Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
livinincali
Participant[quote=spdrun]Which is why the Feds should pimp-slap fossil fuels for motor use with a punitive tax. Start it at one cent per gallon. Double every two years 🙂
That would be the best of all worlds. Incentive for consumers to move away from oil without oil production fouling North American soil.
Other ideal scenario would be a dead US frack industry combined with political unrest in the Middle East a few years from now. Oil hitting $200+/bbl would be good shock treatment for the US.[/quote]
You do know that in CA we already pay almost 70 cents per gallon in taxes and AB32 is slated to push that tax up another 15 or so cents beginning next year. Of course AB 32 is so weird that we don’t even know exactly how much of a tax increase it will be. I don’t see Californians giving up their gas powered cars yet, unless you can afford a 80K Tesla.
ParticipantIf you’re willing to do a diet that’s mostly grains and vegatables with limited protein and those grains are self cooked (i.e. steamed rice instead of store bought bread) a dollar per meal is doable. The problem is if you’re used to a western diet of meat and potatoes you’ll never stick to that diet.
Asians eat that way because they grew up that way and the vast majority of people in those countries can’t afford to eat differently. They eat rice noodles and vegatables with little bits of protein because protein is expensive there. In most 3rd world countries food is a much larger part of the budget compared to here where shelter is a huge part of the budget.
While it’s theoretically doable to come up with a budget that lives on 60k per year with kids and can save for a condo in San Diego. The reality is the people buying those condos aren’t a family of 4 making 60k year. Most people older than 40 to 50 can’t afford to buy a place where they currently live and their kids can’t buy that property either. Consider what that means for your estate.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
As far as energy storage tech: you’re forgetting about hydrogen, either to power an internal combustion engine, or to run fuel cells. You’re also supposing that we need most cars/trucks to have a range of > 100 miles. We already have electric vehicles essentially with unlimited range: trains.
[/quote]Hydrogen doesn’t exist as H2 in large quantities naturally in the world. It has to be extracted from H2O or more commonly CH4 (methane). Extracting it from H2O takes a lot of energy. Extracting it from CH4 produces CO2. Hydrogen fuel cells are decent but they aren’t a panacea. It could work I just don’t know if it’s really that much better than compressed natural gas. Don’t waste time with extracting the H2 and having to store it in a highly pressurized state when I can just use the CH4 in a lower pressurized state.
As for trains the long haul ones use diesel generators to generate the electricity. I know commuter trains back east mostly use electrified tracks, but most of that electricity is coming from fossil fuel power stations. If we’re willing to go the nuclear route then going with electricity make more sense but uranium nuclear or even thorium nuclear would take years to build out in the current environment. You’d have to be planning/r&d it now if you want it online in 10 years.
[quote]
As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It’s perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.[/quote]If you drive the prius right you can get 50 mpg or more but most people aren’t that willing to drive 55-60 mph on the highway to get that mileage. I think the more realistic mileage is probably 40-45 mpg. So maybe we’re close but is everybody ready to trade in their SUVs, sports cars, and trucks to drive priuses. I don’t see a pickup truck or SUV getting anywhere close to 50 mpg in the next 10 years. The thermodynamics just don’t seem to be there.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Oil as energy is so last century. We should be moving to nuclear, hydro, and renewables for energy, not digging for dead dinos.
Besides, whether they admit it or not Keystone XL is primarily an EXPORT pipeline. I mean — why build it from Canada to the Gulf?
Anyway, I suspect that this will be revisited after the new Congresspeople are seated in 2015.[/quote]
You do realize that most of the US refining facilities reside near the gulf. Want to know why? Well those big oil tankers that import our oil typically are unloaded in the gulf and it makes a lot of sense to have your refineries close to your crude import facilities. Could it be used for export, yeah sure, but that’s not why they want to transport it to the gulf.
Nuclear is the only other real option and most that oppose Keystone oppose Nuclear as well. We should be developing Thorium Nuclear but we aren’t because that would take leadership and innovation from Washington that isn’t there.
The problem is most people don’t have the education and knowledge to make an informed decision of energy technology. Most people don’t under thermodynamics. A gallon of gasoline is relatively stable, lightweight and has quite a bit of energy content. No lithium ion battery is even close in terms of energy density. Without running the math I don’t know that’s it’s thermodynamically possible to get 50 mpg in a 3000+ lb vehicle. Can we even build an engine that is that much more efficient.
If we convert to an electric vehicle fleet where does the electricity come from. Are we going to cover the Mohave desert with solar thermal farms? Are we going to build hundreds of new Natural Gas power stations? Are we going to build new nuclear power stations? That stuff needs to be in the works soon if we’re actually going to get there in the next 10 years and I don’t see it.
ParticipantCSCO profit margin is 16% and it’s revenues have been flat for years now. Investors are demanding earnings growth and the company just can’t seem to generate it without cost cutting measures. I don’t think a 16% profit margin is that horribly greedy. I do think Cisco suffers from a lack of innovation though.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
With Net Neutrality, if someone were to start as streaming service (porn or whatever), he would still need to pay for an ultra fast Internet connection (the total capacity of that service would be limited by the connection). And he would also have to pay third parties to localize the content closer to his consumers. So it’s not like he would have unlimited bandwidth at everybody else’s expense.
[/quote]This is what Obama said.
[quote]
Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.
[/quote]So tell me again why I would need to pay extra for my ultra fast connection. There’s a ban on being able to charge extra for a extra fast connection under Obama’s Net Neutrality plan.
Participant[quote=AN]If we do that, we’ll have slow speed like the speed limit and congestion. Some providers are already doing exactly what you’re proposing and charge extra by imposing data cap. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote]
I really don’t know what the correct solution is but it really boils down to who is going to pay for the infrastructure build out that is required to have the bulk of customers on a streaming model.
1) The content providers have to pay to get their content collocated near the ISP last mile hubs. I.e. Netflix is going to need to install server farms closer to it’s customers so that the ISPs can deliver the traffic down the last mile. This mean Netflix customers will pay more and the barrier to entry in the streaming market will be much higher.
2) We continue with the all you can eat model we have now and as the ISPs have to build out the infrastructure to handle the increased load and everybody pays somewhat more. In this scenario the light users are effectively subsidizing the heavy users, but it will certainly be more expensive than it is now. Maybe $100/mo, maybe more.
3) We go towards utility model where it’s heavily regulated and heavy users have to pay more than light users. This is pretty much how I expect things to end up in a Net Neutrality world with heavy government regulation.
Net neutrality sounds pretty good until you consider scenarios like this.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229585
[quote]
You may think this is of benefit to you but it is not. It is not of benefit to you because you may not want to buy Netflix service, but if this mandate is imposed you will be forced to pay for the transport of their bits over your ISPs pipe whether you buy their service or not!Now you may say “but I want Netflix so I win — and **** you!”
Ok.
Tomorrow, if this mandate is imposed, I am going to start a 50Mbps 3d-porno service that will serve up virtual pornography to you on demand. It will, of course, require very high quality Internet connections, all of which I can force to be provided over this “open Internet on which there are no tolls and no discrimination” and your bill will be forced higher to pay for my ability to get those bits to anyone who wants it, whether you subscribe to my service or not!
Still think this is a good idea?
[/quote]Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]livinincali, the US is one now one of the markets where consumers pay the highest price for internet service. I think that Canada is the most expensive.
Same goes for cell phone service.
Providers charge more because they can. I don’t think your infrastructure argument flies when compared to other countries.
[/quote]And how does that change the fact that there are a limited number of internet providers? To compete in providing broadband internet services you have to spend a lot of money. The cable companies are going to get their pound of flesh no matter what. No country’s internet infrastructure is designed to have everybody streaming 10+Mb/s. If you watch 40 hours of TV per month that’s 120GB of streaming data at HD quality. Right now most people use a couple GBs per month. You talking about a factor of 50-100x increase in internet usage.
Participant[quote=doofrat]
If you like watching spectator sports, you won’t get that, and some content is delayed or not available, so it’s not for everyone, but with more people cutting cable, I think it’s inevitable that everything goes to streaming. IMHO complaining about Cable is like complaining about milk delivery or land line phone service, it’s an old technology that’s past it’s prime.[/quote]The problem is somebody has to build out the infrastructure to support everybody streaming. That costs a lot of money. If you cut the cord you might get a little bit ahead right now, but in the future your internet bill is going to be the same $150/mo it costs to have a bundle now. It actual costs more money to deliver everyone their own separate stream then it does to send everybody the same stream at the same time. Cord cutting only works better right now because not that many people are doing it and those that don’t are subsidizing those that do. I.e. they pay the same price for internet but use much less bandwidth.
Participant[quote=spdrun]When dealing with those clowns, record all conversations, and play them back to the rep (or their manager) if you have a problem.
It’s a shame that SD doesn’t have alternative ISPs like Monkeybrains in SF.[/quote]
In CA it’s jail-able offense for recording a telephone conversation without consent. If your going to do that make sure you say your going to do it and get consent.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.I read the article and it seems fairly inconclusive to me. Only 1,600 people received wages and it’s a small community. Just because a hotel tries to expand to make up for the increased expense doesn’t necessarily mean it will work out. It could work but it’s too early to know. I think different parts of the country can withstand higher minimums and other parts might not. Seattle’s a fairly wealth place it might be able to withstand $15/hr, or maybe not I’m not really sure but I’d like to see the results. And not the results 6 months into it, more like 3 or 4 years.
It’s easy to say let’s help those poor workers with higher wages but ignore the possible unintended consequences. I want to understand those consequences. There’s definitely numerous factors in play fore any economy. Tax rates, natural resources, number of established businesses, weather/living conditions, wage rates, quality of talent etc. Opening a venture capital software company might not makes a lot of financial sense in the bay area due to tax laws, but it might make sense for other reasons. It hard to account for all that other stuff when looking at one input factor like minimum wage.
The only thing that really matters with minimum wage policy is can you shrink profit margin of the business paying minimum wage, without causing business closure and a loss of jobs.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Regarding the stores closing early, etc., there’s an easy solution: staggered work hours. You can easily run an operation 12-24 hours/day by just shifting staff around. If people work fewer hours, you just hire more people. As Spdrun noted, in countries where pensions, healthcare, etc. are managed by the govt, businesses can be free to concentrate on business. There would be less of a disincentive to hiring because the employer wouldn’t have to bear the burden of those non-wage benefits.Here’s a great article comparing the wages and benefits of Burger King workers in the US and Denmark. What so many brainwashed people in the US don’t seem to understand is that corporate profits come from workers and consumers. THAT is the “redistribution of wealth” that people should be angry about. We need to make sure that the profits are shared more equally among all stakeholders, with a special emphasis on those who create the profits in the first place — workers.
[/quote]The problem is it’s extremely difficult to regulate how profits are distributed. We cite how burger king pays their employees much more in Denmark but there’s also far fewer Burger Kings in Denmark. Only the most profitable locations can be opened because anything at the margin isn’t worth opening. So there’s were the rub lies. Countries that have have greater worker protections tend to have slower business creation.
There is a disincentive to start and open a company in a country with very strong worker protections. It should be obvious from looking at Europe. Italy and France with very strong worker protections have shrinking economies while those that have worker protections but not nearly as strong are still growing. A global software company isn’t going to open an office in France. They might do it in Ireland, UK, or Germany but they won’t do it in France. There’s a balance between regulation and business. So far I’ve yet to see a western government implement policy that favors strong worker protections and spurred an economic boom. Those two things seem to compete against each other. Maybe where we are here with the economy is the best that can be achieved. More regulation probably isn’t going to stimulate growth less regulation might stimulate some growth but comes with the negative consequences of more exploitation of labor.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
If the minimum standards are the same for everyone, people can still get ahead within the standards. We’ve had worker health and safety standards for years. Our country hasn’t collapsed because of them. The world won’t end if people are guaranteed a humane amount of time off to spend with their families, despite what the conservatards will say about it.[/quote]The problem is there’s always going to be exceptions. Are you limited in the a amount of hours you can work if your self employed. What about Doctors, Police, Lawyers and all kinds of professions where there’s some sort of looming deadline to get things done. There will always be exceptions and when there’s exceptions there’s loopholes. France has attempted to erect those standards and results leave something to be desired.
In addition if on net you lose productive hours, there’s fewer goods and services for people to consume. Therefore your standard of living in terms of goods and services is limited. Can you afford to take a vacation if there’s fewer hours being worked in the hospitality industry. It does come down to supply and demand.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I don’t give a flying fuck about being able to shop till I drop on Sundays and late evenings. Sounds like you have some pretty shallow friends. Might be time to kick them to the curb and find new ones.
Your “if you want to work less blah-blah-blah” argument is tiresome and hackneyed. I bet that they told shipyard workers the same in 1950 — “if you don’t want to breathe asbestos, find another job.” Or “if you don’t want to get black lung, find another job.”
I consider working hours and vacation time a health and safety issue. tiredness reduces safety and lowers mental and physical health. In a tight job market like the US, employers will always exploit employees the most they can within the law.
Apparently, Americans only take 50% of their given vacation because they’re afraid of losing their jobs. This is wage theft and a hostile work environment, but no one does a damn thing about it. If time off and working hours were guaranteed by law, then there would be less of an incentive to bully employees into giving up what is rightfully theirs.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s really possible to control the economy in such a way allocate the number of hours worked and your social economic place in life at the same time. Those people could get different jobs working less hours but in exchange they’ll lose their place in the income allocation ladder. You go from solidly middle class to lower middle class in exchange for working less. Countries that try this have to erect multiple layers of rules to prevent the natural competition that exists in an economy. We see this in the public sector, we see this in countries like France and Italy.
Most of the people I know working for hourly rates like overtime. They hope they get overtime so they can get ahead of their peers. People individually are always looking for ways to get ahead of their peers whether it’s education, working longer, working 2 jobs, it doesn’t matter how you regulate it. People deciding to work less will likely fall behind in a capitalist system. Until you figure out a socialist/redestibutive system where there’s still a strong incentive to innovate and produce I don’t see how you overcome the competitive nature of an economy.
I don’t disagree about time off being beneficial I just don’t see how it works very well in a competitive economy. There’s going to be somebody that willing to work harder and longer so they can eat more steak than you.
-
AuthorPosts
