California’s Electric Grid Is Near Collapse

California = No new gas vehicles to be sold by 2035.

Also California = Not enough electricity to turn on the A/C but expect millions of vehicles to be charged by electricity.

What is going on here? No wonder Elon Musk left and is going to Texas.

 

Really good point!

 

It's run by Democrats, nothing makes sense LOL...

 

Well, Tesla is reportedly planning to sell $25,000 sedans within the next 2-3 years so there's a very big possibility that electric vehicles will replace gas vehicles for many individuals. I'm waiting out on the cybertruck myself lol

 

They are selling the cybertruck that will be out next year or within two years. I expect the next 2-4 years to be huge for Tesla in pushing electric vehicles. It's not if but when electric will dominate the market.

 

Didn't know where to post this. Here is as good a place as any I suppose with what they do to businesses in this state and then wonder why so many up and leave and take their tax paying dollars with them.

Of course it's just not fair that CEO's of companies make much more than rank and file employees.




In SF this was a measure that passed. Coming to a city near you soon?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/san-...-companies-with-overpaid-ce-os-193936168.html

 

I don’t know what to say about this. I’m not a fan of capping earnings on the best performers in the world.

the right CEO can make the difference between success and failure for a company. At the end of the year, if you have been super profitable, our corporation laws require disbursement of profits or your face double taxation later. So you are faced with giving bonuses to your top people, or considering companywide bonuses.

historically though, what companies have found, is that if you ever bonus a lower tier employee during a good year based on company profits, they will always be dissatisfied for the rest of their tenure thinking they are worth more than they are, and that other bonuses are not enough and that you’re trying to cheat them if it ever goes down. It’s a lose lose scenario.

so they pay their top executives, make capital investments, etc. Telling a company how much money they can pay top executives is dangerous territory. Where does that stop?

any major city or state willing to make that policy must be willing to lose some of their largest tax generation businesses because it will happen. if not over the bonuses, over the fact that the state or city thinks they have a right to tell you how much you can pay your people. If I start and run a successful business and put in 80+ hour weeks as the CEO, you’re going to tell me what I can pay myself? Eff you.

The threshold of the size business they are saying it applies to it’s actually a pretty small business, so they are meddling in companies that potentially have less than 20 employees.

The politicians who come up with these ideas have never successfully run their own businesses or know what it takes, so I find it hilarious that they are the ones making policy for how things should go.

 

It’s a nuanced issue.

I think the growing wealth inequality in our country IS a major issue, and we do have situations where many CEO’s get to a point where the corporation becomes a self-sufficient machine fueled on the labor of working people. The value of the CEO diminishes, yet their salaries grow disproportionately relative to the labor force that generates that same profit lining the CEO’s pockets. It’s not as simple as chalking it up to lazy workers whining about things being unfair. The pie chart is legitimately getting divvied up in an increasingly unfair manner, and spoiler alert, most of us are never going to be in the slice of the pie chart held by these CEO’s. We often have the idealistic thoughts of “well one day I may want to rise to the rank of CEO because I work hard, so I wouldn’t want their salaries restricted”, not realizing that this very issue of growing wealth inequality restricts our social/economic mobility regardless of how hard we work or how much value we produce for our parent companies.

On the other hand, you have many CEO’s whose vision and decision making continues to be a major driving force in the company’s success. They are put in difficult positions and have to evaluate various aspects of their company’s workflow on a level that 99.9% of their workforce would never be capable of. They are directly responsible for steering their company in a way that maximizes revenue and keeps stockholders happy. They work more and tougher hours then their labor force can comprehend. They may even be in situations where they offer their standard employees a small stock, and so the CEO’s production results in a win/win for everyone. It’s not as simple as “rich man bad”.

But I think the article and the above comments have touched on the main problem with all this. No matter where you stand on this ideologically, even if we get consensus that the ever increasing wealth inequality IS a problem ... are we really going to trust our politicians to come up with the solution?

As evident in this case, the policy seems extremely short-sighted with an end result that doesn’t achieve the desired outcome. It come across as bamboozling the overly liberal electorate of SF into something that may generate more revenue for the city. But doesn’t actually address the problem it’s been sold on, may hurt smaller businesses, and likely doesn’t put a dent in the big tech companies in the area that are bigger culprits in the problem.

To be clear, I don’t think unrestricted capitalism is the solution either. But neither is short-sighted policies from local politicians looking to keep voters happy in the short term.

 

If they chase more small businesses out of their market they may regret it. But there are no easy solution. Bonuses are market driven. It doesn't end up giving the employees more money to cap that amount. The company will be forced to seek other tax shelters and make purchases they may not need or want to prevent double taxation, but to suddenly thing they should bonus each and every employee won't happen for the reasons described above. it's not sustainable, and eventually only creates unrealistic demands and unhappy employees that become misinformed and entitled. Not all of course, but that's what the studies clearly show.

 

You know, I am not against electric vehicles at all. I just wanted to wait until they were actually competitive with gasoline vehicles. I think Tesla has shown they can be. I really like the idea of having solar panels on my house and being able to charge my car for relatively nothing, cost wise. Now if they can only set it up where you can get a 1000 miles on a charge. That will be the deal breaker for me.

 

I don't know if 1000 miles on a charge is possible right now and won't be for the foreseeable future. I mean, even the most efficient gas vehicles are like what? 400-500 miles on a full tank? It would be nice if they could have swap-out batteries and charge some sort of annual fee to use it. I think the biggest issue Tesla faces is a lack of supercharging across the states. I wouldn't trust riding a Tesla across country. But if you are a casual driver who drives locally, 350 miles on their Model 3 is more than enough. There are definitely benefits to both gas and electric refueling. Gas is quicker but you have to go to the gas station. Teslas, if you drive casually and have a charger installed in your home = 100% charge every time you use your car. Their strategy right now is to install superchargers in shopping markets so you'll be able to charge your vehicle and shop without wasting any valuable time. The tip with Tesla's is that it takes around 15 minutes to charge your Tesla vehicle up to 75-80%. The longest charging time is getting it to be full. I'll probably get the Cybertruck within a few years but if the $25,000 sedan comes out, it's pretty much going to change the game.

 

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/california-may-face-thanksgiving-power-221206948.html

 

Interesting. Makes sense if it comes to it, but sounds like a lot of people aren’t gonna be too happy about it.

 

California is such a cluster F.