Summary: Today’s podcast is worth the 25-minute listen because I’m discussing Henry Ford, the original titan of the auto industry, versus Elon Musk, the modern-day disruptor. These two figures share a lot—huge ambitions, revolutionary ideas, and a knack for changing industries. But one big question looms: can Musk’s empire stand the test of time the way Ford’s has? I mean this company is over a hundred years old while both of Musk’s major companies are still just getting started. And what lessons can we take away from Ford and Elon, especially as AI enters the picture.
Elon-Thanos AI image credit: Zaeem Ul Hassan @zaeem_ai
Listen now:
I’m sending a “Saturday Surprise” email because I woke up thinking over a string of recent tweets and statements from Elon and it had my brain going. After lying awake mulling things over, I decided it was worthy of sharing in this newsletter. Enjoy!
Ford vs Elon: Historical Comparison
At his height, Henry Ford was indeed every bit the business titan that Elon Musk is.
At its peak in the early 20th century, Ford Motor Company revolutionized manufacturing with the assembly line. This innovation dramatically reduced production costs, enabling the Model T to dominate the auto market. Adjusted for inflation, Henry Ford's personal wealth would have reached approximately $200 billion at its height, placing him among history's wealthiest individuals.
By comparison, Elon Musk's wealth (just over $200 billion in 2024) is built on a diversified portfolio of tech-driven companies. Unlike Ford’s dominance in one sector during its era, Musk's wealth is distributed across industries like automotive, aerospace, and technology.
That said, there is one key point that many people forget: Musk’s success is heavily reliant on government subsidies.
Historical Context and Scale
Ford:
Founded in 1903, Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the assembly line, establishing a robust market for affordable cars and shaping global industrialization. Today, Ford operates on a massive scale, producing millions of vehicles annually and generating $158 billion in revenue in 2022.
Musk's Companies:
Tesla (founded in 2003) and SpaceX (founded in 2002) are innovators in their fields—electric vehicles (EVs) and space exploration—but are still scaling. Tesla produced just over 1.3 million vehicles in 2022, far below Ford's production and established market dominance took decades, while Musk’s companies are still in their growth phases, marked by high spending and dependence on external funding.
2. Profitability and Government Dependency
Ford:
While Ford benefits from EV-related government funding and incentives, its mainstay ICE and hybrid vehicles remain the most profitable segment, making it less dependent on subsidies is consistently profitable overall, even with its EV division running at a loss.
Ford’s genius wasn’t just about making a product—it was about making it better, faster, and cheaper. His assembly line became a blueprint for modern manufacturing, cutting costs and speeding up production. But here’s what’s really impressive: Ford didn’t rely on subsidies or contracts to grow his empire. His funding came directly from his customers. If the public stopped buying cars, Ford would have gone under.
And public perception? Oh, it mattered. Ford had to keep customers happy and prove his value, not just to Americans but to the world. In its 100+ years, Ford has done business across the globe, navigating dictatorships, democracies, and everything in between. They’ve mastered the art of adapting to different governments while staying true to their mission of delivering quality and affordability to customers.
Tesla and SpaceX:
There’s no denying the Musk is smart. He’s revolutionized EVs, commercial spaceflight, solar energy, and even tunnel boring. But his playbook is entirely different from Ford’s. Musk’s companies—Tesla, SpaceX, and others—rely heavily on government subsidies and contracts. Taxpayer money has funded a significant chunk of Tesla’s EV growth and SpaceX’s groundbreaking space missions.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, innovation often needs a boost. But here’s where the cracks start to show: Musk doesn’t depend on direct customer revenue to keep the lights on. If public perception of Tesla or SpaceX takes a hit, it doesn’t impact his funding the way it would for Ford. It’s risky if government funding were to change.
If removed, Ford’s diversified revenue streams would likely sustain it, while Musk’s companies could face much greater challenges in reaching the 100 year mark.
Ford’s in the People Business
Ford Motor Company has consistently emphasized its role in shaping communities and supporting diversity as a core aspect of its culture and operations. Leadership statements and initiatives reflect a commitment to fostering inclusion and adapting to community needs globally.
Executive Chair Bill Ford has highlighted the company's purpose, stating, "We see no conflict between business goals and social and environmental needs... A great company delivers excellent products and services and strives to make the world a better place."
This philosophy has driven Ford to integrate social impact into its business strategy, ensuring it remains a positive force in the communities it serves. Ford has thrived in countries with all kinds of political systems, from democracies to dictatorships, by building strong relationships and adjusting its approach to fit each government's rules and culture. This flexibility has helped the company maintain its global presence while staying focused on meeting customer needs.
Throughout its history, Ford has actively adapted to cultural and governmental contexts worldwide.
These efforts reinforce Ford's vision of vehicles not just as transportation but as enablers of opportunity, mobility, and lifestyle, meeting the unique needs of communities worldwide.
Musk: People Are Not as Important
We have continuously seen that people’s welfare is not a priority for Musk. Elon Musk’s leadership style has faced criticism for a perceived lack of emphasis on employee welfare. His acquisition of Twitter highlighted this concern, as he laid off a significant portion of the workforce in a highly controversial and abrupt manner, reportedly locking employees out of their systems before formal notifications were sent.
Musk also mandated a return-to-office policy, signaling his disdain for remote work, and imposed what he described as a “hardcore” work environment, demanding long hours and high-intensity performance. Reports from former employees have also pointed to unreasonable demands and a lack of work-life balance as hallmarks of his approach, raising questions about whether such methods are sustainable or conducive to employee well-being.
But here’s the point that must be noted: Musk’s business models do not depend on public perception, so it doesn’t matter if he acts this way. He still gets government funding and contracts regardless of whether he is a controversial boss or not.
This is why his embracing of AI might be even more problematic for employees.
Elon’s Embracing AI
Video Games:
"Too many game studios that are owned by massive corporations," said Musk recently tweeted. "xAI is going to start an AI game studio to make games great again!"
Elon Musk’s company xAI was launched in 2023. xAI aims to create a "maximally curious AI" that has been working on a range of projects, including a generative AI chatbot called "Grok," which has been integrated into Musk's platform X (formerly Twitter).
Musk’s involvement in AI has also sparked debates about its potential societal impacts, especially given his advocacy for widespread automation, which could lead to significant job displacement.
For example, in just the video game space, major games from Ubisoft or EA, often involve hundreds to thousands of people to bring to market. Examples include Ubisoft's Watch Dogs, which had a team of around 400-600 people during development.
Air Travel:
Elon Musk has expressed strong opinions about the future of military aviation, specifically criticizing manned fighter jets as outdated and inefficient in the age of drones. He pointed out that planes like the F-35 are too costly and unnecessary, suggesting that unmanned drones are a more effective alternative for modern air combat.
Musk argued that drones eliminate the need for human pilots, which not only reduces operational costs but also avoids putting pilots at risk. He highlighted that, with advanced missile systems and drone technology, crewed fighter jets would likely be quickly downed in conflicts involving sophisticated adversaries. Musk's views emphasize his belief in moving away from traditional military aircraft in favor of more cost-effective, technology-driven solutions
Currently, the active duty U.S. Air Force has over 12,000 pilots. Now, we also know that what is adapted by the military often spills over into the civilian world. So, extend this cost-saving measure to commercial air travel andf you put the approximate 290,000 commercial pilots out of a job, too.
Federal Government:
Musk’s partner at Vivek Ramaswamy at the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Donald Trump proposed a controversial "thought experiment" about reducing the federal workforce. He suggested that employees could be laid off based on their Social Security number—those with odd numbers would be let go, while those with even numbers would remain. This idea was framed as a way to shrink the government by 75% without incurring discrimination lawsuits. However, Ramaswamy emphasized it as a hypothetical scenario rather than a concrete plan.
The federal civilian workforce in the U.S. currently consists of about 2.18 million employees, not including the Postal Service or other excluded agencies. If this workforce were reduced by 75%, as suggested, approximately 1.635 million people would lose their jobs, leaving about 545,000 federal civilian employees remaining.
This massive reduction would have significant implications for government operations and the economy.
With the possibility of millions losing their jobs to AI and “efficiency,” I go back to my original thought that Musk may well be the real life Thanos.
Our Take-Aways
I have no solutions right now for the possible mass unemployment our country might soon be facing due to the Robot Revolution, but I do have advice for those companies who will be making decisions as to whether to retrain or replace their human workforce.
Ford Motor Company has weathered a century of public perception, and so I have no doubt they will continue to pay heed to how they treat their employees. As AI and automation grows, I have faith they will regard their human workforce with empathy and compassion, even if the decision is ultimately reached to replace them with robots.
This is essential, and so their company culture can be used as a model. I have also created a 9-step corporate guide to help companies navigate the question of mindful adoption of robots.
So, in your own role as deciding whether to employ the robots, I would strongly advise Ford be the model you emulate rather than Elon’s current stance. Listen to the podcast for my full thoughts.
Weekly disclosure: ChatGPT helped me research both Elon and Ford Motor Company. All facts are assumed to be as correct as ChatGPT currently is. I also used the service to help me write this week’s blog post above; however, the podcast is entirely done by me. Please excuse any typos on the blog post or misspeaking on the podcast.
Save the Humans!
I believe we are stronger together, so I am sharing my business experience and exploring what’s next for humans in a world where robots can do all our jobs quicker, cheaper, and, most likely, better. I’m helping you make sense of today’s business world so you can focus on being the most efficient you!
Share this post