Skip to content

The Elon Musk slop machine is in overdrive

Elon Musk, the Sarah Palin of the '20s, has something to say:

The “save the homeless” NGOs are often paid according to how many homeless people are on the streets, thus creating a strong financial incentive for them to maximize the number of homeless people and never actually solve the problem! Incentives explain outcomes.

That sounds really stupid! We're paying homeless nonprofits more if there are more homeless on the streets? No wonder the homeless population keeps growing!

Except, of course, that (a) no one actually does this, and (b) the homeless population outside California has been shrinking for years:

Next up on the Musk hit parade was a chart specially formatted to show that assets of those sneaky nonprofits have skyrocketed over the past few decades. But as any businessman knows, organizations also have liabilities. If it's wealth you're after, you have to look at actual wealth. It also helps if you compare it to something else. I have helpfully done that:

The net worth of nonprofits has indeed skyrocketed—up 800% in 30 years. But that's because the entire economy has skyrocketed even more, thanks to things like Nvidia chips and Tesla cars. The nonprofit sector is actually a bit of a laggard.

Does Musk simply believe anything that gets tweeted at him? Most of the stuff he passes along with one of his famous curt warnings—Concerning. Must stop. Killer problem—is just slop. But he doesn't care because he's quickly on to the next thing and never gets asked any questions. Meanwhile his devoted legions casually believe the constant stream of swill he passes along. Why wouldn't they?

23 thoughts on “The Elon Musk slop machine is in overdrive

    1. weirdnoise

      Being smart is being as aware of what you don't know as well as what you do know. By that standard, Musk is exceptionally stupid.

      1. Altoid

        Absolutely.

        Sigh, so many of these techbro types are convinced they're Leonardo da Vinci come back to life, when at best they'd be much more in the Raymond Babbitt mold. Cleverness combined with ignorance is just empty showboating, cleverness combined with gullibility is visible stupidity, and in his case the combination is compounded by his being awash in sycophants and (reportedly) ketamine to produce that exceptional stupidity.

  1. Murc

    That would be really stupid! We're paying homeless nonprofits more if there are more homeless on the streets?

    Why would this be dumb?

    This is how we do it with everything. Social Security pays out more if there are more old retired people. The VA pays out more if there are more veterans. We spend more on transit where there are more people who need transit. We spend more on Medicaid and Medicare if there are more poor/old/sick all of the above.

    So why wouldn't we increase outlays for helping the homeless if there are more homeless people? Ideally the government would provide services to the poor directly, but...

    1. lawnorder

      Obviously, the difference between aid to the homeless and the other programs you mention is that aid to the homeless is intended to help people stop being homeless. The VA does not try to help people to stop being veterans. In an ideal world, aid to the homeless would result in a declining homeless population, whereas the other programs are not expected to cause a reduction in the number of people using them.

      There is a perverse incentive if homeless aid programs get more money when there are more homeless, but I don't think the incentive is a strong one; it would be a strong incentive if the aid organizations could actually cause homelessness.

      1. FrankM

        What a non-sequitur! No, the purpose of the VA is not to help people stop being veterans. So what is its purpose? Can you guess? And if the VA is successful, would there be a reduction in the need for those services?

    2. cephalopod

      Musk is, of course, turning the relationship on its head. He's implying that cutting aid would solve the problem.

      I suppose reducing funding could reduce the need, but mostly via death. Lots of programs, from homeless shelters to social security, limit people's risk of untimely death, increasing the number of people utilizing them at any given time.

  2. jeffreycmcmahon

    Never forget that he's on a lot of drugs, all the time.

    (Not sure why Sarah Palin is the comparison here, which seems quite inapt).

  3. cephalopod

    I hear the "nonprofits need the problems to continue" BS all the time.

    I think it's a sign that a person measures high in the psychopathology scale. They just can't imagine someone being mission-driven enough that they would cheer working themselves out of a job. Meanwhile most people working in these sectors know they have transferable skills that work in many jobs, and they know Republicans will keep things miserable enough that there will always be a need.

  4. dilbert dogbert

    Re: California homeless
    I remember stories about states busing homeless to California and even some jurisdictions within California exporting them to other in-state locations.

  5. kenalovell

    "Incentives explain outcomes" sounds like a catchy slogan Musk remembers seeing on a Powerpoint lecture slide at Wharton.

    1. rick_jones

      The version/variant I picked-up (not at Whorton, but at an old-school tech company) was "What gets measured is what get's done." I was also taught the all oo often the proper spelling of assume is with a hyphen on either side of the letter 'u'. 🙂

  6. CedarChopper

    Does the nonprofit data include private colleges? They file as nonprofits, and if so, most of that growth really represents growth in their endowments. Nothing along the lines of what Elon is claiming.

  7. Rattus Norvegicus

    Over the last few years I have become convinced that Musk is a blithering idiot. Example 1: the Cybertruck, clearly a Musk special.

  8. D_Ohrk_E1

    Homeless populations had been rising up and down the west coast, post-Great Recession, not just California. I know you've seen the PIT reports.

  9. Gilgit

    Um, I'm not sure why no one has mentioned this, but contrary to what Elián is claiming, NGOs do not have some supernatural contract that magically gives them more money if they count more homeless people.

    Some of the points raised by others may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that a random organization declaring that there are now 50% more homeless people does nothing. Such a declaration does not magically cause 50% more money to appear in an NGOs bank account. Which is what Elián is really claiming.

Comments are closed.