Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Office jobs eroding
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390222 is a reply to message #390211] Sat, 11 January 2020 01:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> * The mushroom industry requires lots of manual workers to
> do _literally_ backbreaking shit jobs. So they've used
> illegals, no one else will do it. With the crackdown,
> there aren't enough workers.

They're too busy working in Trump's hotels.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390223 is a reply to message #390207] Sat, 11 January 2020 01:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-10, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 1:52:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>
> Back in the 1950s, when the US was having its baby boom,
> advertisers often used children as a theme even for ads
> that were for other businesses and industry, not families.
> For instance, an advertiser for computer paper stock always
> had a smiling baby sitting on top of a roll of tape in various
> poses.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=MDw7AAAAMAAJ&dq=railro ad%20computer&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=MDw7AAAAMAAJ&dq=railro ad%20computer&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Mommy, there's no more Zee!"

(Oops, different roll of paper...)

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390224 is a reply to message #390206] Sat, 11 January 2020 01:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-10, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>
>>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>
>>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>
>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>
> The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
>
> Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
>
> Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
> - an increase in per-worker productivity
> - an increase in the number of workers.
>
> Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
>
> New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
> years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
> silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate
> close to the replacement rate of two.

Growth for the same of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-- Edward Abbey

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390226 is a reply to message #390221] Sat, 11 January 2020 08:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On 11 Jan 2020 06:39:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

> On 2020-01-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's true that if the per-mile taxes paid for the whole thing, goods
>> would be more expensive. But assigning actual costs to price tags
>> seems like a reasonable thing to do, rather than having the hidden
>> subsidies.
>
> Unless you're a politician. Then it's suicide.
>
>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>
> One of the reasons I enjoyed our visits to Scotland and Ireland
> was that I didn't see a single Hummer or monster pickup truck.

Hummer went out of business 10 years ago. Monster trucks are not work
trucks, they are similar in nature to "hot rods"--modification of a
vehicle for the sake of modification, as a form of personal
expression.

In the city a vanishing tiny number of people in the US have personal
transportation of any kind. It's the people who don't live in cities
who need that sort of thing.

By the way, SUVs fill the long dead "station wagon" niche, killed by
CAFE. They're essentially "cheater" vehicles built to game the tax
code. Pickups are evolving into the same niche.

As for Scotland, if you like Scotland better, by all means move there.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390227 is a reply to message #390211] Sat, 11 January 2020 13:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:53:17 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>>
>>>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>>
>>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>>
>> The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
>>
>> Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
>>
>> Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
>> - an increase in per-worker productivity
>> - an increase in the number of workers.
>>
>> Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
>>
>> New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
>> years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
>> silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate close to
>> the replacement rate of two.
>
> In my opinion, our current immigration policy is a disaster. It
> is based on ugly racial prejudice--we don't like brown people--
> and not honest economic analysis*. (Certainly no humanitarian
> issues are considered). Given the US declining birthrate, we
> need new young people.

I have heard white people declare in no uncertain terms that they
didn't immigrate, and neither did their ancestors.

Obviously they are delusional.

I have asked some of them if they were Native American ? All said no.
I then point out their ancestors came from Europe, and they are the
descendants of immigrants. They don't like those facts, but I am
careful to say it to people I don't think will attack me.

--
Jim
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390231 is a reply to message #389691] Sat, 11 January 2020 14:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:

> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
> or pickups with duals on the rear.)

Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
pickup or SUV.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390233 is a reply to message #390227] Sat, 11 January 2020 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Roger Blake is currently offline  Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-11, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard white people declare in no uncertain terms that they
> didn't immigrate, and neither did their ancestors.

They may well mean that their ancestors were already here when the
American Revolution took place.

Is there anyplace on earth at this point that is still in the hands of
its original inhabitants?

--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

The US Census vs. privacy -- http://censusfacts.info
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390235 is a reply to message #390226] Sat, 11 January 2020 15:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 08:07:44 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> By the way, SUVs fill the long dead "station wagon" niche,

They're only dead in the US, here in Europe they're alive and well.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390237 is a reply to message #390075] Sat, 11 January 2020 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alfred Falk is currently offline  Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20200106215447.00937b940975c00ff893cd93@eircom.net:

> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:15:33 -0800 (PST)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> (How unventilated could it have been since it had to have air for the
>> hot oldstyle bulb?)
>
> Not really, nothing was going to go wrong with one of those until
> the solder melted.

.... or something in or near the fixture caught fire.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390238 is a reply to message #390231] Sat, 11 January 2020 15:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>
> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
> pickup or SUV.

So move to some place where the government decides what people need
and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.

The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
for having one.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390239 is a reply to message #390233] Sat, 11 January 2020 15:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:12:38 -0000 (UTC)
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> Is there anyplace on earth at this point that is still in the hands of
> its original inhabitants?

Nope, they're all long dead. Africa is still in the hands of the
descendants of those who evolved there. Everywhere else was invaded by
other descendants of them, several times over. In one sense the only
difference between the 'native' inhabitants and the 'invaders' is the route
their ancestors took and when they settled.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390240 is a reply to message #390238] Sat, 11 January 2020 16:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>
>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>> pickup or SUV.
>
> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>
> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
> for having one.

How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
_all_ the costs of operating them?
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390241 is a reply to message #390239] Sat, 11 January 2020 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Roger Blake is currently offline  Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> Nope, they're all long dead.

Bazinga! Of course I meant their descendants! :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

The US Census vs. privacy -- http://censusfacts.info
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390242 is a reply to message #390238] Sat, 11 January 2020 16:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Roger Blake is currently offline  Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
> for having one.

Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
car in large part due to the people pushing them.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

The US Census vs. privacy -- http://censusfacts.info
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390243 is a reply to message #390240] Sat, 11 January 2020 16:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 13:00:27 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>
>>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>> pickup or SUV.
>>
>> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
>> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>
>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>> for having one.
>
> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
> _all_ the costs of operating them?

How about making people who eat food transported to them pay _all_ the
costs of transporting it?

For that matter, how about we make you pay _all_ the costs of your
computer, including _all_ the costs of the electricity to run it? And
if you say "solar panels" how about we make you pay _all_ the cost of
those solar panels including _all_ the costs of transporting them from
wherever they were made?

For that matter, how about we make you pay _all_ the costs of spouting
a bunch of bullshit on the Internet?
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390244 is a reply to message #390242] Sat, 11 January 2020 16:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>> for having one.
>
> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)

My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
motorcycle.

So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
outrageous concept.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390247 is a reply to message #390239] Sat, 11 January 2020 19:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:12:38 -0000 (UTC)
> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is there anyplace on earth at this point that is still in the hands of
>> its original inhabitants?
>
> Nope, they're all long dead. Africa is still in the hands of the
> descendants of those who evolved there. Everywhere else was invaded by
> other descendants of them, several times over. In one sense the only
> difference between the 'native' inhabitants and the 'invaders' is the route
> their ancestors took and when they settled.

Humans evolved between 6 and 2 million years ago.

All this time those humans have been moving away from the neighbors they
can't stand.

Parts of my family were here in the US in the 1600s.
I can't see where I should get any special privileges from that.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390249 is a reply to message #389691] Sat, 11 January 2020 19:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:

> On 1/11/2020 7:07 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> In the city a vanishing tiny number of people in the US have personal
>> transportation of any kind. It's the people who don't live in cities
>> who need that sort of thing.
>
> I'm not sure what city you're referring to. It's probably true of
> Manhattan, and perhaps those with top-notch 24hr public transit. (In
> my city, they don't run the trains in the wee hours, because homeless
> people were using them as a safe place to catch a few hours sleep.)
> Certainly here, not having personal transportation mostly falls to the
> groups that are too poor and/or elderly, or committed
> bicyclists. (It's currently 14F with icy streets, so you can guess how
> big that last group is, though it's certainly bigger than it was 30
> years ago.) The neighbors on one side have 3 cars (one a work-related
> SUV), the retired fella on the other side has a car and a van, the
> families across the street have 3 and 2 cars/vans respectively (the
> third house is a single guy who only has 1, as do I).
>
> It is true that wheels are an absolute necessity for those who don't
> live in cities.

I recently drove Riverside Drive (Upper West Side).
Residential and a large park.
A stunningly beautiful place with wide streets and cars parked everywhere.

I've known people that lived in NYC. Invariably they needed a car
because they wanted to go places trains don't go.
The best thing is to rent garage space.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390250 is a reply to message #390240] Sat, 11 January 2020 19:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>
>>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>> pickup or SUV.
>>
>> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
>> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>
>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>> for having one.
>
> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
> _all_ the costs of operating them?

They cost more, use more gas so pay more gas tax,
registration costs more (at least in NJ.

Maybe they already pay _all_ the costs.

We don't tax pollution, but the gas tax is proportional to the pollution
produced.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390251 is a reply to message #390244] Sat, 11 January 2020 19:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>> for having one.
>>
>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>
> My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
> absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
> not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
> motorcycle.
>
> So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
> gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
> drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
> think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
> pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
> of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
> other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
> outrageous concept.

Years ago I test drove a Jeep.
It reminded me of driving a truck.

Just looked at that Trackhawk:

Powered by a 6.4L V8 engine, Grand Cherokee SRT® rewards you with
track-ready capability, exhilarating acceleration and impressive
handling

Not sure what kind of track I'd want to drive a Luxury SUV around.

Seems to me, 14mpg is a reasonable price to pay for something like that
it sounds like a lot of fun.

--
Dan Espen
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390252 is a reply to message #390224] Sun, 12 January 2020 00:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2020-01-11, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Growth for the same of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
^^^^
sake
> -- Edward Abbey

Don't you hate it when that happens?
-- Beetlejuice

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390254 is a reply to message #390235] Sun, 12 January 2020 03:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andy Burns is currently offline  Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> SUVs fill the long dead "station wagon" niche
>
> They're only dead in the US, here in Europe they're alive and well.

Thankfully without the wood-effect fablon (d-c-fix?) ...
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390255 is a reply to message #390243] Sun, 12 January 2020 06:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:32:53 GMT, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 13:00:27 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the
>>>> > need. (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_
>>>> > Hummers, Jeeps, or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>>
>>>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>>> pickup or SUV.
>>>
>>> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
>>> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>>
>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>> for having one.
>>
>> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
>> _all_ the costs of operating them?
>
> How about making people who eat food transported to them pay _all_ the
> costs of transporting it?
>
> For that matter, how about we make you pay _all_ the costs of your
> computer, including _all_ the costs of the electricity to run it? And
> if you say "solar panels" how about we make you pay _all_ the cost of
> those solar panels including _all_ the costs of transporting them from
> wherever they were made?
>
> For that matter, how about we make you pay _all_ the costs of spouting
> a bunch of bullshit on the Internet?
>

How about if people looked at it calmly and rationally and decided they
*did* want a better future for their offspring?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390256 is a reply to message #390255] Sun, 12 January 2020 07:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:02:08 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:

> How about if people looked at it calmly and rationally and decided they
> *did* want a better future for their offspring?

There would still be those who say "I have no kids and I don't
care I just want what I want and I want it NOW, nothing that happens after
I die matters to me".

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390257 is a reply to message #390203] Sun, 12 January 2020 05:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bernd Felsche is currently offline  Bernd Felsche
Messages: 123
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>
>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>
>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.

> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.

Governments will do anything to fight the laws of nature that
contradict their ideology.

Sometimes it's as simple a governments needing enough stupid people
to keep voting them into power. If the IQ distribution keeps
narrowing as a consequence of environmental conditions and reduced
reproduction via cosanguinity in "developed" societies , then there
are _feared_ to be too few to do menial jobs.

And then there are the countries which have for decades tried to
build a welfare state now facing imminent retirement of a large
block population; having squandered the money that the people have
been contributing all their working lives to provide for life after
work.

It's supreme folly to expect a flood of oft-functionally-illiterate
immigrants to be contributing sufficently to stop the sh!t from
hitting that fan. Especially as support of those immigrants will be
dipping into the coffers for a decade or more in an effort to make
them economically productive units.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390258 is a reply to message #390242] Sun, 12 January 2020 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC)
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>> for having one.
>
> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)

It seems a shame to risk letting politics get in the way of
rational self interest. It would probably be wiser to consider purchasing
one as soon as it is in your interest to do so no matter what you think of
the people who push them.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390259 is a reply to message #390257] Sun, 12 January 2020 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:51:26 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>
>>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>
>>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>
>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>
> Governments will do anything to fight the laws of nature that
> contradict their ideology.
>
> Sometimes it's as simple a governments needing enough stupid people
> to keep voting them into power. If the IQ distribution keeps
> narrowing as a consequence of environmental conditions and reduced
> reproduction via cosanguinity in "developed" societies , then there
> are _feared_ to be too few to do menial jobs.
>
> And then there are the countries which have for decades tried to
> build a welfare state now facing imminent retirement of a large
> block population; having squandered the money that the people have
> been contributing all their working lives to provide for life after
> work.
>
> It's supreme folly to expect a flood of oft-functionally-illiterate
> immigrants to be contributing sufficently to stop the sh!t from
> hitting that fan. Especially as support of those immigrants will be
> dipping into the coffers for a decade or more in an effort to make
> them economically productive units.

Some immigrants, even ones who have white skin, have usable university
degrees from accredited universities in their home nation.

Not all immigrants are ignorant. Many want to get educations, but in
their former country they cannot as they aren't in the upper crust.

--
Jim
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390260 is a reply to message #390258] Sun, 12 January 2020 11:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:56:06 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC)
> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>> for having one.
>>
>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>
> It seems a shame to risk letting politics get in the way of
> rational self interest. It would probably be wiser to consider purchasing
> one as soon as it is in your interest to do so no matter what you think of
> the people who push them.

He apparently would prefer shafting himself, and blame others for his
problems.

--
Jim
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390261 is a reply to message #390256] Sun, 12 January 2020 11:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 12:35:54 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:02:08 -0000 (UTC)
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> How about if people looked at it calmly and rationally and decided
>> they *did* want a better future for their offspring?
>
> There would still be those who say "I have no kids and I don't
> care I just want what I want and I want it NOW, nothing that happens
> after I die matters to me".

"And I'll shout loudly about my right to do it."

Ah yes. that'll be the flaw.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390262 is a reply to message #390227] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:53:17 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>>>> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>> >
>>>> > Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>> >
>>>> > That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>>> > birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>>> > rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>>>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>>>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>>>
>>> The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
>>>
>>> Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
>>>
>>> Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
>>> - an increase in per-worker productivity
>>> - an increase in the number of workers.
>>>
>>> Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
>>>
>>> New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
>>> years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
>>> silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate close to
>>> the replacement rate of two.
>>
>> In my opinion, our current immigration policy is a disaster. It
>> is based on ugly racial prejudice--we don't like brown people--
>> and not honest economic analysis*. (Certainly no humanitarian
>> issues are considered). Given the US declining birthrate, we
>> need new young people.
>
> I have heard white people declare in no uncertain terms that they
> didn't immigrate, and neither did their ancestors.
>
> Obviously they are delusional.
>
> I have asked some of them if they were Native American ? All said no.
> I then point out their ancestors came from Europe, and they are the
> descendants of immigrants. They don't like those facts, but I am
> careful to say it to people I don't think will attack me.
>

Wow, what’s WITH people where you live?

--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390264 is a reply to message #390231] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>
> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
> pickup or SUV.
>

I’ve gotten more sympathetic to SUVs since I’ve observed mothers toting a
carful of kids and their sports gear. Try that with a Prius. As someone
pointed out, our silly tax structure makes pickups relatively cheap, but
there again lots of people need them. Even in built-up suburbs a lot of
people are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.

--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390265 is a reply to message #390244] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>> for having one.
>>
>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>
> My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
> absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
> not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
> motorcycle.

Makes sense, isn’t the gas engine used only to recharge the battery? This
is like a diesel-electric locomotive.
>
> So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
> gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
> drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
> think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
> pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
> of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
> other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
> outrageous concept.
>



--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390266 is a reply to message #390247] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:12:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anyplace on earth at this point that is still in the hands of
>>> its original inhabitants?
>>
>> Nope, they're all long dead. Africa is still in the hands of the
>> descendants of those who evolved there. Everywhere else was invaded by
>> other descendants of them, several times over. In one sense the only
>> difference between the 'native' inhabitants and the 'invaders' is the route
>> their ancestors took and when they settled.
>
> Humans evolved between 6 and 2 million years ago.
>
> All this time those humans have been moving away from the neighbors they
> can't stand.
>
> Parts of my family were here in the US in the 1600s.
> I can't see where I should get any special privileges from that.
>

No, it’s fun to research ancestors but shouldn’t matter. What should matter
is how willing immigrants are to adopt our culture and hop into the melting
pot. Keep your old-country customs for various “ethnic festivals” that pop
up all over.

--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390267 is a reply to message #390250] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>>> > (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>>> > or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>>
>>>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>>> pickup or SUV.
>>>
>>> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
>>> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>>
>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>> for having one.
>>
>> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
>> _all_ the costs of operating them?
>
> They cost more, use more gas so pay more gas tax,
> registration costs more (at least in NJ.
>
> Maybe they already pay _all_ the costs.
>
> We don't tax pollution, but the gas tax is proportional to the pollution
> produced.
>

Who DOESN’T pay are the 18-wheelers.

--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390268 is a reply to message #390251] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>>> for having one.
>>>
>>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>>
>> My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
>> absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
>> not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
>> motorcycle.
>>
>> So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
>> gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
>> drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
>> think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
>> pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
>> of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
>> other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
>> outrageous concept.
>
> Years ago I test drove a Jeep.
> It reminded me of driving a truck.
>
> Just looked at that Trackhawk:
>
> Powered by a 6.4L V8 engine, Grand Cherokee SRT® rewards you with
> track-ready capability, exhilarating acceleration and impressive
> handling
>
> Not sure what kind of track I'd want to drive a Luxury SUV around.
>
> Seems to me, 14mpg is a reasonable price to pay for something like that
> it sounds like a lot of fun.
>

They all look like fun in the card ads, too, but where the heck do you find
roads where you’re the only car?

--
Pete
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390271 is a reply to message #390267] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:05 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>>> >> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>>> >> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>> >
>>>> > Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>>> > pickup or SUV.
>>>>
>>>> So move to some place where the government decides what people need
>>>> and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>>> for having one.
>>>
>>> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
>>> _all_ the costs of operating them?
>>
>> They cost more, use more gas so pay more gas tax,
>> registration costs more (at least in NJ.
>>
>> Maybe they already pay _all_ the costs.
>>
>> We don't tax pollution, but the gas tax is proportional to the pollution
>> produced.
>>
>
> Who DOESN’T pay are the 18-wheelers.

They don't? They pay tolls, per axle, the tax on diesel is higher
than on gas, so in what way do they not pay?
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390272 is a reply to message #390268] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:06 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>>> > for having one.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>>>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>>>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>>>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>>>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>>>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>>>
>>> My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
>>> absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
>>> not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
>>> motorcycle.
>>>
>>> So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
>>> gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
>>> drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
>>> think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
>>> pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
>>> of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
>>> other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
>>> outrageous concept.
>>
>> Years ago I test drove a Jeep.
>> It reminded me of driving a truck.
>>
>> Just looked at that Trackhawk:
>>
>> Powered by a 6.4L V8 engine, Grand Cherokee SRT® rewards you with
>> track-ready capability, exhilarating acceleration and impressive
>> handling
>>
>> Not sure what kind of track I'd want to drive a Luxury SUV around.
>>
>> Seems to me, 14mpg is a reasonable price to pay for something like that
>> it sounds like a lot of fun.
>>
>
> They all look like fun in the card ads, too, but where the heck do you find
> roads where you’re the only car?

Lime Rock Park for one example.

But it's not really about going fast. It's about things like getting
on the Interestate with an immense grin on your face, or starting to
pass some moron who decides that he wants to race.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390273 is a reply to message #390265] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:03 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:07:34 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>> <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-01-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient reason
>>>> for having one.
>>>
>>> Indeed. I love the reactions I get when mentioning I drive a 14-15 mpg
>>> vehicle. My money, my choice, no one else has anything to say about it
>>> as far as I am concerned. Screw liberals, enviro-nazis, social justice
>>> warriors, and whole lot leftist twits who want to dictate how people
>>> live their lives. (Likewise I would not consider purchasing an electric
>>> car in large part due to the people pushing them.)
>>
>> My commuter car is a plug-in hybrid, but it can't carry very much and
>> absolutely sucks in snow even with expensive European snow tires. When
>> not running on battery it still gets better gas mileage than my
>> motorcycle.
>
> Makes sense, isn’t the gas engine used only to recharge the battery? This
> is like a diesel-electric locomotive.

No, it runs on the electric motor until the battery is down to a
certain point, then runs on the gas engine. There are hybrids that
work the way you say. Mine isn't one of them.

>> So I have an SUV as well. Right now it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee which
>> gets 14 miles to the gallon on a good day. That one is old enough to
>> drink at this point and starting to give me expensive problems, so I
>> think it's time to swap it for something more recent. One option is a
>> pickup truck--I'm getting old enough that lifting stuff up to the top
>> of the SUV and tying it down is getting to be a nuisance, while the
>> other is a Trackhawk, just because a 180 mph Jeep is such an
>> outrageous concept.
>>
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390274 is a reply to message #390264] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:02 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the need.
>>> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
>>> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>
>> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>> pickup or SUV.
>>
>
> I’ve gotten more sympathetic to SUVs since I’ve observed mothers toting a
> carful of kids and their sports gear.

Yep. A minivan does the same thing but it isn't any more economical
or any safer and it is much less happy on snow days.

> Try that with a Prius. As someone
> pointed out, our silly tax structure makes pickups relatively cheap, but
> there again lots of people need them. Even in built-up suburbs a lot of
> people are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.
Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390276 is a reply to message #390271] Sun, 12 January 2020 12:37 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:24:47 GMT, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:05 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:54:25 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:20:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Sure, if one actually needs it and isn't just BS'ing about the
>>>> >>> need. (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_
>>>> >>> Hummers, Jeeps, or pickups with duals on the rear.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Most people in cities or built-up suburbs do not need a big
>>>> >> pickup or SUV.
>>>> >
>>>> > So move to some place where the government decides what people
>>>> > need and get yourself appointed commissar of vehicles.
>>>> >
>>>> > The fact that driving an SUV annoys _you_ is quite sufficient
>>>> > reason for having one.
>>>>
>>>> How about just making the people who want big fat cars pay
>>>> _all_ the costs of operating them?
>>>
>>> They cost more, use more gas so pay more gas tax,
>>> registration costs more (at least in NJ.
>>>
>>> Maybe they already pay _all_ the costs.
>>>
>>> We don't tax pollution, but the gas tax is proportional to the
>>> pollution produced.
>>>
>>
>> Who DOESN’T pay are the 18-wheelers.
>
> They don't? They pay tolls, per axle, the tax on diesel is higher
> than on gas, so in what way do they not pay?
>
Here ya go:
https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-roa d-damage/

<quote>
A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the
road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage
caused by 9,600 cars.

Or are you just looking for an argument?



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Pages (8): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: 1920 census punched cards
Next Topic: IBM 5100: looking for a ROS control card P/N 1607132A
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 13:59:42 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.24001 seconds