California Reject's SpaceX's Request for Subsidies, Citing Musk's Tweet About Relocating (reuters.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes Reuters:
A California state panel on Friday rejected a request from Elon Musk's SpaceX for $655,500 in state job and training funds, citing the chief executive's recent threats to move Tesla, the electric carmaker that he also runs, out of the state...
Five members of California's Employment Training Panel voted to reject the proposal and two voted for it, with one member absent, after discussing Musk's tweets on Tesla's reopening and media reports of layoffs at SpaceX's Hawthorne, California headquarters in recent years. "In my opinion, given the recent threats of the CEO to leave the state of California, and everything else we've discussed today, this proposal does not rise to the level for me to feel secure in supporting it," said Gretchen Newsom, a panel member and the political director of an IBEW electrical workers union local... Though a small amount of money, the funding was opposed by organized labor groups. Tesla and SpaceX are both nonunion shops...
SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Five members of California's Employment Training Panel voted to reject the proposal and two voted for it, with one member absent, after discussing Musk's tweets on Tesla's reopening and media reports of layoffs at SpaceX's Hawthorne, California headquarters in recent years. "In my opinion, given the recent threats of the CEO to leave the state of California, and everything else we've discussed today, this proposal does not rise to the level for me to feel secure in supporting it," said Gretchen Newsom, a panel member and the political director of an IBEW electrical workers union local... Though a small amount of money, the funding was opposed by organized labor groups. Tesla and SpaceX are both nonunion shops...
SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
GIRL FIGHT!!! Musk vs. California (Score:3, Funny)
Who did this hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did this hurt Musk? no. Did this hurt the workers who were going to be retrained? Heck yes.
Re:Who did this hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
But did this help the state? Yes, because they didn't give subsidies to a company that may likely move out of the state. More governments should look at these subsidies and do similar things. To me, all subsidies given to businesses should have strings attached and penalties. For example, it a company says they are going to employ X amount of workers, if they do not meet that then they should have to pay back the subsidy as they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming the worker would relocate to follow Tesla. I don't think that is likely for these jobs. The worker would more likely switch to another job in the Bay area. The skills are the property of the worker, not the company.
Re: (Score:2)
and what are you assuming, hypocrite?
"Did this hurt the workers who were going to be retrained? Heck yes."
Re: Who did this hurt? (Score:5, Informative)
You're not a lawyer, so stop pretending to be one on the Internet. I am a corporate lawyer. Everything that you've written here is crap. Don't take my word for it even [medium.com], any casual search will demonstrate otherwise. Notable law schools [cornell.edu] teach otherwise.
And no, I can't be silenced with lame threats of the unauthorized practice of law for saying this. So run along along now.
Re: (Score:2)
But it has to be true, he repeated more than 19 times!
Re: Who did this hurt? (Score:2)
Thank you for that, +1 informative :)
CEO's job description is to not do profitable thin (Score:5, Informative)
One of the resident attorneys pointed out that you are mistaken about what fiduciary duty is, but didn't explain what it actually is. I'll fill in that gap by explaining briefly.
It's also worth noting that one of the primary jobs of an executive or board member of a large, growing company is they need to decide which "good ideas" to NOT do. It's literally their job to decide not to move, even though it would be beneficial to do so. More on that in a moment. First, let's clear up what "fiduciary duty" actually means.
You weren't TOO far off - there is an element of a duty to not do things that harm the shareholders, to avoid things the things the shareholders would want you to avoid. There are two additional elements, critical elements that are overlooked in AOC-style rants. It would a breach of the duty if Musk was in the middle of making the move and then stopped *because* Gavin Newsom paid Musk $30 million into his *personal* bank account. A fiduciary is barred from using the assets (the company in this case) in a way that the fiduciary personally benefits at the cost of harming the shareholder.
The most simple example of that would be if Musk simply took Tesla cash and put it into his own pocket (other than board-approved compensation). Fiduciary duty basically says the CEO isn't allowed to take company property and put it into his own pocket through any more complex method either. That's really all fiduciary duty is - the officers aren't allowed to take the company money for themselves, including in a clever way.
Note that does NOT prevent the officers from deciding to give company money away, such as to charity. Companies give away a lot of money. Some companies like Ben & Jerry's and Paul Newman's have giving as a significant part of the reason they exist. The executives just can't give the money to THEMSELVES, or of course to their wives etc.
The Ben and Jerry's example brings up the other part of fiduciary duty. It's not just about financial gain. Ben and Jerry's stockholders want the company to be green etc, placing other considerations ahead of profit at times, so the executives have to do that. They need to use company assets in the way that the owners of those assets (the stockholders) want them to be used. So that's fiduciary duty - the executives aren't allowed to steal the company money, taking it for themselves and damaging the stockholders.
I mentioned that the job of the CEO in a large, rapidly growing company is to decide which beneficial projects won't be done. Here's an example. Suppose Tesla has $100 million available for medium-term investment in the coming year. The various department heads propose these projects, which would all be beneficial:
If the company spends $100 million and one year moving, that will reduce their costs by $140 million over the next five years.
If the company invests $30 million in buying, installing, and training on new tooling, it will reduce costs and therefore increase profit by $40 million per year.
If the company invests $20 million in risk-reduction measures including cybersecurity and futures contracts, that will reduce by 80% the risk of losing $100 million due to identified threats such as cyberattacks and supply-chain disruption.
If the company spends $20 million buying an innovative battery-chemistry research company and integrating it with Tesla there is a 30% chance of a $100 gain over four years.
All of those projects are expected to be beneficial. The job of the CEO is to decide which projects to spend the available $100 million on, and therefore which projects to NOT do - even though they would be beneficial.
Ps - doing bad vs failing to do good (Score:2)
Ps another misunderstanding in GP post is about doing harmful things vs failing to do good things. Doing something harmful to the principal can be a breach of fiduciary duty. It's phrased that way as opposed to "failing to do something beneficial". So "failing to move" wouldn't be an actionable breach.
Why is it determined that way? Because there are an unlimited number of potentially beneficial things that a fiduciary could do. With only 24 hours in a day, they only have time to 0.001% of the things that
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the point. You could say "failing to" a million different things is bad. Therefore there is no fiduciary duty to do. You don't get in trouble for "failing to ...". You get in trouble for affirmatively doing something bad.
Of course there are SPECIFIC things a fiduciary must do, laid out in statute. There is no general duty to do all things that might be good. So even if no were a good idea, there is no duty to move. If you DO move to a new, there is a duty to inform the beneficiary owne
Re: (Score:2)
The medium.com article was linked to explain what it is. I don't always invest a lot of time in writing replies, especially to someone whose posts are routinely limited to two to three sentences of questionable merit. But I do vet the things that I link and select them for a good reason.
Re:Who did this hurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
But did this help the state? Yes, because they didn't give subsidies to a company that may likely move out of the state.
Nope. Tesla threatened to move out. This subsidy is for SpaceX. It's a bit strange to punish company Y for the actions of company X, even if they have the same owner. They are two separate legal entities. Though by the same token, it's not very clever of Musk to ask for a handout on one side, and angrily threaten to pack up and leave on the other.
But what surprises me most is that this subsidy is subject to a board vote, rather than being granted or rejected on written criteria. The criteria are likely to be a bit vague, especially since a lot of them were drawn up in a hurry, but the discussion (and perhaps subsequent vote) of the board should be on whether or not the SpaceX application meets the criteria, regardless of what is going on at Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
This subsidy is for SpaceX. It's a bit strange to punish company Y for the actions of company X, even if they have the same owner
SpaceX is a privately-held company, so the whims of its owner can have far more effect than Tesla.
He can make SpaceX do anything on a whim. With Tesla, he'd have to justify the move to the board and shareholders (admittedly, with today's boardrooms that isn't very hard).
Re: (Score:2)
The only workers you have no problem replacing are the broom pushers. Even burger flippers have to undergo training.
A cataclysmic upheaval in the SpaceX workforce would be a bump in the road, to be sure. But it's not that different than the Far East earthquakes that rattled semiconductor production some years ago. The all-devouring machine of capitalism moves inexorably forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Broom pushers, eh?
Back in the days of MCL & BFR, Space-X was hiring and training people with composites & building composite tanks and rocket bodies in the Port of L.A. Once Space-X pivoted to Stainless Steel, most of those people were let go and Space-X started building Spaceship in Texas with people who had experience building Water Towers. Those water tower builders have been training themselves how to build Starship iteratively by building and testing with the help of specialists that Space-X ha
Re: SpaceX also employs a ton of people (Score:2)
If tech leaves you can get that 2 bedroom starter house for $150k and you'd be over paying.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, his beef really was with Alameda County.
SpaceX is headquartered in Hawthorne, CA which is in Los Angeles County and has made no noise whatsoever about moving.
If you're going to move to get away from a particular county and absorb all the costs of doing so, you may as well look for the best deal you can, and that won't be in California. Everyone knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
Timeline:
Space-X requests educational subsidies from CA
COVID-19
Tesla publishes 69 page report on how they can start back up safely
Musk has gets pissed off by county officials blocking Freemont's re-opening and says that he's moving Tesla Headquarters out of CA
Committee denies credits to Space-X workers
How, exactly is it "not very clever" of Musk to be unable to read into the future?
Re: (Score:3)
Subsidies are fine, but there should be consequences if the company doesn’t live up to its end. For example if a company moves out of the area before a certain stated period, then there should be legal penalties equal or more than the subsidy value.
This may already be the case in the subsidies provided by the state, but I am not aware of the details.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly often isn't the case. We shouldn't just assume that it would be. OTOH, I agree that it definitely *should* be.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you read the article? (Score:2, Troll)
SpaceX asked for the money, not Tesla. Those are TWO DIFFERENT entities!
Why shouldn't Musk move Tesla and SpaceX to Texas?
He would save billions in taxes and expenses. He can pay workers 25% less money and it would be equivalent to a 25% raise. In the Austin area, Right now gas in Austin is about $1.25/gallon. A 3BR/2.5BA, 1400 sq. house on a .2 acre lot is $294k (https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8832-Francia-Trl_Austin_TX_78748_M75404-35626). In San Francisco something close would be $
Re: (Score:3)
If they've got the same guy in charge, then it's plausible that they will adopt similar policies.
OTOH, you point is somewhat valid, as I feel that any subsidies granted should come with strings attached that will ensure value is returned to the extent possible. Including "If you need to return the money and you don't have it to give back, then ownership of your assets (to a measured extent) goes to the issuer of the subsidy. IOW, just like a mortgage, but with terms designed to benefit the state. The sta
Re: (Score:2)
did you tell Musk about this earlier? (Score:2)
All of it was true when Musk set up SpaceX in California. Why didn't he set it up in Texas in the first place ?
So he knows some advantage of California, that you don't know, or are neglecting to mention here. Possibly that advantage has ceased to be, but again, since you don't mention it, we don't know so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't California, a state that makes lots of money, share its wealth with the less fortunate?
The state does. Refer to OP's post: "CA already gives plenty to the Federal government to subsidize other states".
Re: Who did this hurt? (Score:2)
Any subsidy calculation that includes payouts to retirement age individuals or military and national park funds is invalid from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't California, a state that makes lots of money,
They do, do they? [politico.com]
A $54B hole in your budget, and actively looking for any and everything you can slash to fill it would say otherwise.
Subsidizing privately held business that are far less accountable than publicly held corporations is one of the things that should be slashed in that effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it is cheaper to keep these people on unemployment and welfare because they have no marketable skills?
BTW, companies deal with a lack of trained workers all of the time. They ship their production offshore and bring the finished parts back to the US. So you'd rather have Musk offshore these jobs?
Re: (Score:3)
You really seriously think SpaceX hires people who have no marketable skills? But if so, California can pay to train them for something else. There's no reason to think that there exists an untrained person who's only capable of working on Starship and Starlink but can't be trained for any other job. And we've got plenty of other space companies and communications companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It hurt all of the tax payers that were expected to foot the bill for someone else to be retrained.
Because the money won't be spent and now taxpayers will be getting a tax cut? Is that the story you want to stick with?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose people will keep voting for the lizards though. Wouldn’t want the wrong one to win after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you work for someone like Musk you have to take the good with the bad.
From the state's point of view, the money will simply be spent with a company that's more likely to stay in-state; Musk's workers' loss is other workers' gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Did this hurt Musk? no. Did this hurt the workers who were going to be retrained? Heck yes.
The word in the summary was training, not retraining.
And in the article it says:
"The funding from the state employment development fund was supposed to help SpaceX train 900 employees for its Starlink satellite project and hire 300 to work on its Starship program."
So training. That benefits SpaceX directly, who save the training money for their workers. It doesn't benefit the workers; you don't normally pay for your training at a new job.
When it is "retraining" that is money for people who don't have a job,
"California Reject's" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"California Reject's" (Score:4, Funny)
Oh. I thought we were talking about rejects from California. It almost made sense in that context.
Re: (Score:3)
If it was multiple rejects from California, it would be California Rejects'...
It would be correct if we were talking about a singular reject from California.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be correct if we were talking about a singular reject from California.
At this point I think he's still "from" California.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Musk certainly runs his mouth more than he needs to and gets more praise than he deserves, but trying to pretend that California is "good guy" is equally as laughable. Did you consider the possibility that they're both b
Re: (Score:3)
California's GDP in 2019 was 14.9% of the U.S. versus 11.9% of the population, so it's a good 25% higher percentage of the GDP than you'd expect based on population. Hollywood is almost revenue-neutral. It provided only $
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely California's fault. California has a massively inflated homeless count because it is basically the only state in the country where homeless people can live outside all year around and not freeze to death. Somewhere around one in five came from another state after becoming homeless.
Also, an estimated 51% percentage of California's homeless are mentally ill, and would likely be involuntarily committed, were it not for Ronald Reagan's changes to California's involuntary commitment laws.
I
Re: (Score:3)
Agriculture does not contribute nearly so much as you might think. It's only about 2% of our economy. That becomes a major point of contention every time we go into a drought cycle. Thanks to the seriously fucked-up and convoluted way water rights work in the western states in general, and California in particular; that 2% of our economy has a stranglehold on 80% of our water supply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Agriculture is more important than its percentage of the economy. One could argue that there should be a lot more cost in food, but that has obvious negative repercussions. It has some positive ones too, but we would have to make numerous other changes for it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
CA taxes and regs, real estate, cost of living, much higher than elsewhere. Much less difficult to move a software company, IMHO, than a manufacturer. Others are watching and IMHO will follow suit.
Just natural. Make it tough to live there, add the incredible pension burden of an out of control bureaucracy, and just across the state line: Nevada.
CA personal tax rate 7.75 - 12.3% Corporat
Re: (Score:3)
CA taxes and regs, real estate, cost of living, much higher than elsewhere
You realize when you try and make this argument, you're calling Musk an absolute moron, right?
All those factors were in place when Musk originally decided to set up shop in CA. You claiming they are a huge driver now would indicate Musk really, really fucked up when he started these ventures.
Alternatively, this line has been something folks like you have pushed for decades, insisting that you'll totally move all of Silicon Valley to Texas any day now. Any day now. Any day. Right around the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas taxes personal and corporate property instead [ttara.org].
So go move that capital-intensive manufacturing plant to Texas, Elon. Yet more CEO brilliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: shitposter learns hard lesson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because income tax doesn't grow arbitrarily, unlike property taxes, where because other people moved near you, your taxes will go up. California has non existent property taxes (thanks Prop 13!)
I think people REALLY need to understand why California even has income taxes. We did a tax revolt and nuked our property taxes into the floor, and thus cities/state can not use them for funding much of anything (one part of prop 13 makes it so property taxes will continually lose cities money, because the amount you
Re: (Score:2)
Musk called Californias bluff and lost.
Starting Tesla production a week earlier is worth many multiples of that $0.5 M worker retraining fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since that $600k is what, 40 cars worth of margin? And they're making hundreds per week?
Yeah, I'm sure he's real hurt over not getting that pittance from the power drunk spiteful bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk has a really nasty habit of trump-style shitposts about what he likes, dislikes, and wants.
We fought WWII against a system that insisted companies toe the political line. Please don't tell me they're back.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump is trying:
"The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation."
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
LOL wut (Score:2)
So.....not handing out corporate welfare is fascism? If you really want your tax dollars to go to Tesla, you don't have to wait for the state government to make it happen. Start a kickstarter campaign so all the other Musk Fart Sniffers here can send him your money.
Re: (Score:2)
So.....not handing out corporate welfare is fascism?
It is if adopting a particular political position is a prerequisite.
Re: (Score:2)
It is if adopting a particular political position is a prerequisite.
The political position, in this case, being "corporations should follow the law and not just break the law when they they want to because reasons"?
Re: (Score:2)
So Musks tweeting about leaving California is breaking some law?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Musk re-opening his factory in direct violation of the stay-at-home order is.
Re: (Score:2)
Has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with saying no to robber barons and corporate welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
how easy it is to see a few million wiped off the books because todays musk epiphany is that people have too much money, or tesla is worth too much.
That sounds almost like the stock market is stupid, then.
Re: shitposter learns hard lesson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody in actual power in a state government plays "the long game" - they play the "I want to get re-appointed to my board seat / re-elected when my term expires" game. And that's not just California, that's literally every commissioner, director, chairman, appointee, or elected official in every state / county / city government in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about the man, Musk has a really nasty habit of trump-style shitposts about what he likes, dislikes, and wants. Anyone whos owned any of his stock know just how easy it is to see a few million wiped off the books because todays musk epiphany is that people have too much money, or tesla is worth too much.
Yeah, but refusing to follow the law in a public health emergency could end up having a very, very long tail for SpaceX.
This really could end up requiring his exit from that one. The rest, sure, he and shitpost and it doesn't matter much.
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny is the people now defending Musk are the same people who were complaining about all the subsidies his company was getting. They whined how electric car producers should stand on their own and not get government handouts. They should be like regular car companies.
Now suddenly he's a hero and deserves to get government subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the EU protects customers... but not many of their human rights such as right to self defense as you cant' even carry anything more than a butter knife for protection in the EU because... you are clearly better off letting the b
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the people "defending" Space-X are those who were sufficiently intelligent to note that Space-X is being denied subsidies for a Tesla dispute. Either Space-X's employees deserve the educational subsidies as Californians or you're saying that you believe in communal punishment, making you no better than the worst of Trump's toadies.
Re:shitposter learns hard lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not agree with Musk when he's right, disagree with him when he's wrong, and dump on him when he's being an a**hole? Is that somehow *too inconsistent* for you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with that, but denying educational subsidies to Space-X for a Tesla dispute isn't a problem with Elon Musk but a problem with idiots on the committee.
Re:shitposter learns hard lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was always popular to dump on rich assholes who publicly act like assholes.
When he's not doing that, and just going about advancing the cause of sustainable energy and advancing the science and state of the art in spaceflight, I have no problem with him.
When he's influencing millions of people on social media with outright false information about ongoing public health crises, calling people 'pedo guy', straight up lying about having 'funding secured' to take Tesla private, erasing shareholder value through being a CEO who says that his company's stock is too high, or throwing a pissy fit because county health administrations are doing their job, he's being a billionaire douchebag shitposting fuckwit, and it should be ok for people to say so.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Musk personally pays a lot more than $655k in annual state income tax. He is selling his houses. I predict a move to Texas in 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But you're usually not. That's why they're called shitposts and not "insightful commentary."
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you have to wonder if all the costs due to Twitter are worth more than Twitter, at which point he should just buy it and turn it off for an instant ROI.
different company (Score:2)
Re: different company (Score:2)
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Normally these things require that only the information presented (and requested) be used to evaluate the decision. Not arbitrary third-party information.
Tesla isn't SpaceX, it's reasons for staying or leaving are not influential for SpaceX
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's behavior was evaluated in this decision. Can't say I blame them.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of different companies is too hard for you to understand? It doesn't matter that Elon Musk head both of them any more than it matters what race you are when you sit in the front of a bus. The idiots on that committee may have wanted to hurt Elon Musk but all they did is open themselves to a deserved lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing says they can't. This board is allowed to consider Musk's twitter rants.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla rants are not germane to Space-X and statements to the effect that they denied Space-X funding because of Tesla opens the committee up to a lawsuit the same way that it would have if they had denied funding because Musk is foreign born.
Re: (Score:2)
So you say "choosing not to invest in" as "punishing"?
Well, ok. I'd call it being slightly prudent in where you invest your money. There's a limited pot available, and it should be invested where it will do the most good for the state. Investing it in a company whose management has indicated that it's likely to move on a whim doesn't, to me, seem a good investment.
Musk has a lot of potential, but he has significant downsides. That said, I'd have invested in SpaceX, but secured it with shares of ownersh
Texas, Nevada and Arizona love this (Score:2)
The more California treats businesses this way the more will consider moving out or not consider moving there.
So you love paying for corporate welfare? (Score:3)
Why not cut out the tax middleman and you can send your money to wealthy corporations because.....reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they appreaciate your undying fealty. Did you get an extra part time job or pick up some overtime to give to this very important campaign? [harpersbazaar.com]
uhh... (Score:2)
But Tesla and SpaceX are two completely separate companies, and the comments were in regard to Tesla, not SpaceX.
Also if they aprove subsidies to other companies without any real strings, they should have aproven it for SpaceX, now it just sounds like a real political game.
Re: (Score:3)
Did the CEOs of those other companies you mention also make public statements to the effect that they were going to pack up and leave California before they were approved for these funds?
Somehow, I suspect not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could have aproved it with some strings (like that he had to pay it back if he moved his company to another state within the span of a few years)..
They don't even need to do that because it's extremely unlikely that SpaceX is going to move to another state. SpaceX launches from Vandenberg AFB for polar/sun sync orbits, there are aren't many places you can do that in the US and avoid dropping stuff on other countries. And if Tesla moves, there is no reason why SpaceX should factor into this at all.
Are the dots that hard to connect? (Score:3, Informative)
If the CEO of one company says he's willing to move out of your state in a fit of pique.....maybe....just maybe....he'd move the other company out as well? And why reward an entitled petulant lille prick with taxpayer money who just couldn't wait one more week to reopen?
Nah, you're right, nothing to see here....
I Demand Taxpayer Money to Prove My Point (Score:3)
"California Reject's" (Score:2)
Someone failed their IQ test, today.
California making things personal (Score:2)
He threatened to move Tesla, so now they put the screws to him personally and any company he has any say over. Evidently they don't want any of Musk's companies in California. I'm thinking there are plenty of states which would love to take those companies in, subsidies and all. Once moved, they might find any Musk products for California are 25% more expensive, to recoup the cost of the move out. Want those solar panels and energy storage systems, and those clean air cars, pay up California - you got the G
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California Reject 's SpaceX' s Request for Subsidies, Citing Musk's Tweet About Relocating
The slashdot parser added spaces around the italic bold for whatever reason, it wasn't intentional.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but it's certainly become more significant under his direction. I truly appreciate a lot that he's done.
Musk is somewhat like Steve Jobs. He has a way of pushing tech companies into worthwhile directions. He's also a bit of an ass. And I suspect that he both inspiring and horrible to work for (but do note that this is just a suspicion).
When the owner of a company threatens to move his company out of state to avoid sensible regulations, it's sensible to conclude that any other companies
Re: (Score:2)
B. Go to hell. I don't know what your problem with the USA is, but go to hell.
Re: (Score:2)