How much revenue do you think it can generate for the Pac 12? How much is it worth? Can it grow to be a major sports production company? Possible future customers?
Federal employees have been having essentially the same conversation for years:
What will our raise be next year?
1%? 2%? 3%? Will locality pay increase? Will Congress intervene? Will the president propose something different?
I think we're asking the wrong question.
The real question should be:
Why doesn't federal pay have a reliable mechanism that protects employees' purchasing power and keeps compensation reasonably competitive with the broader labor market?
This isn't something that started with the current administration. Federal employees have experienced periods of pay freezes, below-inflation increases, and growing pay-comparability concerns across Democratic and Republican administrations and multiple Congresses.
The cumulative effect matters.
If your salary increases 1% while prices increase 4%, you didn't really receive a raise. Your paycheck got larger, but your real purchasing power declined.
Do that repeatedly over many years and the difference compounds.
Congress already recognized this problem when it passed the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) of 1990.
The idea was that federal compensation should remain reasonably competitive with nonfederal employment, including geographic differences through locality pay.
Yet decades later, federal employees are still debating every year whether their next adjustment will keep up.
That's not a functioning long-term compensation strategy.
Rather than fighting every December over another temporary percentage, Congress should consider a permanent reform built around three principles:
1. Protect purchasing power
Federal salaries shouldn't be allowed to substantially fall behind inflation for years and then require employees to beg Congress for a catch-up adjustment.
There should be a mechanism that considers cumulative inflation and prevents persistent erosion of real wages.
2. Maintain labor-market competitiveness
Inflation isn't the only issue.
The federal government competes with private companies, state and local governments, universities, hospitals and other employers for engineers, accountants, firefighters, scientists, healthcare professionals, IT specialists, cybersecurity professionals and countless other occupations.
Federal compensation needs to reflect that reality.
3. Fix pay comparability instead of ignoring it
If the existing FEPCA system isn't going to be implemented as originally envisioned, Congress should reform it.
Create a transparent formula incorporating inflation, comparable labor-market wages and locality differences—and actually use it.
Absolutely. Compensation costs money.
But underpaying employees isn't necessarily free either.
Vacancies cost money.
Turnover costs money.
Recruiting and training replacements cost money.
Overtime costs money.
Contracting out work can cost money.
Losing experienced employees means losing years of institutional knowledge.
And agencies that cannot offer competitive compensation eventually have difficulty attracting the people needed to perform their missions.
We should be evaluating the total cost of maintaining an effective federal workforce, not simply asking how little we can spend on salaries this year.
For decades, American economic policy has frequently emphasized tax reductions and incentives at the top with the expectation that the benefits eventually work their way through the economy.
Whatever your political philosophy, there's another side worth considering:
What happens when middle-class workers simply have more real disposable income?
Workers spend money on housing, groceries, childcare, restaurants, vehicles, home repairs and businesses in their communities.
A federal pay system that preserves real middle-class purchasing power isn't just an employee issue. Federal workers live and spend money in communities throughout the United States.
Federal employees serve under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents.
We work for Republican administrations and Democratic administrations.
And federal employees live in red states, blue states and everywhere in between.
You don't have to be a Democrat or Republican to believe the United States government should be able to recruit and retain competent employees.
So maybe we should actually make some noise.
It takes a few minutes.
Tell them you want Congress to address long-term federal pay reform, not simply next year's adjustment.
Ask for:
And personalize your message.
Tell them what you're seeing at your agency.
Are experienced employees leaving?
Are positions difficult to fill?
Are younger employees declining offers?
Are people leaving for state government or private-sector positions?
Are vacancies creating more overtime and workload for everyone who remains?
Those stories matter.
There are millions of civilian federal employees, plus retirees, spouses and family members.
That's a substantial number of constituents.
One email probably doesn't change federal pay policy.
Thousands of constituents contacting congressional offices about the same specific issue can make it an issue congressional offices have to pay attention to.
So contact your senators.
Contact your representative.
Republican or Democrat.
Don't just ask:
"What's my raise next year?"
Ask:
"Why are we still using a system that allows federal employees' real purchasing power to erode for years at a time?"
Federal employees shouldn't have to fight the same battle every year.
Restore the lost ground. Fix federal pay comparability. Protect real purchasing power. And build a compensation system designed for the next 30 years instead of the next budget cycle.
We knew it but pleae don't go click on stations covering it.
The video follows the Delivrd guy Tommy calling multiple Ford dealerships trying to buy a Raptor R. What should have been a simple question—"How much does it cost?"—turned into a maze of dealer markups, negotiations, disclaimers, and different answers depending on who answered the phone. Some dealers quoted $35k–$50k over MSRP, while others advertised one price online but discussed additional markups over the phone.
It made me realize something.
When people compare Rivian to legacy automakers, they usually talk about:
But one of Rivian's biggest long-term advantages may simply be removing friction from buying a vehicle.
With Rivian:
Whether someone prefers the dealer model or not, I think consumers increasingly value transparency. Buying a $50,000–$100,000 vehicle shouldn't require detective work.
As Rivian scales with the R2 and eventually the R3, I think this becomes an increasingly meaningful competitive advantage—not just because of pricing, but because customers know exactly what to expect.
Video:
https://youtu.be/aV4HRFbf8Cc
Curious what everyone thinks. Is Rivian's direct-sales model an underrated competitive moat, or is it something the market largely ignores?
Question: Which of these do you think is the strongest argument—and what would you add or remove?
I'm not sure I can keep holding this stock.
R2 Launch Editions are backordered.
They had to delay lower trims because too many people ordered the higher-margin Launch Editions.
Reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
Manufacturing costs keep coming down.
Automotive gross losses went from -$335M to -$36M YoY.
EDV sales keep growing.
VW keeps writing checks for software and technology.
Management says they expect positive gross profit on the R2 exit rate.
People are actually waiting months to buy one.
Honestly, these are exactly the kinds of things you see right before a bankruptcy.
At this rate, they might accidentally build too many profitable vehicles.
Very concerning.
I live in an area that's usually an early-adopter market. Years ago, it was Tesla's that slowly started appearing everywhere. At first you'd see one every few days, then one every commute, and eventually they just became part of the landscape. The kids pick up line started with a couple, then grew to a fleet of tesla's. As everyone wanted to the newest hot item.
I'm starting to get that same feeling with Rivian.
I'm seeing way more R1Ss and R1Ts than ever before, and just this past week I've spotted my first R2 on the way to the grocery store. The car pick up line last year had multiple R1s by the end of the year. Yesterday, I glanced over while driving on the interstate and there was a brand-new R1S cruising beside me. That stood out because now it feels like the sightings are accelerating and in different areas.
What's interesting is how localized it is. I can drive just a few miles into another part of the city and I will not see a Rivian at all, heck most of them probably don't even know what a Rivian is. It reminds me that EV adoption doesn't happen evenly—it starts in pockets, then spreads outward.
Curious if anyone else is noticing the same thing in their area, or if it's still rare where you live. With R2 deliveries only beginning a couple of months ago and Rivian recently raising its 2026 delivery outlook after stronger-than-expected demand, it feels like we're still in the very early innings.
Just a thought as R2 production continues to ramp...
Rivian already offers factory pickup for some customers, but I wonder if significantly increasing the number of factory pickup appointments, as well as offering two levels such as a quick pick up or full experience could help move more completed vehicles to owners.
Every vehicle delivered through a service center has to be:
For customers who are willing to travel to Normal, significantly expanding factory pickup capacity could potentially:
Even if only a small percentage of buyers chose factory pickup, that's hundreds—or eventually thousands—of vehicles each year that wouldn't need to move through the traditional delivery-center pipeline.
Obviously, I don't know whether the current bottleneck is transportation, staffing, paperwork, or something else. But if logistics become a constraint as production ramps, expanding factory pickup seems like it could be one more tool in the toolbox.
Would you travel to Normal to pick up your R2 if it meant getting it a little sooner?
I was looking through analyst ratings today.
One thing that got me thinking wasn't whether he's "right" or "wrong," but how sell-side analysts update their models.
Wall Street analysts generally don't change their ratings after every piece of news. Their models are built around assumptions about production, margins, cash flow, and long-term profitability. Usually it takes several quarters of evidence before they make major changes, especially if they're one of the most bullish or bearish analysts covering a stock.
That said, Rivian has changed quite a bit over the past year:
Ryan Brinkman still has one of the lowest price targets on Wall Street at $9, well below the current consensus.
So I'm curious:
At what point does an analyst have to acknowledge that their original assumptions may no longer reflect reality?
Is one strong quarter enough?
Does it take two or three?
Or do analysts typically wait until management proves a trend over multiple earnings reports before materially changing their models?
I'm genuinely interested in how others think analysts approach this. What milestones would Rivian need to hit before a $9 target no longer seems justified?
Nothing seems fishy about some of the analyst opinions about price. R2 launching a success, fantastic universal reviews, so of course they keep it low.
Volkswagen has already validated Rivian's software and electrical architecture strategy, which got me thinking...
If Rivian's Gen 3 platform, RAP AI chips, and Large Driving Model continue to prove themselves, which traditional automaker would make the most sense as the next partner?
Some thoughts:
Building an in-house AI driving stack isn't just expensive—it also carries execution risk. Even after spending billions, there's no guarantee a Large Driving Model will perform as expected. At some point, licensing proven technology may be cheaper and lower risk than building everything yourself.
Rivian has already demonstrated that at least one global automaker sees value in its platform.
If Rivian were to announce a second major software partnership, who do you think it would be—and why?
Managed to get a test drive and confirmed that the R2 can fit 3 car seats across.
Width: You definitely need at least two slimfit seats, but these two dudes had no complaints and kept their cup holders. Outboard seats used LATCH, middle used the seatbelt.
Depth: Rear facing fit behind me (6’) as the driver and still had like 1-2” for me to scoot back and enough for the bigger dudes to crawl through the tunnel. The surprising legroom made it easy for middle seat to get out the side with the other forward facing seat even without adjusting the front passenger seat. Can’t speak to the outboard kid kicking the middle on the way out 🙄
The flat floor makes it much easier for the kids to get around vs some of the ICE options that have the driveshaft tunnel. It’s probably not the most convenient car for 3 kids but it’s a pretty great contender and these two prefer it over the Bronco on my list.
Super nerdy topic warning. I posted more generally about this before (https://www.reddit.com/r/RivianR2/s/sSEbgCZbFo) and since then I've been digging into the R2's compute specs for Autonomy+. I’m curious what folks think of an alternate take on what RAP1/Gen 3 hardware gets you. My tl;dr: RAP1 is a the data gathering platform Rivian needs right now and it’ll take another chip rev to advance self driving capability by much.
Why? On paper 1,600 TOPS looks like a big self-driving improvement enabler. But the (rarely mentioned) memory bandwidth tells a different story, it doesn’t go up at all, staying lower than Tesla HW4.
Some comparisons for you first:
Launch R2 Autonomy+: Dual (corrected from initial post) Nvidia chip rated around 220 TOPS. Just a guess, couldn’t find it mentioned anywhere, but this is almost certainly a single Nvidia Drive Orin-class chip. Bandwidth: ~2 x 205 GB/s (less depending on cross connectivity, etc)
Future R2 Gen 3 autonomy: Two Rivian-designed RAP1 chips in the ACM3 module, totaling ~1,600 TOPS. Bandwidth: STILL ~2 x 205 GB/s.
Tesla HW4 (now): ~500–720 TOPS. Bandwidth: ~384 GB/s.
Tesla AI5/HW5 (in the works): ~2,000–3,000 TOPS. bandwidth: ~768–1,500+ GB/s (my wild asses guess)
See what happened there? Tesla starts off with more memory bandwidth and just keeps going, Rivian isn’t increasing at all yet.
Why do I think this memory bandwidth thing is a big deal? TOPS is how much math the chip can do, memory bandwidth is how fast you can feed it the data to do math on. Modern driving models are basically big vision transformers that shuffle huge amounts of image/LiDAR/radar data around. These workloads are usually memory-bound, not compute-bound. Try running even a small LLM with Ollama on your high spec MacBook Pro and note how it heats up like a toaster but doesn’t produce an answer to “hi are you there?” for 2 minutes - welcome to memory bandwidth limits (and other limits, but that’s a big one).
Rivian increased TOPS by about 7x (220 to 1,600) but left bandwidth flat at ~205 GB/s. That’s really unbalanced scaling that works for collecting more data but gets stuck if you want to run bigger models.
RAP1 does add LiDAR, more on-chip integration and custom silicon Rivian controls, 5 billion pixels/second processing, richer sensor suite for logging real-world edge cases. Great for data collection. It's exactly what you want if your main problem is "we don't have enough fleet miles and weird scenarios to train on yet."
RAP1 is exactly the right move for where Rivian actually is. Their autonomy stack is newer, their fleet is smaller, and they need real-world miles and wacky edge-case data. But I wonder if RAP1 is the chip that lets Rivian run a really smooth Tesla-like HW4 end-to-end city-driving model. For that, they'll probably need RAP2 or RAP3 with significantly more memory bandwidth.
Am I missing something? Curious if people think the bandwidth concern is overblown, or if Rivian has some architecture trick that makes 205 GB/s go further than it looks.