I understand that sentiment - but it is just that, sentiment. In the end, effectiveness wins out and you can't have an effective organization without competitive salaries.
It's your money, so if you want to rank perceived fairness over effectiveness it is your right. Being a pragmatic person, I just find this attitude frustrating.
I'd argue that it is about helping people. If hiring good people lets you do more good, than I don't get caught up in how much the employees make. How many low-overhead charities were able to help in Nepal? I'd be surprised if you could find one that made a meaningful contribution in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries? It's not reasonable to expect good people to work for a fraction of what they can earn in the for-profit world. You end up with a much shallower talent pool.
That's not a fair characterization of the United Way. They do all of the overhead fundraising stuff so that smaller charities don't have to. Then those smaller charities come out fantastic on those brain-dead "overhead" rankings, because someone else spent the overhead money.
Similar criticisms leveled at the Red Cross are misguided. The Red Cross is huge and has corresponding overhead, but they have to stockpile massive amounts of stuff and then just sit on it waiting for something to happen. It's never going to be "efficient", but they are the main and first"boots on the ground" at every major disaster, and they are at every residential fire with blankets, clothes, and shelter. Sometimes it is worth paying people who are good at their jobs.
Sort-of. He is building a giant battery factory in order to get battery prices down. He needs to sell that capacity. Tesla has other constraints on the number of cars that they produce, but I think mainly there is a recognition that battery is where his competitive advantage lies. There are dozens of companies capable of building high-quality automobiles, but only a handful of companies who can make automotive-sized batteries. Tesla has no chance in hell at selling cars if they are the smallest player in a huge industry, but if they have class-leading battery technology, that changes the game.
Indeed, I do say that about Fukushima. In isolation, it looks like a disaster. In perspective, it was a very small element of a much larger disaster. The part that makes it "special" is that the people are displaced by an invisible hazard and they have to deal with a government that seems to alternate between lies and incompetence. Or maybe just delusion.
IIRC (and we have a former Homer Simpson at work that translates all of this crap for me), the problem wasn't a lack of generators - it was that all of the electrical equipment was destroyed by the salt water. They recognized that the original emergency generators were vulnerable to flooding and moved them to higher ground, but they left the original electrical in place. It was all fried, and so there was nothing to plug into.
In the US, plants are required to have some kind of mobile generator. I don't know if their electrical systems are supposed to be redundant or somehow different than the Japanese plants - but I doubt it. A tsunami could probably put a US plant in a similar situation, but in order to get to Indian Point, it would have to kill a million or so people on the way, so the meltdown wouldn't be that big of a deal in the larger disaster.
Even though leases make my skin literally* leap from my body in disgust, I have to admit that the numbers look very nice in your case. There is no disputing that getting a car for less than $1000/year is a good deal.
*Obviously, it would figuratively leap from my body, but I'm going for effect.
If you maintain things properly, then people won't see how obviously great your idea to spend a gazillion dollars to replace it is. It's like you've never done anything in government before...:)
It is primarily North American flights. When we lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, it was much easier to get to than JFK so we used it when possible. People get too hung up on things looking old. I'd rather have an old airport nearby than no airport or an airport that takes over an hour to get to on 3 trains. The approach is either fun or unnerving, depending on your personality. I found the approach into the old Hong Kong airport "fun", so you know where I'm at:)
I like city life, but I understand your point of view. I'm currently in the 'burbs on a whopping quarter acre. I occasionally appreciate the peace and quiet in a way that I occasionally missed in the city.
With that said, zoning law is sufficient to address this "problem". If the zoning allows 3 stories and no setbacks, then that's what you'll get. Zone for 15 ft setbacks and 2 stories, and you'll get smaller boxes. This isn't rocket science.
While NASA has been known to launch astronauts directly from Walmart, they tend to favor people in slightly better shape. That's the standard hatch size, and was used even on the shuttle. The US side of the ISS does in fact use a larger, 50 inch (note the nice round-number imperial measurement) square hatch - but that was to accommodate the equipment racks that are used in the US-designed modules.
Doesn't that rather depend on the application? I need a controller to tie together a bunch of stepper motors and a GPS module. Do I need a monitor and keyboard?
I don't live in CA, but that $2,500 brings it down to almost sensible from an economics perspective. Certainly close enough that if you like it, you'll find a way to justify it.
When a Leaf is $14,000 like the similar Versa, I'm in.
(In all fairness, the build quality is better and the performance is maybe closer to a $16,000 Sentra but with more low-end grunt. But you get my drift...)
It's still pretty outrageous to claim that they survive on the few percent they are saving by not collecting in the few states so small that they don't have a presence there.
I don't think a car needs to be all things to all people - we have hundreds of models and sub-models available to us. As it stands right now, no single manufacturer has even 20% of the market - individual models are in the single digit range.
In my family, a cheap electric car with perhaps 40 mile range would be ideal. My wife's commute is 5 miles, all congested local roads. The headroom on the battery would only be necessary for heat/AC while sitting in traffic and to account for decreased range with age. Such a car does not yet exist, but there seems to be progress. We would still have our minivan for my slightly longer commute and long trips.
overlooking the reality of where the electricity comes from.
A couple of things: 1. Coal power is a declining percentage. Stepping up the electric car infrastructure now as coal is declining seems to make sense. In any event, it is much easier to regulate a handful of power plants than thousands of individual cars. 2. Even "dirty" sources of electricity are beneficial in certain areas. Los Angeles is constantly suffering air quality due in large part to the number of ICE vehicles on the road. Even if a coal plant supplies the power, the coal plant can be located somewhere more suitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the best people for a job are not necessarily in the same overlapping Venn diagram as people who like to donate their time to a charity.
I understand that sentiment - but it is just that, sentiment. In the end, effectiveness wins out and you can't have an effective organization without competitive salaries.
It's your money, so if you want to rank perceived fairness over effectiveness it is your right. Being a pragmatic person, I just find this attitude frustrating.
Charity is about giving, not profiting.
I'd argue that it is about helping people. If hiring good people lets you do more good, than I don't get caught up in how much the employees make. How many low-overhead charities were able to help in Nepal? I'd be surprised if you could find one that made a meaningful contribution in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries? It's not reasonable to expect good people to work for a fraction of what they can earn in the for-profit world. You end up with a much shallower talent pool.
That's not a fair characterization of the United Way. They do all of the overhead fundraising stuff so that smaller charities don't have to. Then those smaller charities come out fantastic on those brain-dead "overhead" rankings, because someone else spent the overhead money.
Similar criticisms leveled at the Red Cross are misguided. The Red Cross is huge and has corresponding overhead, but they have to stockpile massive amounts of stuff and then just sit on it waiting for something to happen. It's never going to be "efficient", but they are the main and first"boots on the ground" at every major disaster, and they are at every residential fire with blankets, clothes, and shelter. Sometimes it is worth paying people who are good at their jobs.
Sort-of. He is building a giant battery factory in order to get battery prices down. He needs to sell that capacity. Tesla has other constraints on the number of cars that they produce, but I think mainly there is a recognition that battery is where his competitive advantage lies. There are dozens of companies capable of building high-quality automobiles, but only a handful of companies who can make automotive-sized batteries. Tesla has no chance in hell at selling cars if they are the smallest player in a huge industry, but if they have class-leading battery technology, that changes the game.
Indeed, I do say that about Fukushima. In isolation, it looks like a disaster. In perspective, it was a very small element of a much larger disaster. The part that makes it "special" is that the people are displaced by an invisible hazard and they have to deal with a government that seems to alternate between lies and incompetence. Or maybe just delusion.
IIRC (and we have a former Homer Simpson at work that translates all of this crap for me), the problem wasn't a lack of generators - it was that all of the electrical equipment was destroyed by the salt water. They recognized that the original emergency generators were vulnerable to flooding and moved them to higher ground, but they left the original electrical in place. It was all fried, and so there was nothing to plug into.
In the US, plants are required to have some kind of mobile generator. I don't know if their electrical systems are supposed to be redundant or somehow different than the Japanese plants - but I doubt it. A tsunami could probably put a US plant in a similar situation, but in order to get to Indian Point, it would have to kill a million or so people on the way, so the meltdown wouldn't be that big of a deal in the larger disaster.
I take it back - we did not fly out of LGA for that flight.
I've been to Nassau, Bahamas from there. But like you said, pre-cleared customs in the Bahamas.
Even though leases make my skin literally* leap from my body in disgust, I have to admit that the numbers look very nice in your case. There is no disputing that getting a car for less than $1000/year is a good deal.
*Obviously, it would figuratively leap from my body, but I'm going for effect.
If you maintain things properly, then people won't see how obviously great your idea to spend a gazillion dollars to replace it is. It's like you've never done anything in government before... :)
Philly to NYC is a no-brainer: train. Amtrak in about an hour if you are feeling spendy, NJ Transit for a more leisurely ride at 1/5 the cost.
Depending on the time of day, the bus is actually the best option - almost as fast as Amtrak and cheaper than even NJ Transit.
It is primarily North American flights. When we lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, it was much easier to get to than JFK so we used it when possible. People get too hung up on things looking old. I'd rather have an old airport nearby than no airport or an airport that takes over an hour to get to on 3 trains. The approach is either fun or unnerving, depending on your personality. I found the approach into the old Hong Kong airport "fun", so you know where I'm at :)
I like city life, but I understand your point of view. I'm currently in the 'burbs on a whopping quarter acre. I occasionally appreciate the peace and quiet in a way that I occasionally missed in the city.
With that said, zoning law is sufficient to address this "problem". If the zoning allows 3 stories and no setbacks, then that's what you'll get. Zone for 15 ft setbacks and 2 stories, and you'll get smaller boxes. This isn't rocket science.
While NASA has been known to launch astronauts directly from Walmart, they tend to favor people in slightly better shape. That's the standard hatch size, and was used even on the shuttle. The US side of the ISS does in fact use a larger, 50 inch (note the nice round-number imperial measurement) square hatch - but that was to accommodate the equipment racks that are used in the US-designed modules.
You still need a Keyboard & Mouse, Monitor or TV
Doesn't that rather depend on the application? I need a controller to tie together a bunch of stepper motors and a GPS module. Do I need a monitor and keyboard?
A used Leaf already costs less than $14,000 .
A used Versa is correspondingly cheaper.
I don't live in CA, but that $2,500 brings it down to almost sensible from an economics perspective. Certainly close enough that if you like it, you'll find a way to justify it.
This car does exist
Well, except for the "cheap" part :)
When a Leaf is $14,000 like the similar Versa, I'm in.
(In all fairness, the build quality is better and the performance is maybe closer to a $16,000 Sentra but with more low-end grunt. But you get my drift...)
It's still pretty outrageous to claim that they survive on the few percent they are saving by not collecting in the few states so small that they don't have a presence there.
OK, so then on to point 2 - unless you think they will be building coal plants in downtown LA.
I don't think a car needs to be all things to all people - we have hundreds of models and sub-models available to us. As it stands right now, no single manufacturer has even 20% of the market - individual models are in the single digit range.
In my family, a cheap electric car with perhaps 40 mile range would be ideal. My wife's commute is 5 miles, all congested local roads. The headroom on the battery would only be necessary for heat/AC while sitting in traffic and to account for decreased range with age. Such a car does not yet exist, but there seems to be progress. We would still have our minivan for my slightly longer commute and long trips.
overlooking the reality of where the electricity comes from.
A couple of things:
1. Coal power is a declining percentage. Stepping up the electric car infrastructure now as coal is declining seems to make sense. In any event, it is much easier to regulate a handful of power plants than thousands of individual cars.
2. Even "dirty" sources of electricity are beneficial in certain areas. Los Angeles is constantly suffering air quality due in large part to the number of ICE vehicles on the road. Even if a coal plant supplies the power, the coal plant can be located somewhere more suitable.
Funny, they collect tax in PA. (And in 23 other states.)