I never said that they'd perform worse, but that they would find other ways to make the money that they are capable of making, e.g. they could leave the area that makes such ridiculous laws.
Let them. There are plenty of others to take their place. The idea that there's only a tiny number of people that have the unique capabilities of doing these jobs is ludicrous.
They can also get paid more by firing the lowest paid, and either automating their jobs or shipping the jobs overseas.
Cleaners and security guards are amongst the lowest paid.
You can automate vacuum cleaning, but there are plenty of other workplace cleaning tasks that can't be automated. And you can buy better locks and alarms, but places that employ human security guards do so because they need more than locks and alarms.
Neither can be outsourced overseas.
Of course they can (and usually are) outsourced to other domestic companies - and that is a loophole that would need to be dealt with in any maximum wage ratio legislation.
There are several assumptions there to make the numbers look nicer.
I just took the first current "average" value for the US I could find for each of those values. Of course fudging those figures in the direction you want will change the calculation.
But it gets worse... Since you have to pay the $7,500 up front, there is a cost to that in time value of money. And yet it gets worst STILL, because there is a $7,500 tax credit that we all have to pay for and that won't be there if EV sales gain any traction, it would become too expensive.
Against which is the fact that gasoline is likely to go up in price over the ownership of the car. And in your hypothetical future where the tax incentive has disappeared, the EV has got cheaper anyway as a result of ever improving battery technology, and economies of scale with larger production numbers.
I see over and over how people are trying to twist it to make EV cars seem competitive, they are not.
Well you seem to be the one twisting here.
If they were, they would be selling.
As I pointed out elsewhere, they ARE selling, in increasing numbers each year. They are not at all anything other than one would expect in the early adopter stage of a new technology.
This is the same argument being used by Linux supporters who think that if people just *understood* why Linux was so much better, we'd all ditch Windows en mass and move to Linux on the desktop, without understanding *why* that hasn't happened has nothing to do with technical reasons.
Not even slightly the same. Linux has only been unsuccessful on the desktop. And that has been because FOSS turns out to be poor at designing interfaces. Where Linux has had a GUI designed by a commercial entity - Google's Android - it has been successful. This is no parallel to the EV world. All markets are different, and cars are not like computers, despite the long standing Slashdot love of trying to use each as a metaphor for the other.
It's pretty certain Linux will never be successful on the desktop. And even if it is, that market is in terminal decline. It's pretty certain EVs will take over the majority from ICEVs. It's just a question of how long it takes.
Maybe not. The Economist had an article a few months back, about a study that showed that psychopathic leaders actually make better decisions, partly because their reasoning isn't clouded by misplaced empathy.
Not really. That article describes a highly contrived scenario of the type: commit murder to get a numerically "better" result of living people at the end. Just because psychopaths can get the numerically better outcome more easily because they don't care about committing murder, doesn't mean that psychopaths in general make "better" decisions.
People who are not psychopaths are not normally held back from making the "better" decision because of the need to murder someone.
In real scenarios, a lack of the ability to empathise can indeed mean "worse" decisions.
Where "better" and "worse" is always subjective anyway.
Psychopaths do seem to be better able to climb to the top in capitalist, communist or any other political and economic system. That doesn't mean that they are making decisions that are better for anyone other than themselves.
Well you can have it both ways, because there are different ways of looking at things.
The idea that you should move to EVs because they are better for the planet is a moral consideration. The idea that people should do what's best for them tax incentive wise, even if it it's a wash over the country as a whole is a game theory consideration.
Game theory is a better predictor of overall population behaviour than moral imperatives though. So tax incentive nudges will do more for EVs than moral discussions.
Most companies that pay those high salaries tie a significant portion to the profitability of the company.
Not true. News items about of failed CEOs who are made enormous payments to get rid of them. And there's been plenty of failure this last decade.
The reality is that executive pay has not got so far out of touch with ordinary employees, not because of success, but because of execs and board members all scratching each other's backs when it comes to renumeration, rather than serving the best interests of the shareholders.
Also, keep in mind that when the government gives you a nice tax credit for buying an EV, they are just giving you back your own money, so you shouldn't count that either.
As an individual of course you should count that. Your tax credit doesn't come from you, it comes from the general tax take. You are better off if you take advantage of it and worse off if you don't.
As to taxing electricity, they can't tax home charging at any different rate than electricity in general. Tax on electricity may increase to counter the fall in petroleum taxes, but it would have to rise for ALL electricity use. Which would mean that electricity for cars wouldn't carry as much tax burden as petroleum for cars. So again, as an individual, your best move tax wise would be the EV.
2358 gallons at an average $3.18 a gallon. That's 57783 miles at an average of 24.5 MPG. That's 4.28 years at an average of 13476 miles per annum.
4.28 years before the EV becomes cheaper isn't an unreasonable time at all. Average length of car ownership is 4.18 years. So it's a wash.
Of course you haven't accounted for resale values at the end of your ownership. So the difference may be more or less than $7500 taking the full cost of ownership into account.
For the two weeks when these "bays" are put in. Then you will find these slots are all full as well.
Which means they worked. They encouraged 2 new EVs. Time to create another 2 bays.
Why should public parking spots be ceded to for profit charging stations?
Now there I'm with you. I think public utilities should be run by the government. But it's not a fashionable view these days.
As to why they should be done at all - it's an imperative that we change technology from ICEVs to EVs. Even if you don't care about AGW, petroleum is a finite resource.
FidoNet is I suppose. But its a hierarchical system, giving overall power to the node at the top. Non-hierarchical peer to peer is what made the internet open.
And CSNET was another one which was created with government money, so isn't a counter example at all.
How can it be contrived when it's something that actually happens from time to time?
The latest example in my country was this one. As it happened there was never any real problem that caused it, only panic buying by people thinking that there might be a strike soon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17552395
Others have happened because of actual strike action. Because of fires at refineries, and because of heavy snow fall. There are many examples. But I'm not going to make a list, you can Google it yourself if you're interested.
The list of parts that are either consumable or subject to failure on an ICEV is long. Your anecdote about what you have had to change on your car is irrelevant. An anecdote isn't data. Just because you say you haven't changed the exhaust for example doesn't mean that ICEV drivers in general often have to. It's just one of many consumable parts, piled up high at any service station.
You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.
That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.
Now stop wasting my time. You're now trolling.
Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself
Not at all, I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources, not by reading your links, which I have not and will not be clicking on. They have nothing to do with my point that you are disputing.
Whilst my Google search proves no more than yours, at least I can show an honestly unbiased search term, with the top links confirming my point of view, not yours.
Yes the more expensive gas (petrol) explains part of it. But EVs are marketed world wide. You can't just consider the United States as if it's the only market that matters. Other than perhaps the Persian Gulf states, almost every country has more expensive gas than the US.
ARPANET was only part of the development of the internet. Universities had a lot to do with it. The universities would have networked together regardless of whether ARPANET had already started networking.
And Al Gore would have mandated the spread from the universities to the general public, regardless of whether the military had been involved early on.
It wouldn't be TCP/IP without ARPANET, but it would be some form of mass networking.
Tesla S would fit your figures. But beyond that, for the commuter who occasionally has to go further, the plug-in hybrid is possible answer. Most of the time you'd be using electric, but with gas available for those times when you go further.
We each put our money into whatever is important to us.
Indeed. And whilst you might want to spend your money on a new car every 3 years. Someone else might want to spend a similar amount of money buying an EV and keeping it a few years longer.
AC compressors, wheel bearings, brake rotors, ball joints.
Brake rotors would last a lot longer in a Tesla S or any EV with regenerative braking. Friction brakes are only used for emergency braking. It's unlikely you'd ever have to replace them in the life time of the car. And it's not often you'd need to replace the pads.
Overall there are many times as many parts to go wrong, or that need periodic replacement on an ICEV than an EV.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that they'd perform worse, but that they would find other ways to make the money that they are capable of making, e.g. they could leave the area that makes such ridiculous laws.
Let them. There are plenty of others to take their place. The idea that there's only a tiny number of people that have the unique capabilities of doing these jobs is ludicrous.
They can also get paid more by firing the lowest paid, and either automating their jobs or shipping the jobs overseas.
Cleaners and security guards are amongst the lowest paid.
You can automate vacuum cleaning, but there are plenty of other workplace cleaning tasks that can't be automated. And you can buy better locks and alarms, but places that employ human security guards do so because they need more than locks and alarms.
Neither can be outsourced overseas.
Of course they can (and usually are) outsourced to other domestic companies - and that is a loophole that would need to be dealt with in any maximum wage ratio legislation.
There are several assumptions there to make the numbers look nicer.
I just took the first current "average" value for the US I could find for each of those values. Of course fudging those figures in the direction you want will change the calculation.
But it gets worse... Since you have to pay the $7,500 up front, there is a cost to that in time value of money. And yet it gets worst STILL, because there is a $7,500 tax credit that we all have to pay for and that won't be there if EV sales gain any traction, it would become too expensive.
Against which is the fact that gasoline is likely to go up in price over the ownership of the car. And in your hypothetical future where the tax incentive has disappeared, the EV has got cheaper anyway as a result of ever improving battery technology, and economies of scale with larger production numbers.
I see over and over how people are trying to twist it to make EV cars seem competitive, they are not.
Well you seem to be the one twisting here.
If they were, they would be selling.
As I pointed out elsewhere, they ARE selling, in increasing numbers each year. They are not at all anything other than one would expect in the early adopter stage of a new technology.
This is the same argument being used by Linux supporters who think that if people just *understood* why Linux was so much better, we'd all ditch Windows en mass and move to Linux on the desktop, without understanding *why* that hasn't happened has nothing to do with technical reasons.
Not even slightly the same. Linux has only been unsuccessful on the desktop. And that has been because FOSS turns out to be poor at designing interfaces. Where Linux has had a GUI designed by a commercial entity - Google's Android - it has been successful. This is no parallel to the EV world. All markets are different, and cars are not like computers, despite the long standing Slashdot love of trying to use each as a metaphor for the other.
It's pretty certain Linux will never be successful on the desktop. And even if it is, that market is in terminal decline. It's pretty certain EVs will take over the majority from ICEVs. It's just a question of how long it takes.
Maybe not. The Economist had an article a few months back, about a study that showed that psychopathic leaders actually make better decisions, partly because their reasoning isn't clouded by misplaced empathy.
Not really. That article describes a highly contrived scenario of the type: commit murder to get a numerically "better" result of living people at the end. Just because psychopaths can get the numerically better outcome more easily because they don't care about committing murder, doesn't mean that psychopaths in general make "better" decisions.
People who are not psychopaths are not normally held back from making the "better" decision because of the need to murder someone.
In real scenarios, a lack of the ability to empathise can indeed mean "worse" decisions.
Where "better" and "worse" is always subjective anyway.
Psychopaths do seem to be better able to climb to the top in capitalist, communist or any other political and economic system. That doesn't mean that they are making decisions that are better for anyone other than themselves.
Well you can have it both ways, because there are different ways of looking at things.
The idea that you should move to EVs because they are better for the planet is a moral consideration. The idea that people should do what's best for them tax incentive wise, even if it it's a wash over the country as a whole is a game theory consideration.
Game theory is a better predictor of overall population behaviour than moral imperatives though. So tax incentive nudges will do more for EVs than moral discussions.
Most companies that pay those high salaries tie a significant portion to the profitability of the company.
Not true. News items about of failed CEOs who are made enormous payments to get rid of them. And there's been plenty of failure this last decade.
The reality is that executive pay has not got so far out of touch with ordinary employees, not because of success, but because of execs and board members all scratching each other's backs when it comes to renumeration, rather than serving the best interests of the shareholders.
Time Lord is a race.
Also, keep in mind that when the government gives you a nice tax credit for buying an EV, they are just giving you back your own money, so you shouldn't count that either.
As an individual of course you should count that. Your tax credit doesn't come from you, it comes from the general tax take. You are better off if you take advantage of it and worse off if you don't.
As to taxing electricity, they can't tax home charging at any different rate than electricity in general. Tax on electricity may increase to counter the fall in petroleum taxes, but it would have to rise for ALL electricity use. Which would mean that electricity for cars wouldn't carry as much tax burden as petroleum for cars. So again, as an individual, your best move tax wise would be the EV.
2358 gallons at an average $3.18 a gallon.
That's 57783 miles at an average of 24.5 MPG.
That's 4.28 years at an average of 13476 miles per annum.
4.28 years before the EV becomes cheaper isn't an unreasonable time at all. Average length of car ownership is 4.18 years. So it's a wash.
Of course you haven't accounted for resale values at the end of your ownership. So the difference may be more or less than $7500 taking the full cost of ownership into account.
For the two weeks when these "bays" are put in. Then you will find these slots are all full as well.
Which means they worked. They encouraged 2 new EVs. Time to create another 2 bays.
Why should public parking spots be ceded to for profit charging stations?
Now there I'm with you. I think public utilities should be run by the government. But it's not a fashionable view these days.
As to why they should be done at all - it's an imperative that we change technology from ICEVs to EVs. Even if you don't care about AGW, petroleum is a finite resource.
FidoNet is I suppose. But its a hierarchical system, giving overall power to the node at the top. Non-hierarchical peer to peer is what made the internet open.
And CSNET was another one which was created with government money, so isn't a counter example at all.
Looks contrived to me.
How can it be contrived when it's something that actually happens from time to time?
The latest example in my country was this one. As it happened there was never any real problem that caused it, only panic buying by people thinking that there might be a strike soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17552395
Others have happened because of actual strike action. Because of fires at refineries, and because of heavy snow fall. There are many examples. But I'm not going to make a list, you can Google it yourself if you're interested.
You picked up one item. From the list.
It was a short list. You got 25% wrong.
The list of parts that are either consumable or subject to failure on an ICEV is long. Your anecdote about what you have had to change on your car is irrelevant. An anecdote isn't data. Just because you say you haven't changed the exhaust for example doesn't mean that ICEV drivers in general often have to. It's just one of many consumable parts, piled up high at any service station.
WTF has that to do with the fact this was about non-owners? RTFAs.
You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.
That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.
Now stop wasting my time. You're now trolling.
Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself
Not at all, I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources, not by reading your links, which I have not and will not be clicking on. They have nothing to do with my point that you are disputing.
Whilst my Google search proves no more than yours, at least I can show an honestly unbiased search term, with the top links confirming my point of view, not yours.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=scientific+consensus+homeopathy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=iSGSUtblBY6whAeAsIDIDg&safe=strict#q=scientific+consensus+homeopathy&rls=en&safe=strict
You can't win this. We both know you are wrong.
Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"?
It is irrational to think otherwise. You think otherwise. Ergo, you are irrational.
Britain.
Yes the more expensive gas (petrol) explains part of it. But EVs are marketed world wide. You can't just consider the United States as if it's the only market that matters. Other than perhaps the Persian Gulf states, almost every country has more expensive gas than the US.
If gas stations have no power, then how is it EVs will be unaffected?
I didn't describe instances when gas stations have no power. I described instances when gas stations have no gas.
As other repliers have noted, other networks were created which weren't government subsidized and which didn't have your claimed problems.
No they weren't. Other networks were closed and expensive.
ARPANET was only part of the development of the internet. Universities had a lot to do with it. The universities would have networked together regardless of whether ARPANET had already started networking.
And Al Gore would have mandated the spread from the universities to the general public, regardless of whether the military had been involved early on.
It wouldn't be TCP/IP without ARPANET, but it would be some form of mass networking.
Do you really think it would ever be as open as it is now if they'd realized what it would become down the road?
I know for sure it wouldn't have been as open as it is not if it been developed by private enterprise. (Compuserve, MSN etc.)
Tesla S would fit your figures. But beyond that, for the commuter who occasionally has to go further, the plug-in hybrid is possible answer. Most of the time you'd be using electric, but with gas available for those times when you go further.
We each put our money into whatever is important to us.
Indeed. And whilst you might want to spend your money on a new car every 3 years. Someone else might want to spend a similar amount of money buying an EV and keeping it a few years longer.
AC compressors, wheel bearings, brake rotors, ball joints.
Brake rotors would last a lot longer in a Tesla S or any EV with regenerative braking. Friction brakes are only used for emergency braking. It's unlikely you'd ever have to replace them in the life time of the car. And it's not often you'd need to replace the pads.
Overall there are many times as many parts to go wrong, or that need periodic replacement on an ICEV than an EV.
Buy a brand new $30 and then have to rent a car or get a ride.
What brand new automobile costs $30? Or are you suggesting a skateboard?
Absolutely, there's a lack of charging points right now. But that's a growing pain, it's not a fundamental limitation.