What do you get when you cross an Ikea display, a tiny house, and the private sector?
That’s the proposal from new startup Rent the Backyard. The company is tackling rising home prices in the San Francisco-Bay Area by building backyard studio apartments, and splitting the rental profits with homeowners.
“This is a long-term partnership that we have with the homeowner,” Rent the Backyard Co-Founder Brain Bakerman told Yahoo Finance during a recent interview.
Homeowners can make $10,000 to $20,000 in additional income each year, according to the company.
If, you own a home in the Bay Area, have a 30 x 30 area, and you live in your home most of the time, then you could take part in this experiment in affordable housing.
In recent years, math has become a weapon of social and political warfare. Often it is abused to promote junk science like the myth of global cooling, warming, err…climate change or whatever the hell they’re claiming this week. Numerical manipulation is also used as a tool to find new and creative reasons to get more grant money pumped into academia.
68 Percent Error
Here’s an example. Did you know that 68 percent of the universe does not exist and never did?
Yes, it’s still the gospel if you look on the NASA website, but there’s no such thing. Two years ago, a study was published that proved it is a false theory but it is still taught as true in schools all over the world.
Scientists believe that enigmatic dark energy make up 68% of the universe. But according to a Hungarian-American team, it may not exist at all. The team publish their results in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The researchers believe that standard models of the universe fail to take account of its changing structure, but that once this is done the need for dark energy disappears.
Dark matter is now thought to make up 27% of the content of universe (in contrast ‘ordinary’ matter amounts to only 5%). After observing the explosions called as Ia supernovae, scientists concluded that dark energy, made up 68% of the cosmos, and is responsible for expansion of the universe.
In the new work, the researchers, officially led by PhD student Gábor Rácz of Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, explained that models of cosmology particularly rely on approximations that ignore its structure, and where matter is assumed to have a uniform density. They questioned the conventional concept of existence of dark energy and suggest an alternative explanation.
Dr László Dobos, co-author of the paper, and currently working at Eötvös Loránd University, explains: “Einstein’s equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found. We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein’s equations which may introduce serious side-effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data.”
If you keep rooting around on the subject, what you find is that scientists studying the universe rounded the speed of light and took other shortcuts in their math that introduced an error so big that they had to invent 68 percent more mass in the universe called “dark matter”; theoretical stuff that could not be observed in any way, just to account for the error.
Labor Department Revision
The US Department of Labor this week offered their own version of “Dark Matter” revisions to their universe.
This week, the US Department of Labor did some similar math adjustments and made 501,000 jobs that they said had been created by the Trump Administration disappear.
The Labor Department revised down total job gains from April 2018 to March 2019 by 501,000, the agency said Wednesday, the largest downward revision in a decade.
The agency’s annual benchmark revision is based on state unemployment insurance records that reflect actual payrolls while its earlier estimates are derived from surveys. The preliminary figure could be revised further early next year.
The Department maketh up and the Department taketh away, blessed be the math of the Department.
Folks, color me skeptical about this revision. I think the Labor Department has been cooking the books since Bush was President and they certainly were when Obama was President so why the change in methodology for just one year?Oh, coincidentally, this revision comes when Democrats finally figured-out that the only prayer they have in 2020 is if the economy goes down before the election—which they also are coincidentally trying to make happen.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” as my dear departed granny used to say. Why stop at one year? If the Labor Department wants to change their methodology let’s go back, say ten years and see what has really been going on.
Bureaucracy First
Folks this is an illustration of what some folks dumbly call the “Deep State”. Personally I hate that term. I think what they are trying to say is that, in a sense, the government bureaucracy is so large and unwieldly that it is a force unto itself that can’t be led anywhere its career management is unwilling to go. Above all things, they are statists and will defend their institution from any outside forces of change.
Trump is an insurgent and as such needs to be taken down a few notches and shown who is running things. The boys in Labor decided that the time is ripe to make their contribution to the cause and it’s substantial. Trump has wed his fate to that of the economy and now is the time to stick him with it.
As I have stated before Trump is more of a cheerleader for the economy than he is an actual owner of its success or failure. The Market is overvalued and needs correction but how and what will trigger that is yet to happen. Sadly, the possible catalysts of correction are a target rich environment. The real question is will Trump advocate interfering with the Market (like Bush) or allow it to correct itself. Given that Democrats will not willingly help Trump, as Republicans were willing to do for Obama, Trump may have no choice but to let the Market correct naturally —which in the long run is the best outcome.
I’m just surprised that this story has gotten so little attention. Are Democrats really so busy fighting amongst themselves that they can’t take time to pummel Trump on his claim that “this is the greatest economy ever” or are they just so tone-deaf that it doesn’t matter to them. On the other hand, in the Dem’s defense, the revision was a loss of private sector, non-union jobs so maybe they don’t count anyways.
From my point of view, this was a real body blow to the President but I can’t find anything from pundits on either side of the political divide make hay about this revision.
So if Trump doesn’t lash-out at his own Dept. of Labor on Twitter then the media doesn’t care? What gives with that?
Folks, having this blog is a hobby and frankly therapy for me to vent about the world. I don’t always get to everything as quickly as I would like but an article published recently by The Atlantic “The Future of the City Is Childless” really deserves your attention.
Sadly, the article is not about a dystopian future but a current reality. I highly recommend that you read it. The thesis is that big cities are for single, working people with careers and suburbs and rural areas are for families.
New York is the poster child of this urban renaissance. But as the city has attracted more wealth, housing prices have soared alongside the skyscrapers, and young families have found staying put with school-age children more difficult. Since 2011, the number of babies born in New York has declined 9 percent in the five boroughs and 15 percent in Manhattan. (At this rate, Manhattan’s infant population will halve in 30 years.) In that same period, the net number of New York residents leaving the city has more than doubled. There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country.
In high-density cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., no group is growing faster than rich college-educated whites without children, according to Census analysis by the economist Jed Kolko. By contrast, families with children older than 6 are in outright decline in these places. In the biggest picture, it turns out that America’s urban rebirth is missing a key element: births.
Cities were once a place for families of all classes. The “basic custom” of the American city, wrote the urbanist Sam Bass Warner, was a “commitment to familialism.” Today’s cities, however, are decidedly not for children, or for families who want children. As the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark put it, they are “entertainment machines” for the young, rich, and mostly childless. And this development has crucial implications—not only for the future of American cities, but also for the future of the U.S. economy and American politics.
But if big cities are shedding people, they’re growing in other ways—specifically, in wealth and workism. The richest 25 metro areas now account for more than half of the U.S. economy, according to an Axios analysis of government data. Rich cities particularly specialize in the new tech economy: Just five counties account for about half of the nation’s internet and web-portal jobs. Toiling to build this metropolitan wealth are young college graduates, many of them childless or without school-age children; that is, workers who are sufficiently unattached to family life that they can pour their lives into their careers.
Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell. It’s a coast-to-coast trend: In Washington, D.C., the overall population has grown more than 20 percent this century, but the number of children under the age of 18 has declined. Meanwhile, San Francisco has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.
Again, please read the rest of the article. I think this explains—in part—some of the divide in our country on many issues. The populated areas that favor singlehood are very self-focused. In a culture that is very present oriented anyway and values that “new is better” (after all that value works well when applied to technology), is it any wonder that, God, family, and children—future oriented values—are distant to them? Feelings and immediate gratification are incongruent to a future orientation.
Given what you’ve read above, is it any wonder that this headline is in the news today?
Nothing complicates career and immediate gratification more than pregnancy, consequences are so messy. Once you’ve committed to the proposition that life is all about you, it can be jarring to have that attitude challenged.
If the future is childless then how can there be a future?
Last month the San Francisco Examiner published an article posing the question, what will San Francisco do if PG&E shuts the lights out to prevent causing a fire?
In a recent filing with the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E explained that if the utility has to turn off, or “de-energize,” high-voltage transmission lines in the East Bay to prevent the start of a wildfire, power to the entire city of San Francisco could also be turned off. And it could be up to five days before power is restored.
Are we as a city — and each of us individually — prepared for that?
Imagine The City with no working traffic lights. Cellphone networks and internet phone lines could fail. People who depend on medical equipment, like oxygen machines, could be at risk. Food could spoil without refrigeration, both in restaurants and in homes. Schools would likely close for the duration of the outage. Hospitals, police stations, and the airport could continue to operate on backup generators, but with reductions in services offered.
And then there’s water and sewage. Gravity helps move water from Hetch Hetchy and other sources into the City’s largest reservoirs. But we need electricity to pump water from the reservoirs to homes and fire hydrants. And we need electricity to operate wastewater treatment plants.
Imagine The City with no working traffic lights. Cellphone networks and internet phone lines could fail.
The author also mentions that preparing for PG&E to pull the plug for a few days would be good practice for when “the big one” hits.
Folks, this whole idea of purposely shutting off the power to one of the most populous cities in the country is just nuts. If it weren’t for the wacko environmentalists in this state, no one would even think this was a rational idea; especially in the case of a “preventative blackout”.
If the power went out for a mere 24 hours, San Francisco would start turning into a Mad Max world. After a week of no food, electricity, drinking water, and gasoline; is there any doubt that the place would need the National Guard? Do you really think a city whose citizens can’t afford toilet paper and hates the Second Amendment will voluntarily maintain social order in tough times? I think roving bands of Oakland Raider fans will be raising all sorts of chaos. Add a few fires into the mix when firefighting is a sketchy proposition and the place has real potential to go downhill fast.
PG&E might be the catalyst that ends the idea of San Francisco as a sanctuary city. Playing XBOX surrounded by armed guards at an ICE holding facility might look like paradise in comparison.
In this age of just in time delivery, any interruption to supplying stores with inventory will have huge consequences. A prolonged blackout or severe earthquake in SF or LA will see additional loss of life and property. I, for one, don’t want to be anywhere near the epicenter of either event.
If Elon Musk had a dollar for every dream he has inspired in utopian Liberals, this might be a fair fight. Wally World is suing Tesla in New York State for causing rooftop fires due to defective solar panels. This looks to be a fun scrap. This is doubly juicy because Tesla in making solar panels in New York State with taxpayer subsidies.
Walmart Inc. sued Tesla Inc.’s energy operations, formerly known as SolarCity, for breach of contract, claiming it failed to live up to industry standards in the installation of solar panels on top of hundreds of stores, resulting in multiple fires across the country.
The retailer said it had leased or licensed roof space on top of more than 240 stores to Tesla for the installation and operation of solar systems. But as of November 2018, fires broke out at no fewer than seven of the stores, forcing the disconnection of all the solar panel systems for the safety of the public.
In a complaint filed in New York state court Tuesday, Walmart said its inspectors found that Tesla “had engaged in widespread, systemic negligence and had failed to abide by prudent industry practices in installing, operating and maintaining its solar systems.”
Many of the panels had defects that could be seen by the naked eye or were easily identifiable with proper equipment, Walmart said, indicating that Tesla had deficient inspection procedures or hadn’t been inspecting the sites at all. The retailer’s inspectors saw dangerous connections, including loose and hanging wires at several locations.
“Many of the problems stemmed from a rushed, negligent approach to the systems’ installation,” Walmart said. “Tesla’s predecessor-in-interest — SolarCity — had adopted an ill-considered business model that required it to install solar panel systems haphazardly and as quickly as possible in order to turn a profit.”
Tesla didn’t immediately address the retailer’s complaint.
Oh, speaking of Tesla and product liability, I’ve been sitting on this one for a while.
Tesla sued for homicide…again.
A Tesla car, running on Autopilot, skidded 1,600 feet after sliding under a semitruck at 68 mph, shearing off its top and killing its driver, according to a lawyer who is suing the carmaker.
The crash in west Delray Beach happened four months ago when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of a bright red Tesla Model 3 driven by 50-year-old Jeremy Banner.
The Autopilot system failed, according to a lawsuit Banner’s family filed Thursday in Palm Beach County. The system should have braked or swerved to avoid the semitruck, Trey Lytal, the family’s attorney, said at a news conference.
About 10 seconds before the crash, Banner engaged the Autopilot system, according to a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board.
The City of Sacramento will implement rent control in limited circumstances in an effort to get supporters to pull a more far reaching rent control ballot measure that was scheduled to go for a vote next March. To implement this new scheme of government intrusion, of course a new tax is required to be paid by property owners who no doubt will raise tenant rents as a result. The stories that I read in the media are silent on whether all rental property owners get to subsidize this program or only the ones covered by rent control—this being California you shouldn’t make assumptions on such matters.
The Sacramento City Council is expected to approve a local rent control measure Tuesday in a compromise between city officials, labor unions and developers. The agreement – which will cap rent increases for older housing – will avoid what likely would have been a bitter, multi-million dollar political campaign next year.
In its new form, the Sacramento Tenant Protection and Relief Act, which the council will consider at its 2 p.m. meeting Tuesday, will create a set of renter protections for tenants who live in housing built prior to Feb. 1, 1995. The ordinance will cap the amount that landlords can increase rent each year; prohibit landlords from evicting tenants without a reason; and create a process where tenants can report landlords who violate the act.
The proposal is a compromise that’s the result of months of talks between city officials and advocates who gathered signatures to put a stricter rent control measure on the local ballot in 2020, said Councilman Steve Hansen, who led the negotiations.
Create reporting system so city can help tenants fight property owners
For some reason, this law will only apply to housing built before 1995…at least for the first five years then the City Council will review the ordinance for further modification.
Rent Cap
The ordinance will prohibit landlords from raising rent more than 6 percent plus the “consumer price index” percentage for the West Region per year.
Landlords will never be able to increase rent more than 10 percent, even if the CPI ever exceeds 4 percent, the ordinance says.
Eviction
The ordinance will also prohibit landlords from evicting tenants, unless tenants stop paying rent, are criminally charged, are illegally selling drugs, fail to give landlords access to the unit, or otherwise violate their leases.
The ordinance will bar landlords from evicting tenants for no reason, and require they give tenants an option to renew their lease, Hansen said
Landlords will still be able to evict tenants if they are making certain repairs or selling the unit, under certain circumstances, but will have to show proof, and will need to give the tenants an extensive 120-day notice.
The act will cover tenants who signed leases that are month-to-month or longer, those who live in apartments, mobile home parks and single room occupancy hotels, Hansen said. The act cannot legally apply to tenants renting single-family homes, though, unless they have been converted in to multiple units, such as duplexes.
New City Bureaucracy
The ordinance will require property owners to pay a fee, likely between $15 and $20 per unit per year, Hansen said. The fees will go toward running the program, enforcement, and tenant/landlord education.
Landlords will be able to apply to impose higher rent increases in front of city hearing officers, but only if they plan to make significant improvements to the units, the release said.
Remarks
As with anything Liberals do, this is a beginning and not a destination. I expect rent control to be expanded further via one of three vectors.
1 When the five years is up, the City Council will move the year 1995 up to 2000 (ahead five years) or more thus including even newer construction. 2 Via the ballot measure which is supposed to be on the Statewide November 2020 ballot. 3 Via direct Legislative action.
In spite of the claims of landlords evicting tenants with ease, this is fantasy. It takes many months and thousands of dollars to get someone to move out of your property unless they voluntarily agree to do so. In such cases, property owners spend thousands of dollars to repair the property so they can rent to someone else. Folks that refuse to move out are typically the ones that ruin floor and wall coverings, strip the place bare of appliances, plumbing fixtures, and vandalize the crap out of places.
Any time rent control is implemented, it is a de facto confiscation of private property. The property owner is then a vassal of the government and in a practical sense, the control of the property is forfeited without just compensation. In short, rent control is theft using the power of the sword. In the old days we called such government acts “tyranny”, but now it’s called “fairness” or some other innocuous name. George Orwell would call this “doublespeak”.
This blog and commentary is the result of current events over the last year exposing CalRecycle as a farce and nothing more than a government mandated “feel good” program. This mostly came to a head with the shut down and bankruptcy of RePlanet, a large recycling conglomerate, on Tuesday of this week.
Citing the increased costs of processing recycled items, RePlanet, California’s largest operator of recycling redemption centers has closed, leaving 750 employees out of jobs.
The Ontario, California-based company has closed all 284 of its centers, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
Company President David Lawrence told the newspaper the decision to close was due to increased business costs and falling prices of recycled aluminum and polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, plastic.
Recycling was essentially mandated in California in 1989 and on its surface it actually was a good idea. The premise was that we should try to divert as much waste as possible from our landfills. The program introduced recycling and green waste composting programs to help toward a goal of diverting 50% of all waste over a period of 30 years. In Sacramento County, we had just a garbage cart, then we got a green waste cart for all yard waste, and got 3 small bins for recycling. We had to separate the recycling into a separate bin for paper, glass, and plastics and aluminum. As a result, instead of 1 truck picking up said waste now a 2nd truck was required since the yard waste and recycling is collected on alternate weeks. In some parts of California such as the Bay Area, recycling is picked-up on a weekly basis.
As with any government program, an entire new department was created “The California Integrated Waste Management Board” to oversee this program as well as the California Redemption Value Program (CRV). This CRV is what you pay to the State of California on most plastic, glass, and aluminum products when they are bought at the grocery or liquor store. Prior to this, glass recycling was done at a local level by the private sector. Buy a Coke or Pepsi product at the grocery store and return the bottle and you got a nickel from the store. Government was not involved or mandating this program, it was purely a function of the private sector. Now, what the store collects is remitted to the State. I will now discuss the demise and issues with this system.
First the city and county administered programs: I cannot blame them entirely since when the state mandates it, you either do it or face a daily fine until you comply. After a few years, the 3 separate bin system with replaced with an additional cart, for mixed recycling. This was due largely to more material being eligible to be recycled, but I have a feeling worker comp payouts mounted due to a person having to physically lift and dump these bins into a contraption that loaded into the truck.
I am in favor of collecting more recycling and diverting it from the landfill, but this was a case that backfired. There was never a system or check in place in regard to contamination….this is how the program was destroyed. You see the bin is collected, and the contents of the truck are compacted and smashed repeatedly until the truck unloads at a sorting facility. There workers manually separate, combine and package the recyclables to be sold to China or another broker who does the physical recycling. Up until a couple of years ago, China took everything and asked no questions. Recently, they have tightened up their contamination standards and as a result quite a bit of “recyclable product” has been diverted to the landfill. Please note that China’s change of heart on taking our trash to be recycled predates any controversy related to President Trump’s trade policies.
Yep, we aint recycling the contents of your recycle bin, just burying it in the ground like everything else…but hey…you still get to feel good about saving the environment and the planet (at least until you read this blog).
Let’s take look at how lucrative this program has been to Sac City residents….according to their website “recycling sales” or product sold to China/broker etc. totals .79% of the revenue….OUCH!
The reserves have been depleted to a point the City will be increasing residents monthly trash bills by $12 a month over the next 5 years. Think about that one! Also the City has to start collecting “food waste” by 2021, so an additional cart, added fees, and a new rodent problem anyone? The program is literally bankrupting a local municipality.
Now let’s take a look at the downfall of RePlanet. RePlanet is or was a recycling outfit known for their small container sized booths usually located in shopping center parking lots that collected cans and sometimes plastics for recycling and paid you for the product.
On Tuesday, RePlanet closed all of its 284 locations and laid off all 750 employees citing an uncompetitive environment to do business. Digging deeper, the dirty little secret of how this business failed should not surprise anyone, as 40% of all recycling locations have closed in the past 5 years. It was a scam. Did you ever notice that at the register you were charged $.05 or $.10 “deposit” on the product, that is per item, but if you then took the container to a recycler, you were paid a rate “per pound” meaning you collected far less than your deposit. So if you didn’t actually recycle the material yourself, say you put it in your bin, the state kept the money and subsidized these operations taking place all over the state. The state payments did not keep up with inflation/regulation and as a result, these recycling centers have disappeared.
As someone who recycled religiously, I can say firsthand that it started making very little sense to do so a few years ago. The payments became less and less to the point where you questioned even making the trip. Honestly, if you think about it, look at it this way; RePlanet–like any other non-government entity–is in business to make money. They have to rent the space for their booth (this isn’t cheap, and can run about $1000 a month by the way), pay the employee minimum wage (this company had Bay Area locations paying higher than Sac County wages), benefits, workers comp, and had to pay customers for the product. The numbers did not add up at all. Couple that with smugglers bringing product in from over state lines (NV and AZ don’t have a recycling program) so they use ours to their advantage and you have a basically bankrupt CalRecycle program. RePlanet’s demise is a very big hit to a portion of the population that recycles for the cash as a means to make ends meet, and believe me there are quite a few. In years past, you might remember homeless folks scavenging your recycle bin the night before pickup but they haven’t been doing that lately, now you know why.
So here we are, stuck in a nasty catch 22; on one hand, we have a state department of recycling mandating that we divert 50% of our waste (that number is going higher by the way) and on the other hand, we have China is no longer accepting our recyclables. State officials are presiding over a bankrupted system as far as redemptions go, but they are still happily collecting the CRV taxes.
I spoke to a member of my church who was heavily involved in creating the program for the state and he was very contrite with me saying the program had good intentions but has badly missed the mark…he even spoke of regret setting this system up. He said the idea of household recycling was great, except people intentionally contaminated their bin, leading to the load being trashed as opposed to re-used. You encourage people to bag their own recyclables and take to a recycler, but when you are paid only a pittance, what is the point? He also shared that before he retired, for 10 years in a row, more pounds of aluminum cans were recycled through one of these “redemption centers” than were actually sold in California! Try that one on! Especially when he said participation among residents could not have been higher than 20%. In addition, the cost to recycle items in this state far outweighs keeping them out of the landfill…his words not mine.
Final Thoughts: It should surprise no one this is ending badly; whenever the government gets involved, the outcome is less than ideal. A new department was created, hundreds or thousands were hired, and here we are trying to pick up the pieces and do an autopsy on the recycling program while the CRV program is charging full speed ahead on autopilot. It started as a great idea and it remains a good idea, which may upset some readers of this blog, but keeping things out of our landfill where they can leach into our water supply is paramount to our existence. The problem is when the program is taken advantage of by scammers or intentionally contaminated by people not caring. As a result everyone is losing, we pay more for garbage service, can no longer reap a benefit of recycling, and now have reusable bags and containers foisted upon us constantly.
I think the answer is something of a hybrid, I think the recycling system for residents should be optional… but you pay a higher price if you opt out. This stops people who don’t care or intentionally are contaminating. Opting in, gives the local hauler or municipality the right to inspect your container to make sure it isn’t contaminated…you’re getting a substantial discount so you give up privacy, sorry. The centers that collect products should be more readily available and maybe this is a collaboration of business and government where a detailed business plan and rate of return can be achieved. Ok maybe not the greatest answer to a problem, but once again a crisis has come out of something we thought was an easily solvable “green” answer.
The Chief
Editor’s Comments:
I think the State of California needing to ship our waste to another country to run a sustainable recycling program is proof that this recycling scheme was poorly thought out. By the way, California is not the only State shipping waste to other countries. To lift a phrase, what happens in California should stay in California. We should recycle our own waste. While I prefer a private sector solution, this might be something the Prison Industry Authority (PIA) might want to get involved in. How about some welfare to work program opportunities? Folks, as rare as it is for me to say it, this kind of problem is one where Elon Musk might actually be the go to guy. Elon likes to dream stuff up and use taxpayer money to make it happen; plus, he likes a challenge.
The bad news from Tesla keeps piling up. Yesterday I saw this about their response to declining sales on their Model S & X cars. Free charging for life.
In a turn of events, Tesla has now announced that all new customers of the Model S and Model X can access free unlimited charging at any Tesla supercharging station.
My son-in-law (he earned the title yesterday), bought a Tesla a few months back and got free charging for the first six months of ownership. As previously documented, the difference between the Supercharge station and the other two forms of charging is huge—in terms of time.
However, the big news to me in this article was the cost of charging.
A few years ago, Tesla offered free supercharging to customers; until the offer was revoked by Musk for being unsustainable for the company in the long run. With the cost of supercharging in the US being pretty much equal to the cost of gas ($0.28 per kWh), this may have been one of the reasons Tesla customers have been abandoning this part of the product line.
OK, so if the cost of charging your car is the same as gasoline, what exactly is the savings of owning the car?
Please note that the logic of electric vehicle ownership goes off the rails at this juncture. If the cost of charging is the same as gasoline, where is the cost savings when your state—or the federal government or both—introduce the dreaded mileage tax? Filling up my gasoline powered car takes less than five minutes while the Tesla supercharge station gives you only a mostly charged vehicle after 45 minutes. Don’t forget, should you resort to 110 VAC charging, you may be waiting a whole day for a charged battery.
Also, as others have documented, Tesla has made no changes to the Model S & X cars since they were introduced except some software updates. Oh, don’t forget that the designer of said cars also quit working for Tesla so there is that. Elon is selling old tech for premium prices. If Tesla goes under, he might have a future with Apple since they do the same thing.
Previously, Elon Musk claimed that the value of his cars would appreciate over time—something heretofore impossible in the history of automobile manufacturing. Tesla does retain its value better than many other cars with 69 percent resale value after three years but there appears to be a catch, Tesla won’t honor their warrant on the car’s battery if you buy one secondhand.
Here’s the details:
Tesla will appreciate in value
Tesla Inc.’s Elon Musk is standing by a claim that the company’s electric cars will be appreciating assets once they’re capable of driving themselves.
Musk, Tesla’s chief executive officer, first made the claim in a podcast interview in April that the company’s vehicles will gain in value because they’ll eventually be capable of fully autonomous driving. He stood by this in a reply to a follower who wrote Tuesday that he was unsure if the CEO was joking or making a “really dumb” statement.
With the exception of collectors’ cars and other rare cases, depreciation has been a fact of life for automakers, dealers and rental-car companies for decades. While Kelley Blue Book has handed Tesla a best resale value award for its Model 3, for example, the car-shopping researcher estimates the sedan retains about 69% of its value after three years.
Tesla promises to warrant their battery for 8 years
Tesla car battery has an eight-year warranty. With this warranty, repairs and replacements are free. Such repairs may include defects in the workmanship or materials of any of the battery’s parts.
If there are any parts that are malfunctioning or if the battery is defective, Tesla will repair or replace the unit. The warranty will also be covering any damage that may happen to your vehicle in the event of a battery fire, even if this may be because of driver error.
Thanks to the diligent work of our staff, it has been brought to my attention that Tesla won’t uphold their promise to honor the warranty on the car’s battery. Folks this has gotten so bad that Tesla has been hit with a class action lawsuit.
Tesla is facing a class action lawsuit filed by consumers who claim that the car company does not honor battery warranties on pre-owned vehicles.
The plaintiff alleges that after his research, he decided to purchase a 2014 “certified pre-owned” (CPO) Tesla Model S 60.
“All of the marketing materials that Plaintiff saw in the news, be it Tesla.com and/or Teslamotorsclub.com and/or other car-buying and automotive websites indicated that the used CPO vehicles sold by Tesla were given a 270-point inspection and that it was customary for Tesla to take care of repairs and issues with their vehicles,” the Tesla class action lawsuit states.
The plaintiff alleges that he depended on Tesla’s “marketing, advertisements, and representations” that his vehicle would be fully inspected and certified.
After he took the vehicle home and started to charge the battery, he reportedly found out that the battery only lasted 166 miles on a full charge.
The plaintiff claims that he brought the car to a service center and they made a correction to the Battery Management System (BMS), but that didn’t fix the problems with the battery.
The Tesla class action lawsuit alleges, “Plaintiff was told to report back to the service center after driving around with the car and after ‘cycling’ the battery, which refers to the practice of charging to 100% and discharging the battery to low levels for purposes of recalibrating the battery.”
The plaintiff claims that Tesla informed him that his vehicle suffers from “normal battery degradation.”
“Despite the fact that Tesla warrantied Plaintiff’s vehicle with a 2-year, 100,000 mile limited warranty, and the fact that it provided a 8-year, unlimited mile battery warranty, Tesla has failed its duty to Plaintiff by unlawfully, improperly, and fraudulently denying proper service and repair of Plaintiff’s vehicle,” the Tesla class action lawsuit alleges.
“Tesla focuses its efforts on allaying the fears of what some drivers of electric vehicles call ‘range anxiety’ by representing to consumers nationwide that they can rely on Tesla’s promises to take care of them no matter what happens to the batteries of Tesla’s vehicles. As it turns out for many consumers who were led on to believe Tesla’s promises, the fact is that Tesla never actually meant to keep their promises and follow through on their guarantees,” the plaintiff states.
The Tesla class action lawsuit is alleging violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, and numerous California laws including the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Consumer’s Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Violation of California’s False Advertising Law.
Elon may regret the decision to manufacture cars in California once he gets to experience firsthand the litigious, antibusiness climate in the once Golden State.
Tesla reputation will fade
Folks this is a big deal because Tesla batteries are in more places than just their cars. Elon’s solar empire—weak as it may be—is also dependent on using Tesla batteries. In some circles, Tesla homes are a thing. The fact is Tesla batteries are just like everybody else’s, it’s just that Elon—like Apple—can charge a premium just by putting their name on something. Oh, and unlike most manufacturers, Tesla’s battery factories are built with taxpayer subsidies.
I know that replacing a battery on a hybrid car is about $3K but a Tesla is much more.
Do you need to replace your car battery? … how much will it cost to replace a Tesla battery.
Answer is between $5,000 to $7,500 and it depends on what model Tesla you drive.
Folks, I expect this to be the beginning of a trend as more Tesla cars hit the road. It’s no secret that quality control issues have plagued these vehicles from the beginning. Elon keeps claiming the future will be better but it’s the past that he should hope never catches up with him.
Corporate America—especially now that we’re in the 90-day life cycle—has a habit of being ruthless in the pursuit of profit and struggle for survival. When they miss their numbers, there’s hell to pay—usually for those at the lowest pay levels and occasionally in middle management or higher.
This week, Tesla missed their numbers badly even with the market expecting them to report a second quarter loss. Elon not only missed the reported target but the entire side of the barn; hence, all Musk’s recent media stories about dreams of a better future leading up to release of said report. Can you blame him? Who’d want his track record at Tesla?
Tesla plunged 10% in extended trading after posting a larger-than-expected loss on Wednesday in a second quarter earnings update.
Here’s what Tesla reported, versus what analysts expected based on average estimates compiled by Refinitiv: * Loss per share on an adjusted basis: $1.12 vs. 40 cents expected * Revenue: $6.35 billion versus $6.41 billion expected
In the wake of this report, some on Wall Street are saying that Musk needs to step down.
When asked if Tesla was worth buying after an ugly quarter, Paul Schatz, president and chief investment officer at Heritage Capital, told Yahoo Finance, “It has very idiosyncratic behavior, but no, [Musk] is not a future leader.”
“You’re going to have Mercedes and BMW and all the real car companies competing with them in the next five years, and I think they are much more well-positioned financially,” compared to Tesla.
Schatz pointed out that while Tesla may have had a head start out of the gate, the company is not taking full advantage of that position. Management is a major concern – the latest example in a series of departures is the company announcing on its earnings call that Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel was stepping down from his position and transitioning to an advisory role.
Schatz compared Musk to Microsoft founder Bill Gates – or at least suggested the Tesla leader should aspire to be like Gates in one particular way. “All great entrepreneurs eventually, like Bill Gates, all step back and say, ‘I’ve taken my company as far as I can go and need to bring in somebody that has a corporate backbone to it,’” he said. “The wrong guy is running the company.”
As for whether investors should bet on the car maker, “unless you’re a nimble trader, I think it’s lunacy to go near Tesla,” Schatz said, adding that he doesn’t see it “as a sustainable long-term business model.”
While firing Elon, might make sense in a saner world, given his volatility and the turnover of his executive staff, I don’t see that ever happening. Musk is his own worst enemy much of the time. I think it likely that he gets to ride Tesla to the bottom—which many define as a stock value south of $100 per share.
Tesla’s only hope for salvation is periodic infusions of government directed money. With the phasing-out of American tax credits and today’s economic reports about Germany’s manufacturing decline—something that will ripple thru Europe, the future cash expected from the EU and other places may be less than promised which will make Tesla’s finances even more dire. If the economy catches a cold, Tesla will suffer a severe case of pneumonia.
