economics or history. For example, competition should drive down the price of goods and drive up salaries (depending on whether competition is in sales or hiring, although it could be both); I'm also not sure that career jobs were really more common. From what I've read, it was more of a cultural thing. Even "unskilled labor" could be in the same job, or at least with the same company; you'd hear stories of people starting at the bottom and then ending up in management, instead of just getting a degree and jumping into a managerial position like we have now. I have to admit that I just don't know enough to really have a well-reasoned discussion about it much further and to debate any points over why it was different then compared to now.
It is both. It applies wherever there's a market (supply and demand). There's a market for products, and there's also a market for labor.
Really? What fantasy world do you live in?
I didn't even bother quoting the guy because it's just so wildly incorrect.
I've been working at a FAANG company for about a year now as a cloud infrastructure architect, and I only have a bachelor's degree. My degree and time at university never even came up, and I'm only a few years out of college. The interviews were entirely focused on technical and behavioral questions (STAR method).
Tesla in not unionized. Elon's big fear is that if the strike is a success then his workers might decide to unionize.
Tesla workers take home more than ford workers. Those that have been with the company since 2018 taking stock options have between 500k and $1mil in stock already. From janitors to assembly line workers. Intelligent / productive employees would make less money under the union. The same thing happened to amazon workers when they bumped pay and killed bonuses and free stock. The schemes always see the productive employees resources diverted to the lower productivity ones and that's not a healthy change. It costs top performers as they go elsewhere where their utility is rewarded. I was an IT contractor that worked on the servers at a large union's HQ. Wow did that open my eyes into the belly of the beast. The place was outfitted to handle hundreds of employees and I never saw more than 7. That's about all I can say about it.
