Economy

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

Good point. Kind of like the scared straight programs in prisons 

We had to visit a minimum security state prison during high school class and 5 prisoners talked to us about making bad choices and ending up in prison.   They all acted gangster but us being teenage boys kinda laughed at them knowing they couldn’t do s#!t about it

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We had to visit a minimum security state prison during high school class and 5 prisoners talked to us about making bad choices and ending up in prison.   They all acted gangster but us being teenage boys kinda laughed at them knowing they couldn’t do s#!t about it

Sad thing is, there’s some hs kids that need to take that seriously. 

[ZRod]

17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm fine if they're not allowed in the packing house.  But, I also could see some jobs that they could do that would be safe.

 

As for why?  Because sometimes these kids can benefit greatly from actually starting to earn some money.  And, I'm not just talking so they can buy video games.  Sometimes there's a family that really could use a little more income.  Maybe a kid wants to start earning and saving for college earlier.

 

What I'm saying is, I fully understand why child labor laws are in place.  However, I have seen, for myself, situations where it may have gone too far and kids really should be allowed to enter the workforce in more ways than they currently are.  I'll give you an example.  My son wanted to work for the city (small town middle Nebraska) over the summer.  One task they really needed to hire for is mowing.  We have a lot of parks and ball fields that need mowed constantly.  Nope....too young.  I think he needed to be 16 to do it.  Guess what he did at home?  Mow the lawn with a mower no different than he would have used on the job.  Seriously?  A 15 year old kid can't sit on a mower and mow grass?  Meanwhile, his friends who are sons of farmers are driving huge tractors all over the place....legally.

 

So, maybe not the packing house.  I'm fine with that.  But, there are lots of other areas where we can seriously reconsider the laws.

I remember it was "hard" to get a job bagging groceries because they only want to hire so many kids under 16 since they can only work so many hours and it screws up the coverage.

 

 

Personally I don't think 14 and 15 year old should be operating industrial equipment of any kind, whether that's lawnmowers (push mower is fine) or farm equipment. Some 16 and 17 year olds shouldn't either. I guess a family operation (i.e. farming) is a little different, but they need to be supervised at all times. Farming is one of the most dangerous professions out there, and the accidents are usually of the go big or go home kind where you're losing a limb(s) or your life. We don't need a rash kids getting wrapped around PTOs in the 21st century.

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I remember it was "hard" to get a job bagging groceries because they only want to hire so many kids under 16 since they can only work so many hours and it screws up the coverage.

 

 

Personally I don't think 14 and 15 year old should be operating industrial equipment of any kind, whether that's lawnmowers (push mower is fine) or farm equipment. Some 16 and 17 year olds shouldn't either. I guess a family operation (i.e. farming) is a little different, but they need to be supervised at all times. Farming is one of the most dangerous professions out there, and the accidents are usually of the go big or go home kind where you're losing a limb(s) or your life. We don't need a rash kids getting wrapped around PTOs in the 21st century.

There is absolutely no reason why a 14+ year old can not operate a riding lawn mower.  That's absurd.  

 

It doesn't matter what laws you put in place for farms.  Teenagers are going to be operating equipment.  And...honestly, I can't remember the last time I heard of a farm accident where a teenager was at fault.

[JJ Husker]

@BigRedBuster

Here is an industry article about a packinghouse sanitation company (PSSI) that is getting fined for employing over 100 children age 13-17. Some of this occurred in Nebraska at JBS in Grand Island. It seems this event is what is driving some lawmakers (like in Iowa) to allow 14-17 year olds to work in packing houses. The article states that 3 of the 102 child workers were injured on the job. Any way it sort of pertains to our prior discussion....

https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/108511

[funhusker]

On 2/15/2023 at 3:31 PM, JJ Husker said:

Construction and trades? Fine, but I have a million reasons why 14 & 15 year olds shouldn’t ever work in a packinghouse. Health and safety is number 1 but a strong #2 is why? They won’t learn anything valuable and if they want to actually end up working in a packinghouse, well, they’ve already given up on life. Sorry but any job they would allow a young teen to do is a job nobody should want to do. Just keeping it real.

Put the psychos on the killing floor.

 

Maybe cut down on school shootings  

[BigRedBuster]

This idiot doesn’t even realize Biden hasn’t changed his dumb tariffs.  
 

And, he still thinks China is who pays them. 
 

 

[JJ Husker]

5 hours ago, funhusker said:

Put the psychos on the killing floor.

 

Maybe cut down on school shootings  

I think the kill floors have plenty of psychos already. I believe they have evolved to not letting the knockers (guys that shoot the stunning bolt into the brain) and the stickers (the person that shortly thereafter reaches in and sticks the heart to bleed them) to stay in the same job for long periods of time. It seems to mess with their head, killing and bleeding thousands of animals non-stop.

 

A couple true stories. The first time, when I was 18, I was given a tour of a kill floor (Schuyler NE btw) I walked in with a guy explaining what was happening and the guy who cuts out the bung hole (exactly what it sounds like) frisbees it at me, hits me in the cheek, and he says “have a piece of a$$” and laughs. The knockers at that plant all had “ACMD” tattoos….all cows must die. No way those guys were right in the head.

 

I’ve been in and worked around almost all of the major packing facilities in the midwest doing construction and installation work. It’s a…..special environment.

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I think the kill floors have plenty of psychos already. I believe they have evolved to not letting the knockers (guys that shoot the stunning bolt into the brain) and the stickers (the person that shortly thereafter reaches in and sticks the heart to bleed them) to stay in the same job for long periods of time. It seems to mess with their head, killing and bleeding thousands of animals non-stop.

 

A couple true stories. The first time, when I was 18, I was given a tour of a kill floor (Schuyler NE btw) I walked in with a guy explaining what was happening and the guy who cuts out the bung hole (exactly what it sounds like) frisbees it at me, hits me in the cheek, and he says “have a piece of a$$” and laughs. The knockers at that plant all had “ACMD” tattoos….all cows must die. No way those guys were right in the head.

 

I’ve been in and worked around almost all of the major packing facilities in the midwest doing construction and installation work. It’s a…..special environment.

I used to give yours of the plant in Ottumwa Iowa. You are correct in your assessment. 

[JJ Husker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This idiot doesn’t even realize Biden hasn’t changed his dumb tariffs.  
 

And, he still thinks China is who pays them. 
 

 

Unfortunately his faithful take idiotic statements like that as fact. It doesn’t occur to them for one second that they are the ones who end up paying for those tariffs in the form of higher sales prices.

 

Anybody who is either that stupid or willingly deceitful really has no business being eligible for election.

[Archy1221]

I wouldn’t have guessed this 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/electric-shock-study-found-evs-150000536.html

[RedDenver]

23 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I wouldn’t have guessed this 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/electric-shock-study-found-evs-150000536.html

I notice they don't actually link to the study in that article. But regardless, it's easy to debunk with some simple math since it's a classic case of cherrypicking the data to get a shocking headline.

 

Let's start with the claims made in the article:

Quote

“In Q4 2022, typical mid-priced ICE car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving,” the study says. “That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially.”

Quote

“Assuming we used the Southern California Edison time-of-use Prime rate plan, a 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E RWD with the extended battery, which is rated at 35 kWh/100 miles, would cost as little as $3.85 for 50 miles' worth of power if home charging started at 11 p.m. Or it could cost nearly three times as much, $9.45, if the car charged during peak hours,” Elfalan says.

 

Note the $3.85 for 50 miles ($7.70 for 100 miles) for the EV, which is already 1/3 cheaper than their ICE comparison at $11.29 per 100 miles for gas (they appear to be assuming $4/gallon for gas). But the way they are claiming ICE cars are cheaper is by looking at cars that get 35 miles/gallon (the US average is 26 miles per gallon but if you look at only mid-sized sedans then it's 34 miles/gallon), picking one of the most expensive areas for electricity in the country (while using national averages for gas price), and then using the most expensive time of use daily rate (maybe the article writers don't know you can set the time of day your EV charges). So yeah, if you lived in southern California and charged during the most expensive time of day, you'd spend more than a very fuel efficient gas car.

 

Let's instead compare average to averages. The average price of residential electricity in the US is $0.175/kWh. The average EV consumes 0.35 kWh/mile. The average cost is then $0.06/mile or $6 for 100 miles, which is almost half the cost of a 35 mpg gas vehicle. Using the average of 25 mpg for US gas vehicles and using the gas prices from the article, the average cost is $15.81 for 100 miles ($11.29/100 miles*(35 mpg/25 mpg)).

 

Of course if we look at a more energy efficient EV like a Tesla Model 3, which consumes about 0.25 kWh/mile, the EV looks even better at $4.38 for 100 miles.

 

Here's a simple chart showing that EV's beat gas vehicles in cost per mile except in EXTREME cases of expensive electricity and moderate to low gas prices: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

[Archy1221]

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I notice they don't actually link to the study in that article. But regardless, it's easy to debunk with some simple math since it's a classic case of cherrypicking the data to get a shocking headline.

 

Let's start with the claims made in the article:

 

Note the $3.85 for 50 miles ($7.70 for 100 miles) for the EV, which is already 1/3 cheaper than their ICE comparison at $11.29 per 100 miles for gas (they appear to be assuming $4/gallon for gas). But the way they are claiming ICE cars are cheaper is by looking at cars that get 35 miles/gallon (the US average is 26 miles per gallon but if you look at only mid-sized sedans then it's 34 miles/gallon), picking one of the most expensive areas for electricity in the country (while using national averages for gas price), and then using the most expensive time of use daily rate (maybe the article writers don't know you can set the time of day your EV charges). So yeah, if you lived in southern California and charged during the most expensive time of day, you'd spend more than a very fuel efficient gas car.

 

Let's instead compare average to averages. The average price of residential electricity in the US is $0.175/kWh. The average EV consumes 0.35 kWh/mile. The average cost is then $0.06/mile or $6 for 100 miles, which is almost half the cost of a 35 mpg gas vehicle. Using the average of 25 mpg for US gas vehicles and using the gas prices from the article, the average cost is $15.81 for 100 miles ($11.29/100 miles*(35 mpg/25 mpg)).

 

Of course if we look at a more energy efficient EV like a Tesla Model 3, which consumes about 0.25 kWh/mile, the EV looks even better at $4.38 for 100 miles.

 

Here's a simple chart showing that EV's beat gas vehicles in cost per mile except in EXTREME cases of expensive electricity and moderate to low gas prices: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

Here’s the study since it wasn’t linked in the article. I don’t have dog in this fight and don’t really care either way as I’m not in the market for a vehicle.   I thought it would be strange for an EV to be more expensive from an energy cost standpoint.  Your info makes some sense, but here is the data they showed which also makes some sense.  
 

https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/cars-gas-powered-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-late-2022/

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I notice they don't actually link to the study in that article. But regardless, it's easy to debunk with some simple math since it's a classic case of cherrypicking the data to get a shocking headline.

 

Let's start with the claims made in the article:

 

Note the $3.85 for 50 miles ($7.70 for 100 miles) for the EV, which is already 1/3 cheaper than their ICE comparison at $11.29 per 100 miles for gas (they appear to be assuming $4/gallon for gas). But the way they are claiming ICE cars are cheaper is by looking at cars that get 35 miles/gallon (the US average is 26 miles per gallon but if you look at only mid-sized sedans then it's 34 miles/gallon), picking one of the most expensive areas for electricity in the country (while using national averages for gas price), and then using the most expensive time of use daily rate (maybe the article writers don't know you can set the time of day your EV charges). So yeah, if you lived in southern California and charged during the most expensive time of day, you'd spend more than a very fuel efficient gas car.

 

Let's instead compare average to averages. The average price of residential electricity in the US is $0.175/kWh. The average EV consumes 0.35 kWh/mile. The average cost is then $0.06/mile or $6 for 100 miles, which is almost half the cost of a 35 mpg gas vehicle. Using the average of 25 mpg for US gas vehicles and using the gas prices from the article, the average cost is $15.81 for 100 miles ($11.29/100 miles*(35 mpg/25 mpg)).

 

Of course if we look at a more energy efficient EV like a Tesla Model 3, which consumes about 0.25 kWh/mile, the EV looks even better at $4.38 for 100 miles.

 

Here's a simple chart showing that EV's beat gas vehicles in cost per mile except in EXTREME cases of expensive electricity and moderate to low gas prices: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

Whenever I end up buying an EV, I want my house to be solar and so the charging is free while at home.

[Archy1221]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Whenever I end up buying an EV, I want my house to be solar and so the charging is free while at home.

From What I read in the study, they amortized the cost of the charging equipment over 5 years into the energy cost of the EV.  
 

So in the scenario you just presented, the energy wouldn’t technically be free the first five yrs while the equipment cost is amortized out.  According to them anyways.  
 

Im down with any solution that is as reliable or more and as cheap or cheaper than what we got going on today.