• Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 days ago

    Before I read the article, I would suspect it’s because if they had the chance, they would fire him.

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      Also have not read the article, but I would presume it’s his same old tripe about how no company can ever succeed without his “wisdom” and “leadership”.

      • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        it’s his same old tripe about how no company can ever succeed without his “wisdom” and “leadership”.

        That’s interesting. I would even call it an illusion.

        He hasn’t done only good to paypal, then he actually ran Tesla deep into the mud, and now he’s aiming hard at SpaceX:

        Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX

        This is still a healthy company without him interfering too deeply.

        But after such an announcement, if I were any kind of valuable employee at SpaceX now, this would have made me fear for my future at that company, and probably I’d start looking around ASAP.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      IDK Tesla had 2 chances to fire him and both times they voted to give him 56 billion instead

      • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Teslas board is full of nepotism. They aren’t going to fire the person responsible for giving them that position.

        Don’t know about SpaceX

        • chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Its more that huge firms like vanguard and fidellity just default to what managment votes for; they dont meddle. The individuals holding the shares of the index funds likey did not support it.

          • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Nope. Anyone with shares could vote, and 77% voted to pay him the $56B. Not even close. The biggest fear of TSLA owners is that Musk will leave, because the stock is orders of magnitude overvalued on his cult.

            • chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yes, but votes are proportional to the number of shares owned, and most of the shares owned by non insiders are owned via index funds. So you meed to account for shares owned by the board members (including Elon himself), in addition to shares owned via proxy (shares in index funds, etfs, etc) where the proxy just votes with managment’s guidance. Its not like voting for a politician. Its more akin to 77% of shares voted for it, which translates to a small number of people. The remining 23% are likely individual shareholders, hedge funds and family offices that disagree with the compensation.