The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive.
You and I have different ideas of what is "fun to drive". A 2015 Ford Mustang GT is "fun to drive", the above cars are cheap commuter econoboxes.
No crime in being that, but fun to drive? Bleh...:)
They are fun cars to drive relative to the Cruz which is a car you suggested as an alternative to a small EV. In fact the EV versions of a particular car usually drives much better than the gas version. They have stronger acceleration and are smoother and quieter. So while they do cost more, you are getting more for that money even if the lower operating costs never result in a lower TCO. That of course assumes that the limited range of EVs isn't a problem for the owner.
Maintenance costs are another matter. Electric motors can last a long-long time but EVs have a lot of electronics in them that may not. Then there is the battery pack. To me the jury is still out but I think that over time EVs will become a practical and enjoyable option.
Trying to reduce the decision of whether or not to buy an EV down to cost alone ignores many of the things that factor into why a person chooses one car over another. Therefore, saying it doesn't make sense to buy an EV given their cost isn't a very convincing argument. For me, if cost is the primary consideration it rarely makes sense to buy a new car at all. The best choice economically is to buy a good used car that you can pay cash for, and drive it into the ground.
For you personally, buying an EV may not make sense given the particular set of things you value in a vehicle but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be a good choice for somebody else.
The problem is that the article doesn't specify what type of SUV these people tend to switch to. Is there any regard to fuel economy or not? Are they getting small SUVs or big ones? Are they getting FWD models or AWD?
The article also speculates that cheaper gas prices are the motivation behind the switch to SUVs but it doesn't back that up. While I suspect cheaper gas is part of the reason it may or may not be the main reason for these buyers to switch.
It could be:
1. larger family
2. desire for AWD after recent snowy winters
3. improved economy means people are buying boats and other things that need towing
4. Range with the EV was a problem
5. Mileage wasn't as good as expected
6. Just didn't like the vehicle and wanted something different
There is also speculation as to why these people bought hybrids in the first place but again we don't really know if the ones who switched got EVs and Hybrids because they expected to save money, because they were concerned about the environment, or because they liked the way they drove.
And further they mixed EV owners with Hybrid owners so we don't really know which percentage of each switched.
As to the issue of an EV version of the Ford Explorer, I think it's pretty clear that the technology doesn't currently exist to make such an ordinary SUV attractive at the high price you'd have to pay. There are plenty of high end hybrid SUVs though that get rave reviews.
The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive. And while the range might be a problem for lots of people, for others it isn't. For example we are a two car family but I ride my bike to work most days. We've even wondered if we really need two cars. I doubt that both of us would ever need to drive more than 75 miles on the same day. Plus I expect that the range of these vehicles will improve with time.
I've never bought a new car in my life and I'm 50 so I'm not really the target market for any of these vehicles anyway.
A Prius and a RAV4 are not the same type of vehicle.
A nice midsize SUV like a Ford Explorer isn't either, and you can get a nice one of those for under $30k.
I'm not suggesting that a Prius and the RAV4 are the same. I mention the price of the RAV4 because it's an SUV. It wasn't clear to me when article says that people are switching from EVs and Hybrids to SUVs what type of SUV they tend to get. A RAV4 is a compact one and a Toyota Highlander is a midsize one. A Highlander is going to cost close to 30,000.
FWIW, s Nissan Leaf is about 28,000 but you get a hefty Federal rebate so the actual cost is in the low 20s.
Anyway, my point is that unless you're talking about a Tesla which is a luxury performance car, these weren't stupid people spending a fortune on EVs and Hybrids thinking that they're going to make it up in fuel cost savings. In most cases they spent less on the hybrids and the EVs than the SUVs they are supposedly buying now.
I suspect a major reason why these people are switching isn't so much about falling gas prices as it is about the increasing size of their families. Gas prices might be a factor in making going the SUV route a bit easier but I don't think it's the predominant one.
When we were dating and after we were first married my wife and I both drove small cars. After our second child I reluctantly caved into the idea of getting a minivan. That was about 10 years ago and minivans are even less of a fashionable choice than they were then. We now have one small car and one mid sized SUV. My brother's family has a Prius and a Ford Escape.
MSRP for a Prius is $25,000. People pay around 22,000. A RAV 4 (small SUV) starts at about the same price. A mid-sized SUV is going to be closer to 30,000 (on the low end).
MPG estimates in the UK would be higher than the MPG estimates in the US for the exact same car. There are two reasons. The most important is that an Imperial gallon is more than a US gallon. The other is that the MPG estimates are done by different organizations using a different means of calculating them.
The difference in the size of a "gallon" alone means that 45 mpg in the UK translates to about 37 mpg in the US.
Here's another way to look at it. There are lots of small towns and even cities in the Midwest that would welcome an influx of people, industry, and agriculture. Instead of making herculean efforts to get water out of the Midwest to the Southwest at huge expense, let's make it easy for the people and industries that need the water to move to where the water is.
Frankly, I do not trust that redirecting any significant amount of water halfway across the country can be done without high ecological costs, unintended or not.
Pennsylvania exports natural gas because it's worthwhile for Pennsylvania to do so. If they were to decided that the ecological price for extracting it is no longer worth it, that is their right. Whoever is getting natural gas from them will have to get it from somewhere else or do without.
The Great Lakes aren't some vast untapped resource waiting to be exploited. They are used for shipping, recreation, commercial fishing, tourism, fresh water supplies, etc. They are home to an important ecosystem. All would suffer if any significant amount of water were diverted someplace else. In many ways, the Lakes are already being exploited at a level that can't be sustained.
And it goes deeper than that. The lakes are treasured part of the region just like the Grand Canyon is to Arizona. Would they be OK with us filling in part of the Grand Canyon with some of the garbage we don't have room for? They'd give us the finger and we'd deserve it.
No one is forcing anyone to live in squalor but people may be forced to live in a more sustainable fashion. It's not just a lesson for California but everywhere else.
There's a definite correlation between money and academic achievement. You're looking in the wrong place. Kids in more affluent areas do better in school.
In the study you linked it's pretty clear that school districts with higher levels of poverty have a lower return on investment. In other words, they spend more per kid but get poorer results. However, it is not an apples to apples comparison. Neither is comparing 1970 to today. The early 1970's represented an historic low in the number of people in poverty.
You have to look at what the schools are spending money on now vs 1970 and what poor districts spend money on vs affluent ones. In my school back in the 1970s there were no ESL students (English as a 2nd language). There was very little attempt to mainstream kids with significant disabilities. There weren't the onerous testing requirements created by "No Child Left Behind" and other well intentioned but flawed ideas. There weren't the outlandish health care costs that are crippling many of our public institutions. There weren't nearly as many kids getting "free and reduced price lunch" if there were any at all.
That's not to say that all money given to school districts is spent wisely and that giving them more money will automatically lead to better results.
Hawaii also pays about 3x the national average for electricity. They mostly burn oil which for them is neither cheap nor clean. Generating power locally via solar makes a whole lot of sense for them so they really should figure out how to make this work. My brother lives there and intentionally had an oversized PV system installed. Over the course of a year he generates more power than he uses. His system will pay for itself in less than 5 years.
Solar aside, both in Hawaii and the rest of the US we are suffering the effects of an aging and archaic power grid. The utilities could benefit by being able to more easily develop and take advantage of demand response systems. This would give them a greater capacity to manage peek demand without having to operate as many power plants, or buy as much power from somebody else, - which saves them money. They could also make themselves less susceptible to having interruptions in service due to not being able to meet demand or just plain old natural disasters.
Of course no one wants to spend money to do that even though both consumers and utilities would benefit in the long run. This is where government can play a role in moving things forward.
I didn't say our prosperity was based on skilled workers. We had prosperity because businesses were willing/forced to train and provide decent pay to UNSKILLED workers.
Take a look at how Scandinavian countries do it and you'll find actual working examples of a more equitable system. Your every day Jane and Joe get paid well, have significantly more vacation time than we do plus have a shorter work week. The lowest paid worker at a McDonald's in Denmark makes the equivalent of $20 an hour. Yes, the cost of living and taxes are higher but they still come out way ahead.
Their health care is affordable and so is college. Retirement is not something they have to scrimp and save for while at the same time trying to save for their kid's college education. And yes there is still room for executives and others to make huge sums of money. Just not as extreme as they are here.
This is reality for them but we've been brainwashed into thinking it won't work here.
What's funny is that it used to work that way here too. Not exactly but closer than it does now. Part of the reason is collective bargaining. It's the norm there but becoming increasingly uncommon here. Collective bargaining has been proven to both improve the pay of the average worker while having a dampening effect on CEO pay. It's not that unionized companies were less profitable, it's because it's very hard to argue to a union that you can't afford to pay the workers more after you just gave the executives a huge pay increase.
It's not that easy changing your economic status. If you're born poor, you're likely to stay that way. It's no one's "personal decision" to be born poor. You're probably going to go to a crappy school. You probably won't be able to afford college. Even middle class people now start out in debt by the time they graduate from college. Maybe you're one of the exceptionally bright ones that get a full ride, but probably not.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I'm just saying that if you were born to a relatively affluent family you have no business telling people they're poor because they made bad decisions. You have no idea.
Wow. Let's just pay everybody crap because they aren't smart enough to spend their money wisely if we were to pay them more. They'll just gamble it away or do something stupid with it.
I'm sorry, but what a crock.
We had a substantial middle class in this country not be because we had a highly skilled workforce where everybody busted their ass and had skills that were hard to find. We had a substantial middle class because companies actually trained people and paid a decent wage. Collective bargaining gave leverage to workers even if they didn't have much in the way of skills.
Healthcare was cheaper. Funding retirement was easier. Paying for college didn't mean you started out 30,000 in debt.
It's not that people are stupid. It's that they are not getting paid enough to enjoy the same standard of living that people in this country enjoyed a generation or two ago. Even though on average, people in generation X, Y, or the millennials are better educated. This while the 1% are getting compensated ridiculous amounts of money. People say that redistribution of wealth won't fix the problem. Wake up. Redistribution of wealth to the top is what's causing the problem.
How many CEOs actually started the company they run?
In 1965 an average CEO made 45 times what the average worker made. Today it's about 248 times (400 to 500 times more for fortune 500 companies). Is it that much more work to run a company now than it was 40 or 50 years ago? Does the average worker have it that much easier?
He's paying himself less and his staff more. The total cost for labor is the same. Perhaps the real inefficiency in compensating CEOs far more than they actually return to the company. Even when they're let go or the company fails they often have "golden parachutes". The can survive for years off their severance packages.
Also remember that in larger companies there are many executives making large amounts of money, - not just the CEO. Making their compensation less exorbitant as well would free up even more cash for the average worker.
In 1965 the average CEO in the US made about 45 times what the average worker made. Today it's about 250 times more. For fortune 500 companies it's more like 400 to 500 times more.
Yeah, how awful. They might be able to fund their own retirement and healthcare, plus send their kids to college so that they'll have skills. All that along with paying more taxes that can be used to fix decaying infrastructure among other things.
Compensation is tied to the bargaining power of the worker, not necessarily the skills. If only people with unusual skills can expect decent compensation then by definition most people will get paid squat. That does not lead to a stable society.
"Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:
- Distinct legal existence
- Recognized creed and form of worship
- Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
- Formal code of doctrine and discipline
- Distinct religious history
- Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
- Organization of ordained ministers
- Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
- Literature of its own
- Established places of worship
- Regular congregations
- Regular religious services
- Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
- Schools for the preparation of its members
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes."
My take is that it's not something that can be reduced to an algorithm and to a certain extent it is a judgement call if for example an organization has some of the above characteristics but not others. Note however that the belief systems themselves aren't judged in any way (nor should they be).
Also important to recognize is that the above are just characteristics of a church and alone aren't enough to make an organization tax exempt. There are other rules that apply. For example there can neither be private owners or share holders.
For many years the IRS denied Scientology tax exempt status. I don't know if it was because the IRS claimed that it wasn't a real religion or because it violated some other rules regarding non-profits. Eventually Scientology was granted tax-exempt status but rumor was that they did so by strong-arming members of the IRS. Anyway, a petition will not be enough to remove their tax exempt status. It will have to be shown that they are in violation of the rules.
Note: Many churches fill out the paperwork just to protect themselves even though they aren't technically required to. There are people that believe this is completely unnecessary and that calling yourself a church is all you need to do to make yourself tax exempt. There are actual court cases that have proved this notion to be wrong. If you call yourself a church and engage in practices that could be mistaken as "for profit" activity then you place yourself at risk of coming out on the bad end of an audit.
They don't have to fill out the paperwork but they have to meet the qualifications of a 501c3 to guarantee their tax exempt status. In other words, they can skip the 990 but declaring themselves to be a church doesn't prevent them from being audited and ultimately being made to pay back taxes if they are found not to meet the qualifications of a non-profit.
So declaring your organization to be a church doesn't really make you exempt from anything other than getting a pass on filling out some forms. You can call yourself a church and not pay taxes, but if the IRS audits you and finds that you don't meet the requirements of a 501c3, then you're screwed.
So, Scientology shouldn't be exempt unless they can demonstrate they meet the requirements of a 501c3 non-profit. It really has little to do with belief systems.
Corporations are people under US law and "people" can spend as much as they want on election campaigns.
Corporations are persons so they can be be a party to contracts and be legally held to them. I mean, you want corporations to be accountable, right?
Also, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand?
Not "Congress shall make no law against individuals", not "Congress shall make no law against unions". NO law. Any law restricting the movement of speech, including political contributions, is unconstitutional. You don't need to bring "person" into it.
It's kind of obvious that "freedom of speech" now belongs primarily to those who can pay big bucks for it.
One of the worst decisions ever. Corruption has been enshrined in law.
Have you never had the experience of hooking up with someone who was just as into it as you were? Have you never felt someone tremble under your touch? That is powerful stuff. If the best analogy you can come up with is having someone cook for you vs going out to eat, you've clearly missed out on the pleasure that can be had through giving someone else pleasure.
A prostitute may put on a good act, but in reality they just want to get it over with so they can turn the next trick or go home for the night. It is NOT at all the same. The BIGGEST turn on as far as I'm concerned is knowing that the person you are with is as filled with lust as you are.
Or perhaps they just made a spelling mistake that once submitted slashdot will not let them correct (as far as I know).
For example. I just accidentally typed "submitting" rather than "submitted". I understand the difference between those two words. For whatever reason, I was thinking "submitted" and my fingers typed "submitting". I happened to catch it but sometimes I miss stuff like that. I really doubt it has anything to do with critical thinking. It might mean that their mind is racing ahead of their fingers.
I also fully understand the different between "their", "there", and "they're" yet sometimes I still use the wrong one. I also know the difference between "to", "two", and "too". Again, I wish I used the correct spelling at all times but I don't.
For whatever reason, I have a bad habit of type "he" instead of "the". Maybe the "t" on my keyboard sticks. Or maybe I'm just not perfect. In fact I made at least 7 spelling mistakes on this post alone, - that I know of.
It's a slashdot post, not a novel, a term paper, or an article I'm writing for a scientific journal. I trust that most readers of slashdot will be able to discern what I intended to write based on context if I do happen to make a mistake. A few folks may get annoyed by any mistakes I make but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
An office or school room is typically lit with fluorescent lighting which consumes more energy than LEDs but much less than incandescents. The problem with lighting whole rooms with LEDs is that the light tends to be more focused and directional. They are getting better but remember we are talking about going from 500 lux to 10,000. That would be a challenge to do with LEDs.
You'd need a lot more fixtures. It would not only require more power but the cost of retrofitting a school would be very high. Though LEDs last a long time, the number of bulbs needed means that maintaining those lighting systems over time would be expensive too.
Sometimes the right solution is the simple one that requires LESS technology rather than more. Get the kids outside.
Average indoor light levels at an office or school are about 500 lux. Outdoors on a cloudy day is about 10,000. You think we consume a lot of energy now, just try illuminating all the classrooms to 10,000 lux.
Just get the kids outside. There are so many other benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. It was probably fixed before this was even posted on Slashdot.
The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive.
You and I have different ideas of what is "fun to drive". A 2015 Ford Mustang GT is "fun to drive", the above cars are cheap commuter econoboxes.
No crime in being that, but fun to drive? Bleh... :)
They are fun cars to drive relative to the Cruz which is a car you suggested as an alternative to a small EV. In fact the EV versions of a particular car usually drives much better than the gas version. They have stronger acceleration and are smoother and quieter. So while they do cost more, you are getting more for that money even if the lower operating costs never result in a lower TCO. That of course assumes that the limited range of EVs isn't a problem for the owner.
Maintenance costs are another matter. Electric motors can last a long-long time but EVs have a lot of electronics in them that may not. Then there is the battery pack. To me the jury is still out but I think that over time EVs will become a practical and enjoyable option.
Trying to reduce the decision of whether or not to buy an EV down to cost alone ignores many of the things that factor into why a person chooses one car over another. Therefore, saying it doesn't make sense to buy an EV given their cost isn't a very convincing argument. For me, if cost is the primary consideration it rarely makes sense to buy a new car at all. The best choice economically is to buy a good used car that you can pay cash for, and drive it into the ground.
For you personally, buying an EV may not make sense given the particular set of things you value in a vehicle but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be a good choice for somebody else.
The problem is that the article doesn't specify what type of SUV these people tend to switch to. Is there any regard to fuel economy or not? Are they getting small SUVs or big ones? Are they getting FWD models or AWD?
The article also speculates that cheaper gas prices are the motivation behind the switch to SUVs but it doesn't back that up. While I suspect cheaper gas is part of the reason it may or may not be the main reason for these buyers to switch.
It could be:
1. larger family
2. desire for AWD after recent snowy winters
3. improved economy means people are buying boats and other things that need towing
4. Range with the EV was a problem
5. Mileage wasn't as good as expected
6. Just didn't like the vehicle and wanted something different
There is also speculation as to why these people bought hybrids in the first place but again we don't really know if the ones who switched got EVs and Hybrids because they expected to save money, because they were concerned about the environment, or because they liked the way they drove.
And further they mixed EV owners with Hybrid owners so we don't really know which percentage of each switched.
As to the issue of an EV version of the Ford Explorer, I think it's pretty clear that the technology doesn't currently exist to make such an ordinary SUV attractive at the high price you'd have to pay. There are plenty of high end hybrid SUVs though that get rave reviews.
The Chevy Cruz is an inexpensive vehicle that gets decent mileage. That doesn't mean that someone might not be quite happy to spend the extra money on an eGolf or even the EV version of the Chevy Spark. By all accounts these are fun cars to drive. And while the range might be a problem for lots of people, for others it isn't. For example we are a two car family but I ride my bike to work most days. We've even wondered if we really need two cars. I doubt that both of us would ever need to drive more than 75 miles on the same day. Plus I expect that the range of these vehicles will improve with time.
I've never bought a new car in my life and I'm 50 so I'm not really the target market for any of these vehicles anyway.
A Prius and a RAV4 are not the same type of vehicle.
A nice midsize SUV like a Ford Explorer isn't either, and you can get a nice one of those for under $30k.
I'm not suggesting that a Prius and the RAV4 are the same. I mention the price of the RAV4 because it's an SUV. It wasn't clear to me when article says that people are switching from EVs and Hybrids to SUVs what type of SUV they tend to get. A RAV4 is a compact one and a Toyota Highlander is a midsize one. A Highlander is going to cost close to 30,000.
FWIW, s Nissan Leaf is about 28,000 but you get a hefty Federal rebate so the actual cost is in the low 20s.
Anyway, my point is that unless you're talking about a Tesla which is a luxury performance car, these weren't stupid people spending a fortune on EVs and Hybrids thinking that they're going to make it up in fuel cost savings. In most cases they spent less on the hybrids and the EVs than the SUVs they are supposedly buying now.
I suspect a major reason why these people are switching isn't so much about falling gas prices as it is about the increasing size of their families. Gas prices might be a factor in making going the SUV route a bit easier but I don't think it's the predominant one.
When we were dating and after we were first married my wife and I both drove small cars. After our second child I reluctantly caved into the idea of getting a minivan. That was about 10 years ago and minivans are even less of a fashionable choice than they were then. We now have one small car and one mid sized SUV. My brother's family has a Prius and a Ford Escape.
MSRP for a Prius is $25,000. People pay around 22,000. A RAV 4 (small SUV) starts at about the same price. A mid-sized SUV is going to be closer to 30,000 (on the low end).
MPG estimates in the UK would be higher than the MPG estimates in the US for the exact same car. There are two reasons. The most important is that an Imperial gallon is more than a US gallon. The other is that the MPG estimates are done by different organizations using a different means of calculating them.
The difference in the size of a "gallon" alone means that 45 mpg in the UK translates to about 37 mpg in the US.
Here's another way to look at it. There are lots of small towns and even cities in the Midwest that would welcome an influx of people, industry, and agriculture. Instead of making herculean efforts to get water out of the Midwest to the Southwest at huge expense, let's make it easy for the people and industries that need the water to move to where the water is.
Frankly, I do not trust that redirecting any significant amount of water halfway across the country can be done without high ecological costs, unintended or not.
Pennsylvania exports natural gas because it's worthwhile for Pennsylvania to do so. If they were to decided that the ecological price for extracting it is no longer worth it, that is their right. Whoever is getting natural gas from them will have to get it from somewhere else or do without.
The Great Lakes aren't some vast untapped resource waiting to be exploited. They are used for shipping, recreation, commercial fishing, tourism, fresh water supplies, etc. They are home to an important ecosystem. All would suffer if any significant amount of water were diverted someplace else. In many ways, the Lakes are already being exploited at a level that can't be sustained.
And it goes deeper than that. The lakes are treasured part of the region just like the Grand Canyon is to Arizona. Would they be OK with us filling in part of the Grand Canyon with some of the garbage we don't have room for? They'd give us the finger and we'd deserve it.
No one is forcing anyone to live in squalor but people may be forced to live in a more sustainable fashion. It's not just a lesson for California but everywhere else.
There's a definite correlation between money and academic achievement. You're looking in the wrong place. Kids in more affluent areas do better in school.
In the study you linked it's pretty clear that school districts with higher levels of poverty have a lower return on investment. In other words, they spend more per kid but get poorer results. However, it is not an apples to apples comparison. Neither is comparing 1970 to today. The early 1970's represented an historic low in the number of people in poverty.
You have to look at what the schools are spending money on now vs 1970 and what poor districts spend money on vs affluent ones. In my school back in the 1970s there were no ESL students (English as a 2nd language). There was very little attempt to mainstream kids with significant disabilities. There weren't the onerous testing requirements created by "No Child Left Behind" and other well intentioned but flawed ideas. There weren't the outlandish health care costs that are crippling many of our public institutions. There weren't nearly as many kids getting "free and reduced price lunch" if there were any at all.
That's not to say that all money given to school districts is spent wisely and that giving them more money will automatically lead to better results.
Hawaii also pays about 3x the national average for electricity. They mostly burn oil which for them is neither cheap nor clean. Generating power locally via solar makes a whole lot of sense for them so they really should figure out how to make this work. My brother lives there and intentionally had an oversized PV system installed. Over the course of a year he generates more power than he uses. His system will pay for itself in less than 5 years.
Solar aside, both in Hawaii and the rest of the US we are suffering the effects of an aging and archaic power grid. The utilities could benefit by being able to more easily develop and take advantage of demand response systems. This would give them a greater capacity to manage peek demand without having to operate as many power plants, or buy as much power from somebody else, - which saves them money. They could also make themselves less susceptible to having interruptions in service due to not being able to meet demand or just plain old natural disasters.
Of course no one wants to spend money to do that even though both consumers and utilities would benefit in the long run. This is where government can play a role in moving things forward.
I didn't say our prosperity was based on skilled workers. We had prosperity because businesses were willing/forced to train and provide decent pay to UNSKILLED workers.
Take a look at how Scandinavian countries do it and you'll find actual working examples of a more equitable system. Your every day Jane and Joe get paid well, have significantly more vacation time than we do plus have a shorter work week. The lowest paid worker at a McDonald's in Denmark makes the equivalent of $20 an hour. Yes, the cost of living and taxes are higher but they still come out way ahead.
Their health care is affordable and so is college. Retirement is not something they have to scrimp and save for while at the same time trying to save for their kid's college education. And yes there is still room for executives and others to make huge sums of money. Just not as extreme as they are here.
This is reality for them but we've been brainwashed into thinking it won't work here.
What's funny is that it used to work that way here too. Not exactly but closer than it does now. Part of the reason is collective bargaining. It's the norm there but becoming increasingly uncommon here. Collective bargaining has been proven to both improve the pay of the average worker while having a dampening effect on CEO pay. It's not that unionized companies were less profitable, it's because it's very hard to argue to a union that you can't afford to pay the workers more after you just gave the executives a huge pay increase.
It's not that easy changing your economic status. If you're born poor, you're likely to stay that way. It's no one's "personal decision" to be born poor. You're probably going to go to a crappy school. You probably won't be able to afford college. Even middle class people now start out in debt by the time they graduate from college. Maybe you're one of the exceptionally bright ones that get a full ride, but probably not.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I'm just saying that if you were born to a relatively affluent family you have no business telling people they're poor because they made bad decisions. You have no idea.
Wow. Let's just pay everybody crap because they aren't smart enough to spend their money wisely if we were to pay them more. They'll just gamble it away or do something stupid with it.
I'm sorry, but what a crock.
We had a substantial middle class in this country not be because we had a highly skilled workforce where everybody busted their ass and had skills that were hard to find. We had a substantial middle class because companies actually trained people and paid a decent wage. Collective bargaining gave leverage to workers even if they didn't have much in the way of skills.
Healthcare was cheaper. Funding retirement was easier. Paying for college didn't mean you started out 30,000 in debt.
It's not that people are stupid. It's that they are not getting paid enough to enjoy the same standard of living that people in this country enjoyed a generation or two ago. Even though on average, people in generation X, Y, or the millennials are better educated. This while the 1% are getting compensated ridiculous amounts of money. People say that redistribution of wealth won't fix the problem. Wake up. Redistribution of wealth to the top is what's causing the problem.
How many CEOs actually started the company they run?
In 1965 an average CEO made 45 times what the average worker made. Today it's about 248 times (400 to 500 times more for fortune 500 companies). Is it that much more work to run a company now than it was 40 or 50 years ago? Does the average worker have it that much easier?
He's paying himself less and his staff more. The total cost for labor is the same. Perhaps the real inefficiency in compensating CEOs far more than they actually return to the company. Even when they're let go or the company fails they often have "golden parachutes". The can survive for years off their severance packages.
Also remember that in larger companies there are many executives making large amounts of money, - not just the CEO. Making their compensation less exorbitant as well would free up even more cash for the average worker.
In 1965 the average CEO in the US made about 45 times what the average worker made. Today it's about 250 times more. For fortune 500 companies it's more like 400 to 500 times more.
Yeah, how awful. They might be able to fund their own retirement and healthcare, plus send their kids to college so that they'll have skills. All that along with paying more taxes that can be used to fix decaying infrastructure among other things.
Compensation is tied to the bargaining power of the worker, not necessarily the skills. If only people with unusual skills can expect decent compensation then by definition most people will get paid squat. That does not lead to a stable society.
From irs.gov:
"Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:
- Distinct legal existence
- Recognized creed and form of worship
- Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
- Formal code of doctrine and discipline
- Distinct religious history
- Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
- Organization of ordained ministers
- Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
- Literature of its own
- Established places of worship
- Regular congregations
- Regular religious services
- Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
- Schools for the preparation of its members
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes."
My take is that it's not something that can be reduced to an algorithm and to a certain extent it is a judgement call if for example an organization has some of the above characteristics but not others. Note however that the belief systems themselves aren't judged in any way (nor should they be).
Also important to recognize is that the above are just characteristics of a church and alone aren't enough to make an organization tax exempt. There are other rules that apply. For example there can neither be private owners or share holders.
For many years the IRS denied Scientology tax exempt status. I don't know if it was because the IRS claimed that it wasn't a real religion or because it violated some other rules regarding non-profits. Eventually Scientology was granted tax-exempt status but rumor was that they did so by strong-arming members of the IRS. Anyway, a petition will not be enough to remove their tax exempt status. It will have to be shown that they are in violation of the rules.
Note: Many churches fill out the paperwork just to protect themselves even though they aren't technically required to. There are people that believe this is completely unnecessary and that calling yourself a church is all you need to do to make yourself tax exempt. There are actual court cases that have proved this notion to be wrong. If you call yourself a church and engage in practices that could be mistaken as "for profit" activity then you place yourself at risk of coming out on the bad end of an audit.
They don't have to fill out the paperwork but they have to meet the qualifications of a 501c3 to guarantee their tax exempt status. In other words, they can skip the 990 but declaring themselves to be a church doesn't prevent them from being audited and ultimately being made to pay back taxes if they are found not to meet the qualifications of a non-profit.
So declaring your organization to be a church doesn't really make you exempt from anything other than getting a pass on filling out some forms. You can call yourself a church and not pay taxes, but if the IRS audits you and finds that you don't meet the requirements of a 501c3, then you're screwed.
So, Scientology shouldn't be exempt unless they can demonstrate they meet the requirements of a 501c3 non-profit. It really has little to do with belief systems.
Corporations are people under US law and "people" can spend as much as they want on election campaigns.
Corporations are persons so they can be be a party to contracts and be legally held to them. I mean, you want corporations to be accountable, right?
Also, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand?
Not "Congress shall make no law against individuals", not "Congress shall make no law against unions". NO law. Any law restricting the movement of speech, including political contributions, is unconstitutional. You don't need to bring "person" into it.
It's kind of obvious that "freedom of speech" now belongs primarily to those who can pay big bucks for it.
One of the worst decisions ever. Corruption has been enshrined in law.
Have you never had the experience of hooking up with someone who was just as into it as you were? Have you never felt someone tremble under your touch? That is powerful stuff. If the best analogy you can come up with is having someone cook for you vs going out to eat, you've clearly missed out on the pleasure that can be had through giving someone else pleasure.
A prostitute may put on a good act, but in reality they just want to get it over with so they can turn the next trick or go home for the night. It is NOT at all the same. The BIGGEST turn on as far as I'm concerned is knowing that the person you are with is as filled with lust as you are.
Or perhaps they just made a spelling mistake that once submitted slashdot will not let them correct (as far as I know).
For example. I just accidentally typed "submitting" rather than "submitted". I understand the difference between those two words. For whatever reason, I was thinking "submitted" and my fingers typed "submitting". I happened to catch it but sometimes I miss stuff like that. I really doubt it has anything to do with critical thinking. It might mean that their mind is racing ahead of their fingers.
I also fully understand the different between "their", "there", and "they're" yet sometimes I still use the wrong one. I also know the difference between "to", "two", and "too". Again, I wish I used the correct spelling at all times but I don't.
For whatever reason, I have a bad habit of type "he" instead of "the". Maybe the "t" on my keyboard sticks. Or maybe I'm just not perfect. In fact I made at least 7 spelling mistakes on this post alone, - that I know of.
It's a slashdot post, not a novel, a term paper, or an article I'm writing for a scientific journal. I trust that most readers of slashdot will be able to discern what I intended to write based on context if I do happen to make a mistake. A few folks may get annoyed by any mistakes I make but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
An office or school room is typically lit with fluorescent lighting which consumes more energy than LEDs but much less than incandescents. The problem with lighting whole rooms with LEDs is that the light tends to be more focused and directional. They are getting better but remember we are talking about going from 500 lux to 10,000. That would be a challenge to do with LEDs.
You'd need a lot more fixtures. It would not only require more power but the cost of retrofitting a school would be very high. Though LEDs last a long time, the number of bulbs needed means that maintaining those lighting systems over time would be expensive too.
Sometimes the right solution is the simple one that requires LESS technology rather than more. Get the kids outside.
Average indoor light levels at an office or school are about 500 lux. Outdoors on a cloudy day is about 10,000. You think we consume a lot of energy now, just try illuminating all the classrooms to 10,000 lux.
Just get the kids outside. There are so many other benefits.