The biggest issue is that some of the unions have become so large and represent workers across so many industries and employers such that they are insulated from the historic symbiotic relationship between employee and employer. In this case for example, lets say UAW succeeds, unionizes Tesla and as a result of higher costs, forces it out of business. That's 5000 workers on the street, less than 2% of UAW 390,000 total members. UAW leadership isn't out anything and they continue on their merry way. Historically unions had to work in a framework that left the business they worked for to be viable, now there is no need for that
Ahh yes, when Trump issues an executive order its "getting things done and cutting through the baloney", when Obama did it "it was a step on the road to tyranny and dictatorship" go it
Except that drinking overly pure water can cause its own set of health issues. The dissolved minerals (and their associated ions) in most drinking water important elements of a healthy diet. Thanks to osmosis, super pure water will strip the minerals out of your bones and cell membranes. You WANT some magnesium, calcium and potassium in the water you drink
While labor costs may have been the initial driver to outsource, the simple matter is that the US is incapable of manufacturing anything like the iPhone (don't feel bad, virtually no one can). It's not a labor issue, it's a supply chain issue. If you've ever been to Shenzen you would understand. Take Detroit at its absolute height and multiply it by 100, a factory the size of Los Angeles. All of the component manufacturers from glue, to glass, to circuit boards, SoC etc etc ect, all of the thousands of suppliers that make the things that make the things that make the things that go into an iPhone are within a few miles of each other. This is something that would take decades to replicate in the US assuming the NIMBY lobby would let you build something like it. Thinking that a simple reduction in corporate taxes or adding tariffs to goods will somehow result in a resurgence of manufacturing is laughable
That's because it is possible to loose money on each item and make it up in volume. However this is only possible the variable costs of your product or service are less than your price (if variable costs are higher than price, then you are truely screwed). On the other hand if your variable costs are lower, then it's about amortizing your fixed costs across more units until your total cost drops below your price. E.g I have a factory that costs me $100 a month to operate (and can make 1000 widgets). It costs $.75 in supplies to make each widget. I sell my widget for $1. If I sell 100 widgets a month I loose $.75 on each widget (total sales is $100, total cost is $175). However if i sell 1000 widgets a month, then I make $.15 a widget ($1000 in sales, $850 in costs).
This isn't unusual for companies in high growth mode to over invest in capacity so that they can scale quickly to their break even point.
And this is where the hyperbole comes in. There are zero climate change models that predict a Venus like Earth, nor one where "we all die", or "destroy most of the surface of the planet". The problem is that too many of the solutions that are being proposed are poo pooed by eco warriors for reasons of ideological purity. Mass conversion of coal to natural gas, nope. Investment in nuclear power, nope, crash program to develop fusion, nope. Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
Uh, Tesla IS making the major investments to ramp up both existing production and getting ready for the Model 3. This is precisely why they've been marginally profitable for so long, they are plowing just about every cent into capital investments. Does anyone even look at the financial statements before spouting off and offering their uninformed opinion?
Technically Viking was called Voyager in its early days when it was a much larger more ambitious lander/orbiter that was to be launched on a Saturn V. Costs escalated, Saturn V availability was limited and it was recast as the more modest Viking program. The Voyager name was reused for the 2 Grand Tour missions
Luna 16 a contemporary robot probe, returned 101g of material to earth. A sample based on where it happened to land and the direction its arm was facing. Apollo 17 in comparison returned 110kg of samples (1000 times a much), samples that were selected and curated by a trained geologist from varied terrain. Yes Apollo 17 was probably 100 times more expensive, but if it returned 1000 times more science, the value is higher
Apollo 17. A geologist on the moon did more science in, collected more data, studied more samples, in 3 days, than the MER rovers have done in several years
There also needs to be the option of, "I believe the science, I believe it to be catastrophic, I believe it to be a significant threat that requires the investment of trillions, but I don't think what you're planning to spend that money on will actually solve the problem"
One example from a close friend that has practiced in both the US and Canada. In Canada he sends a patient to central radiology to get a MRI scan, there the hospitals 2 MRI scanners run nearly around the clock to maximize their use. 3 days later he gets the results back (life threatening conditions like cancer rarely need to wait for a scan). In the US, rather than see another patient, he had to go down to the scanner room and look over the MRI techs shoulder (adding zero value) so they can bill insurance for a "doctor supervised MRI scan". All the while the MRI machine in the cancer center runs at maybe 20% capacity because god forbid they use one of the 5 machines at the hospital next door which are only used maybe 30% of the time because the paperwork would be a nightmare and they'd have to share the insurance money with the hospital.
While a particular hospital in the US may have better outcomes for cancer, heart disease or stroke. Outcomes for the general population are no better in the US (and in fact worse in many cases) at a much higher cost. The rich often come to the US because they can afford Cedar Sinai or the Mayo Clinic (or other world leading institutions), Joe Shmoe gets Grand Forks General which is probably worse than what they'd get at home.
3 weeks? An oncologist friend of mine in Canada has taken in patients within 3 days of diagnosis depending on the nature and severity of the cancers.
He did try briefly to practice in the US and was discusted with what he saw. The cancer center he was looking at in Boston had its own MRI machine that was used a quarter of the time, while the hospital attached to it had 2 more MRIs that were used a third of the time. When he asked why not just use 1 MRI for everyone and save several million dollars, they looked at him as if he were crazy. They also wanted him to supervise every MRI scan as a "Doctor supervised" MRI scan is charged to insurance at a much higher rate than a regular one, a it looked good to the patient. A total waste of his time as he was neither a radiologist it MRI technician
Fantastic straw man, no where has anyone claimed that "all" the voters thought there would be no consequences. However its fairly well documented that a significant number of voters did not understand the full implications of their choice. Enough to change the outcome? who knows, and its irrelevant as the vote has been cast and the UK has to deal with the consequences one way or another
Yes you can, however the trading regime will be completely different and whole new sets of trade agreements will have to be negotiated. This is a multi-year process, full of uncertainties, and requiring both sides to agree on things and requiring various conditions to be met. If I were a large multi-national looking to deploy capital, the uncertainty about the Brexit would lead me to steer far away and invest elsewhere.
I don't think there is anything in wanting this, however to think that it can be achieved without consequence is foolish. The UK in its current form is tightly integrated into the EU and the health of its economy is dependent on trade. The pro-Brexit champions were just as aware of this as anyone.
Firstly, it's estimated at 30% off the $62M list price, so ~$40M. Secondly, the latest version of Soyuz (Soyuz 2) can carry 8,200 kg to LEO, while the Falcon 9 can carry 22,800 kg (almost 3 times as much). Lastly, the price of a Soyuz 2 isn't $20 million ( that's about the price of a single tourist seat on a Soyuz capsule), list price for a Soyuz 2 is $60M--$70M. So 3 times the payload for 30% less cost
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla got an incredible deal buying up the shuttered plant they operate out of
The biggest issue is that some of the unions have become so large and represent workers across so many industries and employers such that they are insulated from the historic symbiotic relationship between employee and employer. In this case for example, lets say UAW succeeds, unionizes Tesla and as a result of higher costs, forces it out of business. That's 5000 workers on the street, less than 2% of UAW 390,000 total members. UAW leadership isn't out anything and they continue on their merry way. Historically unions had to work in a framework that left the business they worked for to be viable, now there is no need for that
Ahh yes, when Trump issues an executive order its "getting things done and cutting through the baloney", when Obama did it "it was a step on the road to tyranny and dictatorship" go it
Except that drinking overly pure water can cause its own set of health issues. The dissolved minerals (and their associated ions) in most drinking water important elements of a healthy diet. Thanks to osmosis, super pure water will strip the minerals out of your bones and cell membranes. You WANT some magnesium, calcium and potassium in the water you drink
Yes because as we've seen from the unblemished operation of Chernobyl that government run nuclear plants are by far the best approach to take
While labor costs may have been the initial driver to outsource, the simple matter is that the US is incapable of manufacturing anything like the iPhone (don't feel bad, virtually no one can). It's not a labor issue, it's a supply chain issue. If you've ever been to Shenzen you would understand. Take Detroit at its absolute height and multiply it by 100, a factory the size of Los Angeles. All of the component manufacturers from glue, to glass, to circuit boards, SoC etc etc ect, all of the thousands of suppliers that make the things that make the things that make the things that go into an iPhone are within a few miles of each other. This is something that would take decades to replicate in the US assuming the NIMBY lobby would let you build something like it. Thinking that a simple reduction in corporate taxes or adding tariffs to goods will somehow result in a resurgence of manufacturing is laughable
Except that the President isn't bound by conflict of interest laws. There is no requirement at all for him to divest anything
That's because it is possible to loose money on each item and make it up in volume. However this is only possible the variable costs of your product or service are less than your price (if variable costs are higher than price, then you are truely screwed). On the other hand if your variable costs are lower, then it's about amortizing your fixed costs across more units until your total cost drops below your price. E.g I have a factory that costs me $100 a month to operate (and can make 1000 widgets). It costs $.75 in supplies to make each widget. I sell my widget for $1. If I sell 100 widgets a month I loose $.75 on each widget (total sales is $100, total cost is $175). However if i sell 1000 widgets a month, then I make $.15 a widget ($1000 in sales, $850 in costs). This isn't unusual for companies in high growth mode to over invest in capacity so that they can scale quickly to their break even point.
And this is where the hyperbole comes in. There are zero climate change models that predict a Venus like Earth, nor one where "we all die", or "destroy most of the surface of the planet". The problem is that too many of the solutions that are being proposed are poo pooed by eco warriors for reasons of ideological purity. Mass conversion of coal to natural gas, nope. Investment in nuclear power, nope, crash program to develop fusion, nope. Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
Uh, Tesla IS making the major investments to ramp up both existing production and getting ready for the Model 3. This is precisely why they've been marginally profitable for so long, they are plowing just about every cent into capital investments. Does anyone even look at the financial statements before spouting off and offering their uninformed opinion?
Technically Viking was called Voyager in its early days when it was a much larger more ambitious lander/orbiter that was to be launched on a Saturn V. Costs escalated, Saturn V availability was limited and it was recast as the more modest Viking program. The Voyager name was reused for the 2 Grand Tour missions
Luna 16 a contemporary robot probe, returned 101g of material to earth. A sample based on where it happened to land and the direction its arm was facing. Apollo 17 in comparison returned 110kg of samples (1000 times a much), samples that were selected and curated by a trained geologist from varied terrain. Yes Apollo 17 was probably 100 times more expensive, but if it returned 1000 times more science, the value is higher
No, it's the crumb coating on the chicken or fish, often fried
Apollo 17. A geologist on the moon did more science in, collected more data, studied more samples, in 3 days, than the MER rovers have done in several years
There also needs to be the option of, "I believe the science, I believe it to be catastrophic, I believe it to be a significant threat that requires the investment of trillions, but I don't think what you're planning to spend that money on will actually solve the problem"
One example from a close friend that has practiced in both the US and Canada. In Canada he sends a patient to central radiology to get a MRI scan, there the hospitals 2 MRI scanners run nearly around the clock to maximize their use. 3 days later he gets the results back (life threatening conditions like cancer rarely need to wait for a scan). In the US, rather than see another patient, he had to go down to the scanner room and look over the MRI techs shoulder (adding zero value) so they can bill insurance for a "doctor supervised MRI scan". All the while the MRI machine in the cancer center runs at maybe 20% capacity because god forbid they use one of the 5 machines at the hospital next door which are only used maybe 30% of the time because the paperwork would be a nightmare and they'd have to share the insurance money with the hospital.
While a particular hospital in the US may have better outcomes for cancer, heart disease or stroke. Outcomes for the general population are no better in the US (and in fact worse in many cases) at a much higher cost. The rich often come to the US because they can afford Cedar Sinai or the Mayo Clinic (or other world leading institutions), Joe Shmoe gets Grand Forks General which is probably worse than what they'd get at home.
I thought it was invented by a little old lady in Leningrad.
3 weeks? An oncologist friend of mine in Canada has taken in patients within 3 days of diagnosis depending on the nature and severity of the cancers. He did try briefly to practice in the US and was discusted with what he saw. The cancer center he was looking at in Boston had its own MRI machine that was used a quarter of the time, while the hospital attached to it had 2 more MRIs that were used a third of the time. When he asked why not just use 1 MRI for everyone and save several million dollars, they looked at him as if he were crazy. They also wanted him to supervise every MRI scan as a "Doctor supervised" MRI scan is charged to insurance at a much higher rate than a regular one, a it looked good to the patient. A total waste of his time as he was neither a radiologist it MRI technician
Ya, that will survive a constitutional challenge
Fantastic straw man, no where has anyone claimed that "all" the voters thought there would be no consequences. However its fairly well documented that a significant number of voters did not understand the full implications of their choice. Enough to change the outcome? who knows, and its irrelevant as the vote has been cast and the UK has to deal with the consequences one way or another
Yes you can, however the trading regime will be completely different and whole new sets of trade agreements will have to be negotiated. This is a multi-year process, full of uncertainties, and requiring both sides to agree on things and requiring various conditions to be met. If I were a large multi-national looking to deploy capital, the uncertainty about the Brexit would lead me to steer far away and invest elsewhere.
I don't think there is anything in wanting this, however to think that it can be achieved without consequence is foolish. The UK in its current form is tightly integrated into the EU and the health of its economy is dependent on trade. The pro-Brexit champions were just as aware of this as anyone.
Firstly, it's estimated at 30% off the $62M list price, so ~$40M. Secondly, the latest version of Soyuz (Soyuz 2) can carry 8,200 kg to LEO, while the Falcon 9 can carry 22,800 kg (almost 3 times as much). Lastly, the price of a Soyuz 2 isn't $20 million ( that's about the price of a single tourist seat on a Soyuz capsule), list price for a Soyuz 2 is $60M--$70M. So 3 times the payload for 30% less cost
Or Star Trek, Star Wars, Middle Earth, D&D, Battletech, Shadowrun, etc ect ect