And how many people drive for 12 hours or 24 hrs straight?
They dont, they stop for a 12 hr over night stop - where you can also recharge the car.
Twelve hours, 300 miles... I guess you drive around 25 MPH? My sometimes-commute from Ventura to San Francisco is around 360 miles - doesn't work with an EV, unless I want to try to find some charging stations in Gonzales, and hang out for an hour...
The benefit from hybrid cars is you get both kinds of propulsion: gasoline and electric. It is about the same price as gasoline only or electric only (smaller ICE and smaller battery pack)
You get the typical savings of lower cost of operation with the 95% use case, and never have to worry about waiting around for an hour or four (while people hog the chargers) when in the middle of a trip. You get the benefits of lower cost of operation of an EV with the instant-range-extension of an ICE.
So rent some shoes for the 5% of the time you need them.
When shopping for a vehicle do you need to expect it to be able to cover every single edge case scenario?
Because I can, because of choice. And I can do so at a good price. I live in Southern California, I wanted a 2 door convertible. Sometimes (2-3 times a month) we go on long drives, up the coast to Paso Robles, or down to San Diego. Or over to Las Vegas. Having a 300 mile range is not quite enough - and having hundreds of gas stations along the way makes a 4 minute refueling easy.
Yes, I have to put up with a 10 minute oil change every 8,000 miles, and the first service for plugs and such at 100,000 miles will be a bit more, but we got what we wanted, no need to retrofit the house with a special charger, and no need to hunt and sit for chargers either, wherever we go...
The average commute distance is 16 miles one way, so it looks like that ~30 mile battery pack is appropriately sized. You COULD pay more for a bigger battery - but you'd end up rarely using it.
It's a band reject filter, been used in acoustics for around 100 years. A narrow-band Helmholtz radiator that cuts ~1/30th of an octave in bandwidth. So it's great for a specific tone - but not broadband. And the dimensions of the elements (neck diameter, neck length, size of constrained volume) are proportional to wavelength, so what works in the demo at 1 kHz is massive at 100 Hz - and beyond house-sized at 20 Hz. This is just someone going "oh wow they can notch out a single frequency think about the impact!" when acoustics NVH guys have been doing it for 10 decades...
It could also be that LensCrafters has more overhead than the online stores - much like other B&M stores. It's hard to compete in commodity products when they can be purchased over the Internet, with really minimal business costs.
Hi wealth was not built by income; and in fact his income - the top executive - is in-line with the managers of the Whole Foods store. You want to claim that because he made his wealth via a means other than income, it affects the income of the executives, which is completely illogical.
Are they the same type of goods, or exactly the same goods? Barilla pasta sells for a good amount more than the generic Kroger's brand. Whole Foods carries premium quality products (supposedly - I don't shop there), but it seems they are making the same margins. So they aren't failing - they are succeeding (as well as most grocery stores).
I answered you elsewhere, most of the executives (store managers - equivalent to a senior director/VP in most non-retail organizations) make around $75K per year. A few at their corporate ownership - Amazon - probably pull in high 6/low 7 figure. But let's not confuse wealth with income.
Bezos is rich not because of income but because of investment - he founded Amazon, maintains a massive amount of stock, and whilst making $81K per year - on par with a Whole Foods manager, his wealth is massive because the stock he owns - originally worth nothing - has dramatically appreciated in value. But then, he created the company, he invested his own time and equity, and he spent the years building it.
Do NOT confuse wealth with income - they are usually not related.
Their last public annual report showed a net profit of 3.2% for 2016. So a little better than the industry standard of 2.5% - but not much. Higher quality, niche-y products cost more to buy - for the consumer and the store.
Most of those Whole Foods bosses earn around $75,000 a year. Grocery stores are very low margin outfits, typically around 2%. You cannot carry much salary load at all with such tight margins.
But you don't understand! They're part of Amazon, so of course they can run at a loss and let the rest of Amazon cover the loss! Never mind that Amazon's profit margin is around 4% itself. Jeff rich, other person poor, not fair = pay people more than the company makes and feel good as you all close your doors...
This is exactly why minimum wage is Federal. Economies aren't tiny, local things.
Yep, economies are also large. But costs paid by workers tend to be tiny, local things - the rent in San Francisco is about 4 times higher than the rent in Fresno - just a 3 hour drive away. Most costs paid are highly local, and that's exactly why a Federal minimum wage makes no sense - do you set it for workers in San Francisco, Manhattan, and Santa Monica - or for workers in McAllen, Texas?
Those who fight for raising the minimum wage are consistently ignoring the "what happens then" aspect of their idea.
As you point out, when you up the minimum wage in situations where it actually matters (i.e. when the minimum wage is actually not already exceeded by market forces) you start a cycle of inflation pressure. More dollars are casing the same amount of goods and EVERYBODY pays more for stuff. The problem here is that although the minimum wage workers do see a pay increase dollar wise, they eventually see a cost of living increase and fall back to their existing standard of living.
Well the solution is obvious! Simply introduce price controls, like some cities do with rent! Force businesses to sell products at a fixed price so that everyone can afford them. Problem solved!
What is needed is to bring executive compensation down to merely 500 times minimum wage from the 5-10,000 it currently is.
That is almost always the exception, rather than the rule. Half the workforce is in small businesses, and most of those owners/executives earn less than $100K. At every small business I started, I was NOT the highest paid person, and I was nowhere near 5X the lowest, let alone 5000.
Don't let the rare exception of a few hundred CEOs at massive multi-nationals (who typically make most of their compensation via stock grants) skew your thinking about what the actual executive typically makes - it's a lot less than you think. The reward comes when you sell the small business - not when you're running it.
Increasingly, they don't get the option. Governments at State and local (and there's a push at Federal) are implementing much higher minimum wages that forces the action. Grocery stores tend to live on 2-3% margins; increase their costs by a few percent and they have no choice but to either raise prices (and potentially lose customers), cut benefits/expenses (which is the typical thing that happens), or close.
No, my assertion is that double taxation on the basis of "it's not fair they saved so much" is socialist. You earn money, you pay taxes on it, what's left you keep. That accumulates. Warren's approach is that if you accumulate too much of that - you have to pay tax again, every year, on the same money you accumulated. As far as sales tax goes, that's a State thing, not a Federal thing. Warren's proposal is at the Federal level. Too good at saving what you keep after taxes? Then we'll take a chunk to be "fair".
The Marshall Plan was $100 billion at today's rate - a bit different than you try to make it out to be. And don't forget we paid more than 70% of your defense budget for about 40 years as well.
Socialism at its root is the concept that no one should own anything personally, really. Business should be owned by - effectively - society at large, and rewards/benefits should be shared by all. Taxing accumulated wealth is another form of taxation. If you save and build up a nice nest egg, you don't get to keep it - you have to share it with others. Even though you paid taxes on all of it at the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
And how many people drive for 12 hours or 24 hrs straight?
They dont, they stop for a 12 hr over night stop - where you can also recharge the car.
Twelve hours, 300 miles... I guess you drive around 25 MPH? My sometimes-commute from Ventura to San Francisco is around 360 miles - doesn't work with an EV, unless I want to try to find some charging stations in Gonzales, and hang out for an hour...
The benefit from hybrid cars is you get both kinds of propulsion: gasoline and electric. It is about the same price as gasoline only or electric only (smaller ICE and smaller battery pack)
You get the typical savings of lower cost of operation with the 95% use case, and never have to worry about waiting around for an hour or four (while people hog the chargers) when in the middle of a trip. You get the benefits of lower cost of operation of an EV with the instant-range-extension of an ICE.
So rent some shoes for the 5% of the time you need them.
When shopping for a vehicle do you need to expect it to be able to cover every single edge case scenario?
Because I can, because of choice. And I can do so at a good price. I live in Southern California, I wanted a 2 door convertible. Sometimes (2-3 times a month) we go on long drives, up the coast to Paso Robles, or down to San Diego. Or over to Las Vegas. Having a 300 mile range is not quite enough - and having hundreds of gas stations along the way makes a 4 minute refueling easy.
Yes, I have to put up with a 10 minute oil change every 8,000 miles, and the first service for plugs and such at 100,000 miles will be a bit more, but we got what we wanted, no need to retrofit the house with a special charger, and no need to hunt and sit for chargers either, wherever we go...
The average commute distance is 16 miles one way, so it looks like that ~30 mile battery pack is appropriately sized. You COULD pay more for a bigger battery - but you'd end up rarely using it.
It's a band reject filter, been used in acoustics for around 100 years. A narrow-band Helmholtz radiator that cuts ~1/30th of an octave in bandwidth. So it's great for a specific tone - but not broadband. And the dimensions of the elements (neck diameter, neck length, size of constrained volume) are proportional to wavelength, so what works in the demo at 1 kHz is massive at 100 Hz - and beyond house-sized at 20 Hz. This is just someone going "oh wow they can notch out a single frequency think about the impact!" when acoustics NVH guys have been doing it for 10 decades...
Then explain Arizona - no DST. Or Hawaii - no DST. States can opt-out if they want.
It could also be that LensCrafters has more overhead than the online stores - much like other B&M stores. It's hard to compete in commodity products when they can be purchased over the Internet, with really minimal business costs.
Hi wealth was not built by income; and in fact his income - the top executive - is in-line with the managers of the Whole Foods store. You want to claim that because he made his wealth via a means other than income, it affects the income of the executives, which is completely illogical.
Are they the same type of goods, or exactly the same goods? Barilla pasta sells for a good amount more than the generic Kroger's brand. Whole Foods carries premium quality products (supposedly - I don't shop there), but it seems they are making the same margins. So they aren't failing - they are succeeding (as well as most grocery stores).
And yet my point remains - they make about the same margin as other grocery stores. Your comparison is irrelevant to your initial claim.
I answered you elsewhere, most of the executives (store managers - equivalent to a senior director/VP in most non-retail organizations) make around $75K per year. A few at their corporate ownership - Amazon - probably pull in high 6/low 7 figure. But let's not confuse wealth with income.
Bezos is rich not because of income but because of investment - he founded Amazon, maintains a massive amount of stock, and whilst making $81K per year - on par with a Whole Foods manager, his wealth is massive because the stock he owns - originally worth nothing - has dramatically appreciated in value. But then, he created the company, he invested his own time and equity, and he spent the years building it.
Do NOT confuse wealth with income - they are usually not related.
Their last public annual report showed a net profit of 3.2% for 2016. So a little better than the industry standard of 2.5% - but not much. Higher quality, niche-y products cost more to buy - for the consumer and the store.
How long does it take? Do I have to wait around for a day or 5 to actually execute a stock trade?
Most of those Whole Foods bosses earn around $75,000 a year. Grocery stores are very low margin outfits, typically around 2%. You cannot carry much salary load at all with such tight margins.
But you don't understand! They're part of Amazon, so of course they can run at a loss and let the rest of Amazon cover the loss! Never mind that Amazon's profit margin is around 4% itself. Jeff rich, other person poor, not fair = pay people more than the company makes and feel good as you all close your doors...
This is exactly why minimum wage is Federal. Economies aren't tiny, local things.
Yep, economies are also large. But costs paid by workers tend to be tiny, local things - the rent in San Francisco is about 4 times higher than the rent in Fresno - just a 3 hour drive away. Most costs paid are highly local, and that's exactly why a Federal minimum wage makes no sense - do you set it for workers in San Francisco, Manhattan, and Santa Monica - or for workers in McAllen, Texas?
Those who fight for raising the minimum wage are consistently ignoring the "what happens then" aspect of their idea.
As you point out, when you up the minimum wage in situations where it actually matters (i.e. when the minimum wage is actually not already exceeded by market forces) you start a cycle of inflation pressure. More dollars are casing the same amount of goods and EVERYBODY pays more for stuff. The problem here is that although the minimum wage workers do see a pay increase dollar wise, they eventually see a cost of living increase and fall back to their existing standard of living.
Well the solution is obvious! Simply introduce price controls, like some cities do with rent! Force businesses to sell products at a fixed price so that everyone can afford them. Problem solved!
/sarc Do I really need that?
What should that Federal minimum wage be? Should it be pegged to where you can live in McAllen, TX - or in San Francisco, CA?
Please define a livable minimum wage that is reasonable for San Francisco, CA and McAllen, TX.
What is needed is to bring executive compensation down to merely 500 times minimum wage from the 5-10,000 it currently is.
That is almost always the exception, rather than the rule. Half the workforce is in small businesses, and most of those owners/executives earn less than $100K. At every small business I started, I was NOT the highest paid person, and I was nowhere near 5X the lowest, let alone 5000.
Don't let the rare exception of a few hundred CEOs at massive multi-nationals (who typically make most of their compensation via stock grants) skew your thinking about what the actual executive typically makes - it's a lot less than you think. The reward comes when you sell the small business - not when you're running it.
Increasingly, they don't get the option. Governments at State and local (and there's a push at Federal) are implementing much higher minimum wages that forces the action. Grocery stores tend to live on 2-3% margins; increase their costs by a few percent and they have no choice but to either raise prices (and potentially lose customers), cut benefits/expenses (which is the typical thing that happens), or close.
No, my assertion is that double taxation on the basis of "it's not fair they saved so much" is socialist. You earn money, you pay taxes on it, what's left you keep. That accumulates. Warren's approach is that if you accumulate too much of that - you have to pay tax again, every year, on the same money you accumulated. As far as sales tax goes, that's a State thing, not a Federal thing. Warren's proposal is at the Federal level. Too good at saving what you keep after taxes? Then we'll take a chunk to be "fair".
Daylight Slacker's Time - Fall back an hour in Fall, and Fall back an hour in Spring, too. More sleep twice a year!
The Marshall Plan was $100 billion at today's rate - a bit different than you try to make it out to be. And don't forget we paid more than 70% of your defense budget for about 40 years as well.
Socialism at its root is the concept that no one should own anything personally, really. Business should be owned by - effectively - society at large, and rewards/benefits should be shared by all. Taxing accumulated wealth is another form of taxation. If you save and build up a nice nest egg, you don't get to keep it - you have to share it with others. Even though you paid taxes on all of it at the beginning.