Whether you love it or hate it, Bernie's proposal shows his complete ignorance in this area. I mean the proposal is juvenile. Just read it. Here are just a few of the problems I can see.
1) You hire somebody, he shows up on the first day of work high on drugs, or just refuses to work, or whatever. You fire him, pay him for his time. You are now on the hook for the full cost of all government assistance he received that year. Before, during, and after his employment with you.
2) An independent contractor does a few small jobs for say 10 different companies, but then hits on hard times. Each of those 10 companies are responsible for paying 100% of his government assistance for that year. In other words, the government will collect 10 times the money that they spent on this person.
3) In order to file their taxes, all big companies will have to wait until the government calculates all government assistance received by all workers that you employed last year, and all employees that you employed as contractors, potentially through contracting companies. Normally taxes are filed 3-6 months after end of fiscal year. How long will it take the government to figure out these numbers?
4) I am a contracting firm with >500 employees. I hire you and contract you out to Amazon. You are on public assistance. Do I owe 100% of that cost, does Amazon owe 100% of that cost, or do we both owe it?
I read the text of the proposed bill, and it seems that is exactly how it would work. If you employ somebody, full time or part time, even as a contractor, you are on the hook for the entire cost of the benefits they receive that entire year, before, during, and after their employment with you.
It is actually completely ludicrous. If I'm a contractor and I have 10 jobs in a year with 10 different employers and am also receiving government assistance, then each of those 10 employers would be on the hook for 100% of my benefits.
Amazon doesn't pay a lot of Federal taxes because they don't make a lot of profit. But they DO pay taxes, contrary to your statement. They paid $769 million in 2017, on profits of $4.1 billion. In 2016 they paid $1.4 billion in taxes on profits of $4.2 billion.
Do you own an all-electric car? I have had a Model S for 3 years and the inconvenience of an occasional 20 minute supercharger stop is more than made up for by the convenience of never having to go to the gas station
The telephone industry has always been highly regulated, starting from the government-forced monopoly of AT&T, followed by the government-forced breakup of AT&T, and continuing with a large amount of regulations, including the Do Not Call Registry, which was more of my tax dollars well spent obviously.
Meanwhile, Google has effectively stopped SPAM email, at no cost to me.
Agreed, however almost certainly that trip is just fine in a Tesla, possibly slightly less convenient than a gas car but not significantly (that trip would just involve one supercharger stop of about 30 minutes assuming you can plug in at the destination).
I agree it is not feasible in an affordable EV, but it is certainly feasible in an EV today. And in the Tesla Model 3 it probably is both feasible and affordable today, if you had one.
Is it slightly less convenient? Perhaps. You could drive 1,000 miles round trip in most gas cars stopping once or twice for 5-10 minutes. In a Tesla you'd stop twice (or 3 times if you don't want to plug in at the destination) for 30 minutes. But if you are smart you'll coordinate the stops with a meal anyways so you'd recharge while you eat, instead of eating and fueling separately.
But in my mind, if an EV is more convenient, easier to drive, more reliable, and less expensive for 95% of the time you need a vehicle, and it isn't much worse than a gasoline car for the other 5% of the time, then in my mind it is already a clear winner.
But that's my point. If you live in or near Anchorage, you are probably going to drive 250 miles or less each day, just like I do in my metro area. And in that case the charging infrastructure is irrelevant because you just have a plug at your home.
I hear the Porsche Panamera handles very well, and it weighs up to 4,500 pounds. A good amount of the Model S models have a similar weight. So I don't think the weight makes it out of the question. From Wikipedia:
1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (60)[10] 2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (60D)[11] 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) (70) 2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (70D)[12] 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) (75) 2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (75D) 2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (85) 2,112 kg (4,656 lb) (P85) 2,146 kg (4,731 lb) (P85+) 2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (85D)[11] 2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)[11] 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (90D) 2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P90D) 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (100D) 2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P100D)
No, not really, that's not a problem, at least not for most Tesla owners. Every day my car is completely full with no effort on my part. Who cares how long it took because I was asleep. Already we are way better than a gasoline-powered car for 95% of the time, because I never have to stop at a gas station.
Now, once in a while I go on road trips. Every 2 or so I have to stop for 15-25 minutes. Yes a bit less convenient, but not by much. At least at my age, in the last road trip I took in my gasoline-powered car, I had to stop twice as often to urinate as I did for gas, so I was still stopping at least every 2 hours, if not a bit more.
So a 10 hour trip turns into an 11 hour trip. But you get more breaks from driving. So I'd say it is slightly worse than a gasoline-powered car for the 5% of the time I'm on a road trip. That doesn't seem like a no-go to me. In fact the car is so pleasant to drive, and the electricity is free, that I prefer it over my gasoline powered car on any road trips.
I would argue that if you are wealthy enough to buy a brand new car and/or if you live somewhere with enough population density that air pollution is a problem, then you probably have fairly reliable electricity at home.
That depends. I have had my Model S for 3 years and have almost never charged anywhere other than my own garage. Only when I have gone on a few road trips.
My understanding in Alaska is you can't generally drive all that far, or at least that most people don't. My guess is the vast majority of people in Alaska would do just fine with a Tesla.
I find that people who don't own EVs are way more obsessed with charging than people who do own them. I don't even think about it. In fact I find gas cars quite annoying because every time I get in my wife's car I have no idea how much range I will have left before having to refuel. I never have that issue in my car.
There is nothing about any of those vehicles that a future EV can't do just as well. Just because a 5,000-lb Model S doesn't handle like a Porsche doesn't mean that a future EV can't handle like a Porsche.
Eventually they'll have fun EV cars that have all of the things that make those cars fun today, but they'll be even quicker. Eventually buying a "fun" gas car will just be like buying a slow fun EV car.
Except the engine noise which I do admit I miss sometimes. And manual transmission, but that isn't necessarily impossible to add to an EV in the future.
As somebody who has lived in cold climates and has had remote start, the Tesla offering is nothing like those options.
How many times have I had to leave a restaurant and walk half way to my car to get the car started remotely? And it wastes a lot of gas too.
In my Tesla I can turn on climate control right from the mobile app. Or just leave it on the whole time I'm gone so I don't even have to remember to use the app.
These are good points. I do miss a manual transmission and some good fishtailing. Although I had a loaner Tesla P85+ which allowed me to turn off traction control and I did some great fishtailing in that car. So the aggressive traction control is more of a Tesla thing than something that must be present in all EVs.
And you could put a handbrake on an EV too.
I wonder if one day somebody will figure out how to make a transmission that can tolerate the torque of electric motors?
I guess my point is that once electric vehicles become really mainstream you'll have some real electric sports cars that will give you most of what you want. And unless you are a purist all of the other advantages (esp. the instant torque and acceleration) will more than make up for the few things you had to sacrifice. In my opinion at least.
I think I'm more qualified than most to comment. I owned a 2004 911 Turbo S Cabriolet for 2 years and have owned a P85D for 3 years now. In almost every way the P85D is superior to the Porsche. The exception is handling of course. The P85D handles well for a 5,000-lb full-size sedan, but it doesn't come close to Porsche handling.
But that really has nothing to do a gas vs. electric motor, it has to do with a Porsche vs. a non-Porsche. Once Porsche starts making serious EVs they will probably be far superior to what they make today.
I don't race though, but I'm sure that in any race other than a drag race the Porsche would beat the P85D.
Similar to the other reply, I have a P85D and I'll tell you that electric motors are not inherently less fun than gas motors. And I owned a Porsche 911 Turbo S for a while. The Porsche definitely had better handling, but even with the turbo it doesn't compare to the acceleration of my Tesla. I mean the handling is great for a 5,000-lb full-size sedan, but nothing like a 911.
In the future I'm sure we'll have electric cars with Porsche handling. In fact Porsche is already working on those.
Once that happens, the only reasons to have a gas engine is for endurance racing or driving, or because you like the sound of the engine. Which is fine. But in terms of normal driving or even spirited driving and even some forms of racing, there is no reason for gasoline engines to stick around.
You are generally correct, however it does vary from person to person. The reality is that nobody needs to consume carbohydrates. Unlike fats and proteins there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Yet everybody can handle carbohydrates in moderation. What "moderation" means depends on the person. For some that can be a bunch, for others it can be pretty small.
Some good indicators that you eat too much carbohydrates: obesity, hypertension, heart disease, Type 2 Diabetes.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you love it or hate it, Bernie's proposal shows his complete ignorance in this area. I mean the proposal is juvenile. Just read it. Here are just a few of the problems I can see.
1) You hire somebody, he shows up on the first day of work high on drugs, or just refuses to work, or whatever. You fire him, pay him for his time. You are now on the hook for the full cost of all government assistance he received that year. Before, during, and after his employment with you.
2) An independent contractor does a few small jobs for say 10 different companies, but then hits on hard times. Each of those 10 companies are responsible for paying 100% of his government assistance for that year. In other words, the government will collect 10 times the money that they spent on this person.
3) In order to file their taxes, all big companies will have to wait until the government calculates all government assistance received by all workers that you employed last year, and all employees that you employed as contractors, potentially through contracting companies. Normally taxes are filed 3-6 months after end of fiscal year. How long will it take the government to figure out these numbers?
4) I am a contracting firm with >500 employees. I hire you and contract you out to Amazon. You are on public assistance. Do I owe 100% of that cost, does Amazon owe 100% of that cost, or do we both owe it?
Yes, that's absolutely correct. Too bad you are overqualified to be a congressman.
From Glassdoor.com:
Amazon Warehouse Worker Hourly Pay. The typical Amazon Warehouse Worker salary is $13. Warehouse Worker salaries at Amazon can range from $10 - $19.
I read the text of the proposed bill, and it seems that is exactly how it would work. If you employ somebody, full time or part time, even as a contractor, you are on the hook for the entire cost of the benefits they receive that entire year, before, during, and after their employment with you.
It is actually completely ludicrous. If I'm a contractor and I have 10 jobs in a year with 10 different employers and am also receiving government assistance, then each of those 10 employers would be on the hook for 100% of my benefits.
Amazon doesn't pay a lot of Federal taxes because they don't make a lot of profit. But they DO pay taxes, contrary to your statement. They paid $769 million in 2017, on profits of $4.1 billion. In 2016 they paid $1.4 billion in taxes on profits of $4.2 billion.
Do you own an all-electric car? I have had a Model S for 3 years and the inconvenience of an occasional 20 minute supercharger stop is more than made up for by the convenience of never having to go to the gas station
And email spam keeps changing, yet the government isn't involved, and I almost never see any new spam.
The telephone industry has always been highly regulated, starting from the government-forced monopoly of AT&T, followed by the government-forced breakup of AT&T, and continuing with a large amount of regulations, including the Do Not Call Registry, which was more of my tax dollars well spent obviously.
Meanwhile, Google has effectively stopped SPAM email, at no cost to me.
About time we get Faceblock!
I'm a very happy Tesla owner and would never want to go back to a gas-powered vehicle.
Yay!
The Model 3 starts at $35k and has lower fuel and maintenance costs than most of not all other vehicles. This is not a car for the 1%.
Agreed, however almost certainly that trip is just fine in a Tesla, possibly slightly less convenient than a gas car but not significantly (that trip would just involve one supercharger stop of about 30 minutes assuming you can plug in at the destination).
I agree it is not feasible in an affordable EV, but it is certainly feasible in an EV today. And in the Tesla Model 3 it probably is both feasible and affordable today, if you had one.
Is it slightly less convenient? Perhaps. You could drive 1,000 miles round trip in most gas cars stopping once or twice for 5-10 minutes. In a Tesla you'd stop twice (or 3 times if you don't want to plug in at the destination) for 30 minutes. But if you are smart you'll coordinate the stops with a meal anyways so you'd recharge while you eat, instead of eating and fueling separately.
But in my mind, if an EV is more convenient, easier to drive, more reliable, and less expensive for 95% of the time you need a vehicle, and it isn't much worse than a gasoline car for the other 5% of the time, then in my mind it is already a clear winner.
But that's my point. If you live in or near Anchorage, you are probably going to drive 250 miles or less each day, just like I do in my metro area. And in that case the charging infrastructure is irrelevant because you just have a plug at your home.
I hear the Porsche Panamera handles very well, and it weighs up to 4,500 pounds. A good amount of the Model S models have a similar weight. So I don't think the weight makes it out of the question. From Wikipedia:
1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (60)[10]
2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (60D)[11]
2,000 kg (4,410 lb) (70)
2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (70D)[12]
2,000 kg (4,410 lb) (75)
2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (75D)
2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (85)
2,112 kg (4,656 lb) (P85)
2,146 kg (4,731 lb) (P85+)
2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (85D)[11]
2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)[11]
2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (90D)
2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P90D)
2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (100D)
2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P100D)
No, not really, that's not a problem, at least not for most Tesla owners. Every day my car is completely full with no effort on my part. Who cares how long it took because I was asleep. Already we are way better than a gasoline-powered car for 95% of the time, because I never have to stop at a gas station.
Now, once in a while I go on road trips. Every 2 or so I have to stop for 15-25 minutes. Yes a bit less convenient, but not by much. At least at my age, in the last road trip I took in my gasoline-powered car, I had to stop twice as often to urinate as I did for gas, so I was still stopping at least every 2 hours, if not a bit more.
So a 10 hour trip turns into an 11 hour trip. But you get more breaks from driving. So I'd say it is slightly worse than a gasoline-powered car for the 5% of the time I'm on a road trip. That doesn't seem like a no-go to me. In fact the car is so pleasant to drive, and the electricity is free, that I prefer it over my gasoline powered car on any road trips.
Great, let's use this technology to make power plants more efficient and then drive EVs.
I would argue that if you are wealthy enough to buy a brand new car and/or if you live somewhere with enough population density that air pollution is a problem, then you probably have fairly reliable electricity at home.
That depends. I have had my Model S for 3 years and have almost never charged anywhere other than my own garage. Only when I have gone on a few road trips.
My understanding in Alaska is you can't generally drive all that far, or at least that most people don't. My guess is the vast majority of people in Alaska would do just fine with a Tesla.
I find that people who don't own EVs are way more obsessed with charging than people who do own them. I don't even think about it. In fact I find gas cars quite annoying because every time I get in my wife's car I have no idea how much range I will have left before having to refuel. I never have that issue in my car.
There is nothing about any of those vehicles that a future EV can't do just as well. Just because a 5,000-lb Model S doesn't handle like a Porsche doesn't mean that a future EV can't handle like a Porsche.
Eventually they'll have fun EV cars that have all of the things that make those cars fun today, but they'll be even quicker. Eventually buying a "fun" gas car will just be like buying a slow fun EV car.
Except the engine noise which I do admit I miss sometimes. And manual transmission, but that isn't necessarily impossible to add to an EV in the future.
As somebody who has lived in cold climates and has had remote start, the Tesla offering is nothing like those options.
How many times have I had to leave a restaurant and walk half way to my car to get the car started remotely? And it wastes a lot of gas too.
In my Tesla I can turn on climate control right from the mobile app. Or just leave it on the whole time I'm gone so I don't even have to remember to use the app.
These are good points. I do miss a manual transmission and some good fishtailing. Although I had a loaner Tesla P85+ which allowed me to turn off traction control and I did some great fishtailing in that car. So the aggressive traction control is more of a Tesla thing than something that must be present in all EVs.
And you could put a handbrake on an EV too.
I wonder if one day somebody will figure out how to make a transmission that can tolerate the torque of electric motors?
I guess my point is that once electric vehicles become really mainstream you'll have some real electric sports cars that will give you most of what you want. And unless you are a purist all of the other advantages (esp. the instant torque and acceleration) will more than make up for the few things you had to sacrifice. In my opinion at least.
I think I'm more qualified than most to comment. I owned a 2004 911 Turbo S Cabriolet for 2 years and have owned a P85D for 3 years now. In almost every way the P85D is superior to the Porsche. The exception is handling of course. The P85D handles well for a 5,000-lb full-size sedan, but it doesn't come close to Porsche handling.
But that really has nothing to do a gas vs. electric motor, it has to do with a Porsche vs. a non-Porsche. Once Porsche starts making serious EVs they will probably be far superior to what they make today.
I don't race though, but I'm sure that in any race other than a drag race the Porsche would beat the P85D.
Similar to the other reply, I have a P85D and I'll tell you that electric motors are not inherently less fun than gas motors. And I owned a Porsche 911 Turbo S for a while. The Porsche definitely had better handling, but even with the turbo it doesn't compare to the acceleration of my Tesla. I mean the handling is great for a 5,000-lb full-size sedan, but nothing like a 911.
In the future I'm sure we'll have electric cars with Porsche handling. In fact Porsche is already working on those.
Once that happens, the only reasons to have a gas engine is for endurance racing or driving, or because you like the sound of the engine. Which is fine. But in terms of normal driving or even spirited driving and even some forms of racing, there is no reason for gasoline engines to stick around.
You are generally correct, however it does vary from person to person. The reality is that nobody needs to consume carbohydrates. Unlike fats and proteins there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Yet everybody can handle carbohydrates in moderation. What "moderation" means depends on the person. For some that can be a bunch, for others it can be pretty small.
Some good indicators that you eat too much carbohydrates: obesity, hypertension, heart disease, Type 2 Diabetes.