Slashdot Mirror

Yes, we can all make up stories as well.

But that is still a straw-man argument. The problem NOT just about how long a bulb runs and how much energy it saves operating for the end consumer only. Once again, since you seem to be too thick to understand. There is a cost to the materials those LED's need. Do those "technically" offset the cost of the energy & waste we have to consider? Or are you okay with destroying the environment just to shave a few pennies off your home lighting bill?

I am not against LED's I still buy them myself, but no one here knows the full costs of these things, and I would like to know that because hanging up my hat and accepting what is being said when my experience with LED's has NOT been reflective of what the MFG packages say I can expected from their bulbs!

https://www.thesimpledollar.co...

Look at the article. They had to show cost savings over 23 years to see a large number. Do you know what they call this? Statistical Padding, where things are done to improve statistical numbers despite them not really being of help to the whole team wining.

Because LED lights cost more to make, tolerance for failures is lower. And bulbs are not always on so the failure rates of those that turn bulbs on/off at higher frequencies may also be an issue.

(cutting out a bunch of pointless

Cheap apartment, 224sqft for $224/month (remember my budget is $300). $85/sqft, $19,040. That right off is 7 years 1 month pay-off; but add in the kitchen and bathroom, $1,000, 7 years 5 months. Those appliances cost $11.18/month.

Ah, here's where I have a problem: I'm asking you: Is it still legitimate to use a best case/lowest cost range for building apartments that aren't really built today? Here's the deal: Real life isn't a game. Price per square foot is basically an estimating tool.

You're the one diving into the weeds about appliances, then trying to write cost increases off as 'trivial'. I was trying to point out that, for a smaller apartment, you have a number of static costs(I wasn't trying to list ALL of them) that don't scale down. Other ones besides appliances include the lights, a smaller apartment is, proportionally speaking, going to have more wall(proportionally expensive), requring more painting, etc...

I wasn't really trying to nail down the cost difference, merely telling you that I think you're under-estimating the cost of your 'cheap' apartments. You've since ignored my suggestion - sharing an apartment, as a means to reduce costs per person such that it would be affordable.

Consider what I did a sanity check. You keep going back to estimated prices per square foot and using the minimum estimated costs. You can't do that, especially when you're going below the range those estimates were determined from.

What did I do? I looked up the median rental cost area for the USA and looked up the cheapest available apartments. Given that these probably include older properties that are nearly ready for an extensive remodel, but not so cheap that they're just plain snapped up by the needy whenever they come up, it seems reasonable to me to consider them a baseline.

What changed?

Price per square foot is $1.03 in the first, $1.00 in the second.

To me, this is using one assumption to make another assumption. You're unilaterally decreasing the price over what's already a 'best case' scenario for the builder/owner of the apartment.

That $1,000 I computed should equate to about $5/month.

Not sure how you're figuring it, but most of my values have you neglecting cost of capital and insurance.

Clothes washers and dryers are usually in the building's laundry room, and are not static expenses per apartment;

You'll note that I didn't mention them, right? I was figuring they were going to a laundrymat. Otherwise, well, you do realize that if you're going to put them up in a apartment without laundry facilities you're going to have to add laundry costs to your estimates. Figure 3 loads@$3 each(lights, darks, bedding), that's $39/month. By the way, the site I linked shows that owning your own laundry machine is quickly cheaper.

boilers and heaters are part of controlled zone systems (not per-apartment; the zone control panel would cost like $300 per 6 units, the HVAC zone baffel would cost about $100 per unit, the control panel would meter usage time per apartment, and you'd install as much furnace capacity as per your heated space). A commercial TED on the building would cost $1,200 for a three-phase, 2,000 amp system; for 8 units, you'd need a $600 800 amp system with $150 8-breaker monitoring set.

Okay, now I'm sure you have no clue about modern costings. I have a boiler. I had to have the bloody thing replaced a while back. A zone control panel for $300, for 6 zones? Yeah right. Zone valves run $80 each, and that's without install and with my ass shopping around. That's $480 each, even if you assume that the thermostat and wiring are free (I'd estimate ~$150 for them). Multiply by about 2 for labor.

As fo

Are you living under a rock? It's not exploitive, it's education. Students get real-world experience while the business gets free labor.

My alma mater requires that every degree has co-op time. Employers like that the graduates have real-world experience.

No, I do not live under a rock. People who do unpaid internships end up with almost no better odds getting a job than those who didn't do an internship, and their pay when they got a job was less.

It may make you less employable.

he National Association of Colleges and Employers recently conducted a survey that concluded that those who completed paid internships had an advantage over those who had unpaid internships. For starters, 63.1% of paid interns were offered a job after graduation, while only 37% of unpaid interns were offered a job. That figure is only slightly higher than the 35% who were offered a job with no internship experience at all.

It can result in a lower salary.

In that same survey, those who interned at a paying position reported earning more money as well. Paid interns reported earning a median salary of $51,930 at their first jobs. Graduates who did unpaid internships earned a median of $35,721, which is less than the $37,087 median salary for those who did no internship at all.

Obviously, if employers are paying more for people who haven't done unpaid internships, they see internships as just a supply of free labor, not worth anything when it comes time to that first paying job.

I wouldn't be surprised if students sue their universities, because the unpaid internship is discriminatory (people who can't afford to work for free are excluded). Unpaid internships didn't always exist ... they're just another way to get the equivalent of slave labor, without the responsibilities that a slave owner has towards their slaves even in biblical times.

As you pointed out, internships do lower the eventual salary for the intern holds true even for paid internships. Co-ops aren't necessary - the same experience can be gained working part-time, and there would be more paid part-time positions available if co-ops were removed from the curriculum. Since they're not in the classroom, why not just cut the time spent in a co-op off the credits necessary for graduation, and let the students make money instead of accumulating debt?

After all, 5 years later your co-op experience is worth nothing, your real work experience defines you.

I fully recognize they they take on what maintenance there is on this plant... But there isn't much...

They also take on the opportunity cost of capital which is around 7% annually of the cost of the installation. That's $700 per year or $58 per month for a $10,000 installation.

Contrary to the politically charged summary, and your pointless hate mongering, this is not a conservative vs liberal issue.

Its strictly dollars and cents. CFC is a toxic nightmare, and LED costs more to buy and operate than incandescent.

From here:

Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.

As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.

CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.

As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.

LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.

As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.

For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving.

Oh good. I'm glad AT&T is going a different route than Verizon in an attempt to offer better service to their customers with the hope that rational-minded consumers will decide AT&T propostion offers better value... What? You mean the plans are extremely similar? That's crazy. Almost like there is some sort of collusion going on between the two companies that control 65%+ of the cell phone market in America, but that could never happen, right? Guys? Hello? http://www.thesimpledollar.com/verizon/

No, its not possible these days on average. The average public university costs close to 11034 a year according to the census. The average minimum wage is 7.35. That comes out to a 35 hour workweek alongside being a fulltime student (1823 hours). This is only public schools - NOT private schools. Not to mention prices for everything have gone up steeply. If they're trying to put themselves through school, its almost impossible to avoid debt. Baby boomers don't quite seem to understand the math, so here it is: A dose of Financial Reality.

Our government keeps the inflation at artificially zero. This bankrupts the citizens and they don't even know that their dollar value is fast falling below.

It's not as easy as you think to work you way through school these days. It is likely a lot harder than what you expect.

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/10/13/a-dose-of-financial-reality/

No, its not possible these days on average. The average public university costs close to 11034 a year according to the census. The average minimum wage is 7.35. That comes out to a 35 hour workweek alongside being a fulltime student (1823 hours). This is only public schools - NOT private schools. Not to mention prices for everything have gone up steeply. If they're trying to put themselves through school, its almost impossible to avoid debt. Baby boomers don't quite seem to understand the math, so here it is: A dose of Financial Reality.

You wouldn't steal from the taxman by not reporting your short term capital gains would you?

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/07/19/personal-finance-101-capital-gains-tax/

$200 profit (@ current tax bracket) - $200 charity writeoff (@ current tax bracket) = $0