They could set more realistic growth/production goals. I’m not sure if it’s financially viable to do so, but the “normal” way of growing production from zero to several thousand cars a week is the pace that VW and Toyota did it - over say 50 years. This idea of taking companies from zero to massive within less than several decades of organic growth I think is doomed unless you accept a lot of burnout (which you shouldn’t).

Where's the proof that would work? The auto industry has kept virtually all new competitors out of the market for the past 100 years.

yep - I think that is the problem. He has to push hard b/c if he did not the established companies would have crushed him by now. Slow growth wouldn't work. Its extremely difficult to gain traction in this industry today. He is also pushing the industry to change radically (and very quickly), challenging/threatening certain aspects that were considered staples (dealership model, the massive service revenue from frequent maint of ICE vehicles, parts etc ) -- this is a threat to the current status quo.

The proof that slow organic-growing business has less burnout in staff than startup-mode business? I’m not sure that’s proven. It’s pure conjecture on my part

>using a highly automated assembly line

Last I heard the established automakers were basically laughing at the quality and amount of automation on their production lines. Has this changed?

From everything I'm seeing, it sounds like it may be over automated if anything. (sorry if I'm going against code of conduct, I'm not sure what the rules are on making the link-footnotey deal)

https://www.investopedia.com/news/teslas-hyperautomated-asse...