The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 15 Aug 2007 09:02 James Arthur dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Aug 13, 11:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> James Arthur wrote: >> >> > I do notice that people in general have two and three of things >> > we could barely afford one of 20 years ago (TVs, cars, music >> > systems), are eating out, and see no evidence of bread lines, >> > or people eating less meat because it's too dear (as we once >> > did). >> >> Then you haven't been around any reasonably sized city. There >> are >> food pantries, soup kitchen. and other non profit groups to help >> the >> homeless, and others get enough food to stay alive. Most of >> these are run by churches in that area. I know of at least three >> church run food >> charities in my town, alone. There is another group called >> "Share" that buys the basics in bulk, and if you are a member and >> in decent health, you have to volunteer at their warehouse to >> break down the skids of food >> into individual packages. Another group, "Veterans and family >> services" is a non profit that helps Veterans and their families >> when they fall >> through the cracks, and can't get help from the VA. I support >> that group, being a disabled Veteran, myself. > > I sympathize, and applaud such groups. The question, though, was > whether employed people are getting squeezed: lower wages, etc. > From their consumption, from their material wealth, and the > statistics, I don't see such signs, not in the "middle" or > "working" classes. > > Best, > James Arthur You may not be seeing it yet, but take a look at somewhat recent HS grads (5 to 10 years ago) without more education. Lots of employed people have been getting squeezed for 20 years now. Example: 50 years ago a janitor (no other workers in the household) might be able to buy a house, now they are lucky to be able to afford rent in a slum (without other wage earners in the household).
From: MooseFET on 15 Aug 2007 09:19 On Aug 14, 6:27 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > > > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > John Larkin wrote: > > >> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > >> > 20 years ago you could find a decent used car for $50. Now, junkers > > >> >are over $1000. > > > >> Anything that's less than 20 years old, and sctually runs, has an > > >> engine control unit, a catalytic converter, a bunch of sensors, and > > >> likely air bags that are worth $1000 in scrap value. > > > >> Besides, a year's insurance will cost a lot more. > > > > More than $1000 for insurance ? > > > Yes, some states have mandatory insurance, which amounts to granting the > > rich fat white insurance executives a license to steal. > > Insurance is mandatory here but doesn't have to cost anything near that much. > Competition it seems may actually work. It isn't just that. The insurance companies end up covering losses where only one driver is insured. They include this in their calculation of the rates. In places where there are many people driving without insurance, this pushes the rates up.
From: Eeyore on 15 Aug 2007 12:14 MooseFET wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > >> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > > > >> > 20 years ago you could find a decent used car for $50. Now, junkers > > > >> >are over $1000. > > > > > >> Anything that's less than 20 years old, and sctually runs, has an > > > >> engine control unit, a catalytic converter, a bunch of sensors, and > > > >> likely air bags that are worth $1000 in scrap value. > > > > > >> Besides, a year's insurance will cost a lot more. > > > > > > More than $1000 for insurance ? > > > > > Yes, some states have mandatory insurance, which amounts to granting the > > > rich fat white insurance executives a license to steal. > > > > Insurance is mandatory here but doesn't have to cost anything near that much. > > Competition it seems may actually work. > > It isn't just that. The insurance companies end up covering losses > where only one driver is insured. They include this in their > calculation of the rates. In places where there are many people > driving without insurance, this pushes the rates up. What percentage of US drivers are uninsured ? Graham
From: Richard Henry on 15 Aug 2007 17:56 On Aug 15, 9:14 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > What percentage of US drivers are uninsured ? > Estimates vary by source and state, from 5% to 40%. Based on my personal experience, 33%.
From: James Arthur on 16 Aug 2007 00:52
On Aug 14, 8:59 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:33:57 -0700, James Arthur wrote: > >I personally think that forcing young people to pay for other people's > >parents' retirements is immoral. > > They are repaying society for the education, science, health, culture, > peace, and infrastructure they benefitted from but didn't contribute > to. After some thought, I agree that's what they *are* doing, but I'm not sure they should have to. For one, this raises all sorts of accounting / fairness questions-- how much they got vs: are presumed to owe. Mostly, though, I view these as our gifts to the next generation. We collectively, as a society, for good or ill have seen fit to bring them into this world and it's our love and duty to prepare them for it. It was our choice, made when they were too young to argue or consent, we'll benefit from it when they inherit and run the world, and we should bear the expense. Besides, deferring payment a generation doesn't reduce the cost, it just tacks on interest when the bill comes due. The practice also interposes the government as the meditator between parents and children, dividing family (i.e., lessens the resources parents have for their young kids, those of kids for their elder parents, and the need of either for the other. Government <benefits> replaces family.). > After a lifetime of contributing, they too can retire in less than > abject poverty. That's a choice we all have, and managed for generations, but now seem to have forgotten. Or maybe we've not forgotten, but feel less urgency to save, banking on Al's "lock box." > The modern economy also encourages and benefits from > worker mobility, which decouples kids from their parents. It's a > reasonable deal, unless you run out of young people to play the game. Best wishes, James Arthur |