Religions > Atheism > The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carl Melander" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 06:27:20 PM |
| Object: |
The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
This discussion is related to a news story that I heard about a week
ago. The general topic was related to not only allowing illegal
immigration into our country but how it was actually going to help our
economy. There are two big issues concerning this topic. On the
"Con" side they are taking low skill jobs regularly held by
undereducated American workers because the immigrant workers will work
for an average of 66% less money than their American counter parts. On
the "Pro" side they are allowing small business owners to hire
workers for less money creating more capital gains which can be
invested back into the communities.
This is my opinion in a nutshell (Large nutshell). I think we should
allow people to immigrate into our country but we need to be objective
about how we allow them to enter. I don't think this practice should
be as restrictive as it should be focused on education and adaptation.
We should form a unified language, my vote goes for English. A unified
language is not only going to help us out when trying to order a cheese
burger at the local Mickidees but it going to increase the standard of
living for those who can't speak the language currently. We live in a
society were so much depends on communication and that dependence is
only going to increase. Increasing profits by hiring lower wage
immigrant works doesn't help our society. Do we really want to create
another underclass in our already marginal society? I honestly think
that in a sense that this is a one way road to fiscal slavery. I'll
explain this with a store of a guy named Bob.
Bob is an immigrant who moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Winnipeg,
Manitoba in search of warmer weather. Bob speaks mostly French and his
English is a little rusty (For some reason he ends every sentence with
an "eh?") Bob has a wife and 2.5 children. Bob is seeking work so
that he can make a living in his new home land. He goes to Mickidees
and get a job flipping fries and frying burgers. The manager tells Bob
that he can only pay him $5.15 an hour because he doesn't have
previous experience frying burgers and that the corporate office has
placed a salary cap on people "without experience." Bob is ok with
this because he is ambitious and thinks he'll work his way up the
ladder, like everyone else. Bob soon find out that it is difficult to
make a living on $850 a month. Rent is $500. Utilities are another
$100, and $250 in food doesn't go far. Bob is stuck. He can't quit
because he needs to feed the family. He can't find new work because
now his only experience is frying burgers. Everyone seems to have these
salary caps for workers "without experience". He doesn't have the
education to advance in his field of work. His employer finds it easier
to hire his immigrant buddy for $5.15 than it is to give him a raise.
"This is fiscal slavery, eh?" Bob says with dismay.
____________________
Carl Melander (2005)
____________________
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 06:56:42 AM |
|
|
"Carl Melander" <Cmelander@gmail.com> wrote
The general topic was related to not only allowing illegal
immigration into our country but how it was actually
going to help our economy.
It would put downward pressures on wages, if that's what
you mean.
There are two big issues concerning this topic. On the
"Con" side they are taking low skill jobs regularly held by
undereducated American workers because the immigrant
workers will work for an average of 66% less money than
their American counter parts. On the "Pro" side they are
allowing small business owners to hire workers for less
money creating more capital gains which can be
invested back into the communities.
Can you give us five examples of this "community re-investment"?
I've never witnessed it. Not once.
In fact, a far easier, faster & more sure-fire way of
getting money into "the community" is to not allow
businesses to exploit labor, even foreign labor. The
employees making a decent. living wage will in turn
spend their earning in the community, creating growth
for other businesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Melander" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 02:39:03 PM |
|
|
I read this study some guy did as part of his thesis in American
Economics, on the effect Walmart had on the median income in counties
they placed their stores into. If I remember correctly it was a 25-35%
decrease in median household income. Most of these low wage employers
like to keep their public image up by making a lot of charitible
contributions. Sad thing is that the people receiving the aid are
mostly likely victims of their policies to begin with.
I think we should treat our work force like a member of our families,
not like third class citizens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 06:38:18 PM |
|
|
"Carl Melander" <Cmelander@gmail.com> wrote
I think we should treat our work force like a member
of our families, not like third class citizens.
I think the government has to start caring as much about
labor as it does any other segment of our economy, any
other product or service.
As an example, one problem with hydrogen powered
cars -- as a replacement for imported oil -- is the storage
of hydrogen. Another problem is fueling. Hydrogen is
more dangerous to pump into your car than gasoline.
But why even bother? Water is two-parts hydrogen,
and can be easy separated using electricity (like from
a car battery)?
Well, the government is oh so *Concerned* about all
those gas stations... and those poor... poor... poor
oil companies... and what would happen to the major
corporations if people could fill their cars with tap
water.
"What about the jobs those corporations provide?
What about the people working at the gas stations?"
The government doesn't care. Heck, they want to
allow in Mexicans to do the work at sub-minimum
wages.
It's funny how $200 a week BEFORE TAXES is
too much to live off of, according to our ever
caring government, but billions into the corporate
coffers MUST BE PROTECTED!!!!
Think about that. A mere 30 gallons of water
provides 20 gallons of pure hydrogen, which has
a higher energy content (BTUs) than gasoline.
Yet $Billions$ are being spent of hydrogen storage
systems.... hydrogen "stations" where, like gas
stations, you drive in & hand over large sums of
money to the oil companies.
Folks, this isn't a "Conspiracy Theory."
The government is genuinely concerned about
maintaining the huge profits of major corporations,
and is ACTING on those concerns, even as it plans
on artificially driving down wages by importing
Mexican labor to exploit.
Don't take my word on this. Please. I beg of you.
Spend a few minutes on google looking this up...
if you can't recall 7th grade level science class.
H2O. Two-parts Hydrogen, one-part Oxygen.
That's water.
We don't mine Hydrogen. We don't drill for it. The
way we get Hydrogen, here on earth, is by
separating it out from water. It really is that simple.
No need for big oil companies, no need for fueling
stations (owned, or at least supplied by big oil
companies)... just water.
Now, as I said, go to google and do a little searching.
You'll find things like this:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBIUBCTC5E.html
Again: No "Conspiracy theory" here. No "Theory"
at all. The government is genuinely concerned with
the profits of major corporations -- AND IS ACTING
TO PROTECT THEM -- even as it plans to artificially
drive down wages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 06:50:19 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Carl Melander" <Cmelander@gmail.com> wrote
I think we should treat our work force like a member
of our families, not like third class citizens.
I think the government has to start caring as much about
labor as it does any other segment of our economy, any
other product or service.
As an example, one problem with hydrogen powered
cars -- as a replacement for imported oil -- is the storage
of hydrogen. Another problem is fueling. Hydrogen is
more dangerous to pump into your car than gasoline.
But why even bother? Water is two-parts hydrogen,
and can be easy separated using electricity (like from
a car battery)?
Well, the government is oh so *Concerned* about all
those gas stations... and those poor... poor... poor
oil companies... and what would happen to the major
corporations if people could fill their cars with tap
water.
"What about the jobs those corporations provide?
What about the people working at the gas stations?"
The government doesn't care. Heck, they want to
allow in Mexicans to do the work at sub-minimum
wages.
It's funny how $200 a week BEFORE TAXES is
too much to live off of, according to our ever
caring government, but billions into the corporate
coffers MUST BE PROTECTED!!!!
Think about that. A mere 30 gallons of water
provides 20 gallons of pure hydrogen, which has
a higher energy content (BTUs) than gasoline.
Yet $Billions$ are being spent of hydrogen storage
systems.... hydrogen "stations" where, like gas
stations, you drive in & hand over large sums of
money to the oil companies.
Folks, this isn't a "Conspiracy Theory."
The government is genuinely concerned about
maintaining the huge profits of major corporations,
and is ACTING on those concerns, even as it plans
on artificially driving down wages by importing
Mexican labor to exploit.
Don't take my word on this. Please. I beg of you.
Spend a few minutes on google looking this up...
if you can't recall 7th grade level science class.
H2O. Two-parts Hydrogen, one-part Oxygen.
That's water.
We don't mine Hydrogen. We don't drill for it. The
way we get Hydrogen, here on earth, is by
separating it out from water. It really is that simple.
No need for big oil companies, no need for fueling
stations (owned, or at least supplied by big oil
companies)... just water.
Now, as I said, go to google and do a little searching.
You'll find things like this:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBIUBCTC5E.html
Again: No "Conspiracy theory" here. No "Theory"
at all. The government is genuinely concerned with
the profits of major corporations -- AND IS ACTING
TO PROTECT THEM -- even as it plans to artificially
drive down wages.
But you can't get more energy out of a chemical reaction than you put
in, in the first place. To produce "X" amount of energy from burning
hydrogen, you would need "X" amount of energy, plus "overhead", from
the battery. It would be more efficient to simply have electric motors.
The problem is, our batteries aren't up to it yet.
The advantage of hydrogen or similar schemes is that the energy still
has to be made in the first place, but it can be any combinations of
coal, wind, solar, nuclear, oil, biomass, etc. As we find other
sources, we can use it to create a more portable fuel, cleaner for
cars. As you point out, when we consider the cost of something, like
gasoline, we don't always look at the cost of the alternatives (such as
hydrogen (leakage, fueling dangers, etc.)).
This doesn't mean we can't do anything at all. Gasohol (90% gas and 10%
ethanol) burns in the cars we have, is cheaper, and would produce an
immediate 5% reduction on foreign oil dependence (IIRC, about half of
the oil we use goes into cars). We can fund more research immediately
for various substitutes - hydrogen, synthetic gasoline, fuel cells,
ethanol, vegetable oil, mass transport, etc. Complex social and
economic problems rarely have a single fix, but a multiple-prong
approach can have a profound impact. US dependence on foreign oil is a
security issue - for everybody. I'm sure the Brits & Aussies and
Chinese would prefer that future Mr. Bushes not start any more wars
over oil.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 08:07:23 PM |
|
|
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote
But you can't get more energy out of a chemical reaction
than you put in, in the first place.
We're not trying to, and we don't have to.
A pound of hydrogen contains roughly three times the energy
(BTUs) as gasoline. Three pounds of water contains two
pounds of Hydrogen. One gallon of water weighs roughly
eight pounds.
In comparison, a gallon of gasoline weighs just over
six pounds. This means you get (roughly) 20% more
gasoline per gallon than hydrogen. But, the hydrogen
has three times the energy. So in addition to all that
extra energy you have left over from running your car
on gasoline -- for pwr windows/locks, the stereo,
air conditioner & the like (while still keeping your
battery charged) -- you have even more energy left
over from Hydrogen.
And then there's already perfected technology used
on the roads today -- like in hybrid cars -- to net
even more energy. Like, well, like solar & harnessing
the breaking energy to charge the batteries.
But let's go with a worst-case senario here, just for
the sake of argument. Let's assume, for the sake of
argument, that the significant increase in energy,
together with other technologies, can't separate
enough hydrogen without augmenting things by
plugging your car into an outlet at least occasionally...
Go with the previously separated hydrogen "solution"
that the government insist on, in the interest of
preserving corporate profits.... just to demonstrate
the futility of hydrogen storage when it's not in water:
1 gallon of LIQUID hydrogen weighs roughly half a pound,
about a tenth of the Hydrogen suspended as water, and
requires an ENORMOUS energy overhead in order to
cool it & maintain it's liquid form. Add transport. It has
to get from it's production site to the corporate owned
(or at least supplied) filling station. Transporting it as
a gas means less energy to store it, but there's so much
less of it so there's only a tiny fraction of the energy
being moved. And you've still got the transportation
costs.
One gallon of water has more than 5 pounds of hydrogen, or
ten times as much energy as a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
That's because hydrogen storage is an enormous problem
EXCEPT when it is stored as water.
The energy overhead is THOUSANDS of times greater
going with the corporate welfare solution, which in the
end is just getting it's hydrogen from THE EXACT SAME
PLACE. That is to say, water.
So even if we'd have to plug the car in every now &
then -- or even nightly -- there's still a net GAIN in
energy. We still eliminate storage & transportion
costs & energy, even though the Hydrogen comes from
THE EXACT SAME SOURCE (i.e. "water").
As you point out, when we consider the cost of something,
like gasoline, we don't always look at the cost of the
alternatives (such as hydrogen (leakage, fueling dangers,
etc.)).
There are none, EXCEPT if you insist that we must go with
the corporate welfare solution.
Again, one gallon of water contains more than 5 pounds of
Hydrogen, which has more energy than 2 gallons of
gasoline.
No leakage issues. No fueling dangers. No storage issues.
No energy "overhead" from transportation & storage.
These "issues" only exist if we have a government worried
about maintaining corporate profits, even as it actively
seeks to drive wages down on working men & women.
Again, this isn't a "Conspiracy theory," or any kind of
"Theory" at all. It is our government's policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 08:25:13 PM |
|
|
In article <R6-dnU9I1IKYmNbfRVn-gA@comcast.com>"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:277752
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote
But you can't get more energy out of a chemical reaction
than you put in, in the first place.
We're not trying to, and we don't have to.
A pound of hydrogen contains roughly three times the energy
(BTUs) as gasoline. Three pounds of water contains two
pounds of Hydrogen. One gallon of water weighs roughly
eight pounds.
Um, "unrestraind_hand" is reacting to what he think's
you're saying here -- and I got the same impression --
that you're literally talking about putting water
into the car's tank?
If so, and that is you are saying, then his point is correct:
that gains you no energy; you'd be better off leaving
your tank empty.
And the reason is that the amount of energy you could
get from the burning the hydrogen back to water --
whether you do that directly in the cylinders or indirectly
in a fuel cell -- would be less than the amount
it would take you to split it off from the water
in the first place.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:20:55 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Um, "unrestraind_hand" is reacting to what he think's
you're saying here -- and I got the same impression --
that you're literally talking about putting water
into the car's tank?
Yes.
If so, and that is you are saying, then his point is correct:
that gains you no energy; you'd be better off leaving
your tank empty.
No. In fact, it gains you so much energy that there's no
comparison.
The Hydrogen is coming from water no matter what.
And the reason is that the amount of energy you could
get from the burning the hydrogen back to water --
whether you do that directly in the cylinders or indirectly
in a fuel cell -- would be less than the amount
it would take you to split it off from the water
in the first place.
Which means that nobody is looking at Hydrogen fuel,
right?
Because, we'd have to increase our reliance on
fossil fuels & nuclear energy in order to produce
the same amount of energy we were already getting
from those very same sources.
Energy conversion costs are the same, whether it's done
onboard the car or done at some plant. The difference
is that, on board the car, you save all the energy from
the transportation & storage, as well as all the risks
involved in storage. Producing the Hydrogen onboard
the car SAVES ENERGY, it REDUCES OVERHEAD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:34:11 PM |
|
|
In article <55SdnQ76kbfci9bfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Um, "unrestraind_hand" is reacting to what he think's
you're saying here -- and I got the same impression --
that you're literally talking about putting water
into the car's tank?
Yes.
If so, and that is you are saying, then his point is correct:
that gains you no energy; you'd be better off leaving
your tank empty.
No. In fact, it gains you so much energy that there's no
comparison.
The Hydrogen is coming from water no matter what.
That is correct.
But it costs you energy to electrolize the hydrogen
out of the water. That energy has to come from somewhere
onboard your car, let us say your battery.
And then you burn that hydrogen back to water, either directly,
or indirectly as in a fuel cell , and this liberates energy
for your use.
Unfortunately the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
insist that the energy you got back from burning your hydrogen
must be less than the energy you put in to splitting it
out of the water.
In which case you would have been better off applying that
energy -- again, perhaps from your battery -- directly
into moving the car, rather than detouring that energy
through the hydrogen cycle, and thus inevitably wasting
some of it.
If you get your hydrogen from water, and then burn it back
to water to obtain energy, fundamental physics says you can only
lose energy in the process.
The only way around this is to have some external source
of energy pry the hydrogen away from the water beforehand
for you. Then YOU -- although not the world as a whole --
will see a net gain in energy.
And the reason is that the amount of energy you could
get from the burning the hydrogen back to water --
whether you do that directly in the cylinders or indirectly
in a fuel cell -- would be less than the amount
it would take you to split it off from the water
in the first place.
Which means that nobody is looking at Hydrogen fuel,
right?
Of course they're looking at fuel cells, but not
as a way of doing what you suggest above, which amounts
to burning water to make water. For example some
in effect burn menthanol to make water, which gains
you energy. Burning water to make water does not.
Because, we'd have to increase our reliance on
fossil fuels & nuclear energy in order to produce
the same amount of energy we were already getting
from those very same sources.
Energy conversion costs are the same, whether it's done
onboard the car or done at some plant.
That is totally correct. But in one case the plant takes
energy from some outside source and splits the hydrogen
from the water for you beforehand. You merely do the
burning half of the cycle onboard, so onboard you will
see a net energy gain. But if you also do the splitting
onboard as well, this will cost so much as not only
to equal, but to exceed the energy you get back.
I'm afraid that this is a case of fighting the law
where the law always wins, if that law is thermodynamics.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 10:47:14 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
No. In fact, it gains you so much energy that there's no
comparison.
The Hydrogen is coming from water no matter what.
That is correct.
Yes. The biggest difference comes from the savings in
energy by producing the Hydrogen in the car. The savings
comes from energy that is otherwise lost in the storage &
transportation of Hydrogen.
But it costs you energy to electrolize the hydrogen
out of the water.
No matter what. Even if you're pumping pure Hydrogen
gas, or liquid, into your car. It still takes just as much
electricity to produce it.
Unfortunately the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
insist that the energy you got back from burning your hydrogen
must be less than the energy you put in to splitting it
out of the water.
Electrolysis isn't subject to a fundamental thermodynamic
limitation on efficiency. Look it up.
Yes, there is a loss, but so much less of a loss compared to
other methods that it's a joke to suggest any other way.
Using proven technology -- already on our roads -- we should
be able to make up the difference. These range from plugging
your car in to a power outlet at night, to solar panels &
harnessing the breaking energy... exactly as the Toyota Prius
already does.
Energy conversion costs are the same, whether it's done
onboard the car or done at some plant.
That is totally correct. But in one case the plant takes
energy from some outside source and splits the hydrogen
from the water for you beforehand.
....increasing the loss of energy. Adding safety
issues. Again, whatever argument you care to make
is far more effective against the alternative.
If they believe it's viable to produce it offsite -- and they
do -- then it makes far more sense to produce it onboard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 10:58:31 PM |
|
|
In article <LIydnbZfSIvjt9bfRVn-pQ@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
No. In fact, it gains you so much energy that there's no
comparison.
The Hydrogen is coming from water no matter what.
That is correct.
Yes. The biggest difference comes from the savings in
energy by producing the Hydrogen in the car. The savings
comes from energy that is otherwise lost in the storage &
transportation of Hydrogen.
But it costs you energy to electrolize the hydrogen
out of the water.
No matter what. Even if you're pumping pure Hydrogen
gas, or liquid, into your car. It still takes just as much
electricity to produce it.
Oh, absolutely ... but's that's looking at it from a global
standpoint, balancing the energy books over the entire system.
The major difference is from the viewpoint of you the driver,
who I assume wishes your car to actually move:
case 1: external separation
-- energy input at the factory, separating hydrogen
-- energy regained in your car (but you pay the factory folks)
case 2: onboard separation
-- no energy required for factory
-- that much energy must be supplied by something in your car --
and you don't get it all back.
or, to put that last another way:
-- if you're using purely the energy from hydrogen to
power your car, it will not move.
-- if you're supplying other energy, it would be more
efficiently used if applied directly
Unfortunately the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics
insist that the energy you got back from burning your hydrogen
must be less than the energy you put in to splitting it
out of the water.
Electrolysis isn't subject to a fundamental thermodynamic
limitation on efficiency. Look it up.
Um, I'm sorry, but EVERYTHING is subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
Physicists consider the laws of thermodynamics to be the most fundamental
of all known physical laws. If quantum theory or relativity were to be
shown to contradict thermodynamics, the it would disprove quantum theory
or relativity.
And I don't have to look this one up -- I've got a degree in chemistry
(which, like every degree in the physical sciences, requires learning
thermo). On top of which I just finished reading P.W. Atkins
"The Second Law", which discusses such things as the above in
endless detail.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 11:30:33 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Um, I'm sorry, but EVERYTHING is subject to
the laws of thermodynamics.
Again, look it up.
And I don't have to look this one up --
Which is too bad, because it's easy enough to find articles
explaining that you're incorrect.
I've got a degree in chemistry
(which, like every degree in the physical sciences, requires
learning thermo).
Did they teach you what "thermo" means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
31 Mar 2005 12:01:14 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
I've got a degree in chemistry
(which, like every degree in the physical sciences, requires
learning thermo).
Did they teach you what "thermo" means?
Instead of butting heads further, let me try to explain.
This is how I understand it. Trying to produce Hydrogen
from water, using the heat generated from burning Hydrogen,
is a losing proposition.
This is correct.
However, look at the electrolysis alone. Yes, in isolation.
Ignoring where the energy to produce the electricity is
coming from -- and concentrating just on the electricity --
there isn't the same loss. There isn't that huge thermodynamic
limitation.
Next we pull back some and take into consideration the
ultimate source of that electricity. We are producing it
by burning the Hydrogen, which in turn is produced using
the electricity. So we just re-introduced our big loss. And
you're right, additional energy would have to introduced
to the system, though it could be easily enough. And there
isn't this huge "thermo loss," at least not within the
system, that you appear to be assuming.
The additional energy comes from solar power & plugging
your car in at night. In both cases this isn't thermo
energy. This is electricity coming straight into your car
for electrolysis.
So, yes, the system is far more efficient than you give it
credit -- because we aren't dealing with thermo energy
here -- but even if it weren't, it would still have to be
so far beyond the alternative that there's no comparison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
01 Apr 2005 08:02:14 PM |
|
|
In article <EfWdnQOVtZRFptbfRVn-2w@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
I've got a degree in chemistry
(which, like every degree in the physical sciences, requires
learning thermo).
Did they teach you what "thermo" means?
Instead of butting heads further, let me try to explain.
This is how I understand it. Trying to produce Hydrogen
from water, using the heat generated from burning Hydrogen,
is a losing proposition.
This is correct.
However, look at the electrolysis alone. Yes, in isolation.
Ignoring where the energy to produce the electricity is
coming from -- and concentrating just on the electricity --
there isn't the same loss. There isn't that huge thermodynamic
limitation.
Next we pull back some and take into consideration the
ultimate source of that electricity. We are producing it
by burning the Hydrogen, which in turn is produced using
the electricity. So we just re-introduced our big loss. And
you're right, additional energy would have to introduced
to the system, though it could be easily enough. And there
isn't this huge "thermo loss," at least not within the
system, that you appear to be assuming.
The additional energy comes from solar power & plugging
your car in at night. In both cases this isn't thermo
energy. This is electricity coming straight into your car
for electrolysis.
Okay, there we go. We're in agreement now.
My picture of what you were saying before was that you thought
you could just fill up with water, split it onboard yourself --
and then drive away, utilizing a system that was totally
self-contained, and would somehow derive more energy from the
hydrogen in the water than it invested. My point was that in fact,
no, the thing wouldn't move.
But if you're willing to split out the "debit" side of
the equation -- electrolyze the water via energy input
from the outside -- then yes, it would most certainly work.
So, yes, the system is far more efficient than you give it
credit -- because we aren't dealing with thermo energy
here -- but even if it weren't, it would still have to be
so far beyond the alternative that there's no comparison.
Well, we ARE still dealing with the same initial-state/end-
state calculations, the difference being that now the
grand picture has been divided into two pieces -- the
splitting is now taking place (conceptually or physically)
"outside" your original system, using another energy source,
while the conspumption part of your experiment remains
within the automobile itself. The same thermo still
applies, and in the exact same fashion. The only
change is that there is an additional source of energy
I did not perceive before.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
01 Apr 2005 09:00:04 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Well, we ARE still dealing with the same initial-state/end-
state calculations, the difference being that now the
grand picture has been divided into two pieces -- the
splitting is now taking place (conceptually or physically)
"outside" your original system, using another energy source,
while the conspumption part of your experiment remains
within the automobile itself.
Well, "both."
You are using electricty generated from burning the Hydrogen
to produce more Hydrogen. But you're also using other,
off-the-shelf technology that is already on our roads today.
Like solar. Like the breaking energy. Like plugging your car
into an outlet. Heck, you could even use wind power
(generated by driving).
The same thermo still applies, and in the exact same fashion.
The only change is that there is an additional source of energy
I did not perceive before.
No, there are two other changes. You've removed the energy
overhead required for transportation of the fuel, any energy
overhead that may be involved in storing the fuel (liquid
Hydrogen, for example) & any safety issues involved with
moving/storing/pumping large quantities of Hydrogen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
01 Apr 2005 09:10:21 PM |
|
|
In article <sYednRGxjLnAKdDfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Well, we ARE still dealing with the same initial-state/end-
state calculations, the difference being that now the
grand picture has been divided into two pieces -- the
splitting is now taking place (conceptually or physically)
"outside" your original system, using another energy source,
while the conspumption part of your experiment remains
within the automobile itself.
Well, "both."
You are using electricty generated from burning the Hydrogen
to produce more Hydrogen. But you're also using other,
off-the-shelf technology that is already on our roads today.
Like solar. Like the breaking energy. Like plugging your car
into an outlet. Heck, you could even use wind power
(generated by driving).
Yes, but braking energy and wind energy aren't free --
you had to spend energy to get the car moving ; you recover
only a portion of that when you brake. Similarly, the
wind you feel when you're driving 60 isn't free; you
had to input energy to generate that wind.
We're actually talking on two levels here, I think. I'm discussing
pure physics -- and I've been doing that because I may have
misperceived your original setup, and what I thought I heard
was essentially you proposing the conceptual equivalent of
a perpetual motion machine. On wheels.
But that was not the setup you had in mind, apparently, and
so while I was arguing physics, you were arguing economics
and technology. So we've probably been talking past one
another. (the next two paragraphs are another example
of this.
The same thermo still applies, and in the exact same fashion.
The only change is that there is an additional source of energy
I did not perceive before.
No, there are two other changes. You've removed the energy
overhead required for transportation of the fuel, any energy
overhead that may be involved in storing the fuel (liquid
Hydrogen, for example) & any safety issues involved with
moving/storing/pumping large quantities of Hydrogen.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
02 Apr 2005 06:36:52 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Yes, but braking energy and wind energy aren't free --
you had to spend energy to get the car moving ; you recover
only a portion of that when you brake. Similarly, the
wind you feel when you're driving 60 isn't free; you
had to input energy to generate that wind.
Yes. But it's recovering energy that would otherwise be
lost.
Also keep in mind that such energy sources, including
solar (especially solar), can still be collecting energy
even when the car is off.
We're actually talking on two levels here, I think. I'm
discussing pure physics -- and I've been doing that
because I may have misperceived your original setup,
and what I thought I heard was essentially you
proposing the conceptual equivalent of a perpetual
motion machine. On wheels.
After you made me doubt myself, I did the google thing
and discovered many a web site of your "perpetual
motion" variety. So I can understand where you're
coming from.
One even claimed that you can get a 120% return on
your energy investment, using electrolysis, splitting
off Hydrogen from water.
Maybe you can? I dunno. But I do know that if anybody
on earth is currently doing so they're not telling
anyone.
But that was not the setup you had in mind, apparently,
and so while I was arguing physics, you were arguing
economics and technology.
Economics & politics. The technology talk is only in
support of my position (hence my stressing that the
technology in question is off-the-shelf, already on our
roads).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 11:28:37 PM |
|
|
In article <SZKdnac1KrU7qdbfRVn-vQ@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Um, I'm sorry, but EVERYTHING is subject to
the laws of thermodynamics.
Again, look it up.
And I don't have to look this one up --
Which is too bad, because it's easy enough to find articles
explaining that you're incorrect.
Actually, difficult, as in Nobel-Prize-Level difficult. As in
Overthrowing-All-Known-Physics difficult. But I'll happily read
an article or two if you'll point them out, and we can discuss them.
I've got a degree in chemistry
(which, like every degree in the physical sciences, requires
learning thermo).
Did they teach you what "thermo" means?
I do know why it's called "thermo", because the principles
were originally discovered while investigating the efficiency
of the steam engine. Carnot and Clausius and all like that.
But the laws which were uncovered there have since been
extended to all of physics, and reformulated in terms
other than heat and energy -- for example degree-of-order (Boltzman)
and information content.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:38:07 PM |
|
|
In article <d2f60j$1r6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu> (Cary Kittrell) writes:
In article <55SdnQ76kbfci9bfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
{...}
Which means that nobody is looking at Hydrogen fuel,
right?
Of course they're looking at fuel cells, but not
as a way of doing what you suggest above, which amounts
to burning water to make water. For example some
in effect burn menthanol to make water, which gains
you energy. Burning water to make water does not.
Oopsie, my bad: I mis-read your question as "Which means that
nobody is looking at Hydrogen fuel cells, right?". Hence
my irrelevant answer.
So yes: certainly there is resesarch ongoing into hydrogen
as fuel. There was a very interesting article all about
this in Scientific American a couple of issues back.
However, the exact way you are suggesting we do it isn't going
to work for exactly the same reasons that perpeutal motion
machines don't work.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 10:48:58 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
However, the exact way you are suggesting we
do it isn't going to work for exactly the same
reasons that perpeutal motion machines don't
work.
You are correct that, barring advances, additional
energy would have to be introduced to the system.
You are incorrect in your estimates regarding how
much energy.
Electrolysis isn't subject to a fundamental thermodynamic
limitation on efficiency. Look it up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 08:11:23 PM |
|
|
In article <R6-dnU9I1IKYmNbfRVn-gA@comcast.com> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> writes:
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote
But you can't get more energy out of a chemical reaction
than you put in, in the first place.
We're not trying to, and we don't have to.
A pound of hydrogen contains roughly three times the energy
(BTUs) as gasoline. Three pounds of water contains two
pounds of Hydrogen. One gallon of water weighs roughly
eight pounds.
Um, no...three pounds of water contains a little over
five ounces of hydrogen.
(go by atomic weight, not just by counting the atoms)
In comparison, a gallon of gasoline weighs just over
six pounds. This means you get (roughly) 20% more
gasoline per gallon than hydrogen. But, the hydrogen
has three times the energy. So in addition to all that
extra energy you have left over from running your car
on gasoline -- for pwr windows/locks, the stereo,
air conditioner & the like (while still keeping your
battery charged) -- you have even more energy left
over from Hydrogen.
And then there's already perfected technology used
on the roads today -- like in hybrid cars -- to net
even more energy. Like, well, like solar & harnessing
the breaking energy to charge the batteries.
But let's go with a worst-case senario here, just for
the sake of argument. Let's assume, for the sake of
argument, that the significant increase in energy,
together with other technologies, can't separate
enough hydrogen without augmenting things by
plugging your car into an outlet at least occasionally...
Go with the previously separated hydrogen "solution"
that the government insist on, in the interest of
preserving corporate profits.... just to demonstrate
the futility of hydrogen storage when it's not in water:
1 gallon of LIQUID hydrogen weighs roughly half a pound,
about a tenth of the Hydrogen suspended as water, and
requires an ENORMOUS energy overhead in order to
cool it & maintain it's liquid form. Add transport. It has
to get from it's production site to the corporate owned
(or at least supplied) filling station. Transporting it as
a gas means less energy to store it, but there's so much
less of it so there's only a tiny fraction of the energy
being moved. And you've still got the transportation
costs.
One gallon of water has more than 5 pounds of hydrogen, or
ten times as much energy as a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
That's because hydrogen storage is an enormous problem
EXCEPT when it is stored as water.
The energy overhead is THOUSANDS of times greater
going with the corporate welfare solution, which in the
end is just getting it's hydrogen from THE EXACT SAME
PLACE. That is to say, water.
So even if we'd have to plug the car in every now &
then -- or even nightly -- there's still a net GAIN in
energy. We still eliminate storage & transportion
costs & energy, even though the Hydrogen comes from
THE EXACT SAME SOURCE (i.e. "water").
As you point out, when we consider the cost of something,
like gasoline, we don't always look at the cost of the
alternatives (such as hydrogen (leakage, fueling dangers,
etc.)).
There are none, EXCEPT if you insist that we must go with
the corporate welfare solution.
Again, one gallon of water contains more than 5 pounds of
Hydrogen, which has more energy than 2 gallons of
gasoline.
No leakage issues. No fueling dangers. No storage issues.
No energy "overhead" from transportation & storage.
These "issues" only exist if we have a government worried
about maintaining corporate profits, even as it actively
seeks to drive wages down on working men & women.
Again, this isn't a "Conspiracy theory," or any kind of
"Theory" at all. It is our government's policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:11:53 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote
Um, no...three pounds of water contains a little over
five ounces of hydrogen.
(go by atomic weight, not just by counting the atoms)
I was not entirely accurate (I wasn't trying to be, only
going with rough estimates) but you're making the same
mistake that I'm making.
If you want "accuracy," I just did the perverbial
30-second web search and found this rather neat
chart with (what I assume isn't a rough) camparison
in fuel values:
http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/Hydrogendata.html
Of course, none of this changes anything in the slightest.
You can't escape energey overhead, and you still have
the cost & safety issues of dealing with Hydrogen in
any state other than water.
No matter what the "conversion" costs, all Hydrogen
fuel will begin as water & be converted to Hydrogen.
The costs can't be escaped. But, the expenses &
dangers of storing & transporting Hydrogen can easily
be avoided, by simply converting the water on board
the car.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:24:17 PM |
|
|
Of course the exploitation of workers coincided with the secularization
of capitalism beginning in the late 18th century...
BM
JTEM wrote:
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote
But you can't get more energy out of a chemical reaction
than you put in, in the first place.
We're not trying to, and we don't have to.
A pound of hydrogen contains roughly three times the energy
(BTUs) as gasoline. Three pounds of water contains two
pounds of Hydrogen. One gallon of water weighs roughly
eight pounds.
In comparison, a gallon of gasoline weighs just over
six pounds. This means you get (roughly) 20% more
gasoline per gallon than hydrogen. But, the hydrogen
has three times the energy. So in addition to all that
extra energy you have left over from running your car
on gasoline -- for pwr windows/locks, the stereo,
air conditioner & the like (while still keeping your
battery charged) -- you have even more energy left
over from Hydrogen.
And then there's already perfected technology used
on the roads today -- like in hybrid cars -- to net
even more energy. Like, well, like solar & harnessing
the breaking energy to charge the batteries.
But let's go with a worst-case senario here, just for
the sake of argument. Let's assume, for the sake of
argument, that the significant increase in energy,
together with other technologies, can't separate
enough hydrogen without augmenting things by
plugging your car into an outlet at least occasionally...
Go with the previously separated hydrogen "solution"
that the government insist on, in the interest of
preserving corporate profits.... just to demonstrate
the futility of hydrogen storage when it's not in water:
1 gallon of LIQUID hydrogen weighs roughly half a pound,
about a tenth of the Hydrogen suspended as water, and
requires an ENORMOUS energy overhead in order to
cool it & maintain it's liquid form. Add transport. It has
to get from it's production site to the corporate owned
(or at least supplied) filling station. Transporting it as
a gas means less energy to store it, but there's so much
less of it so there's only a tiny fraction of the energy
being moved. And you've still got the transportation
costs.
One gallon of water has more than 5 pounds of hydrogen, or
ten times as much energy as a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
That's because hydrogen storage is an enormous problem
EXCEPT when it is stored as water.
The energy overhead is THOUSANDS of times greater
going with the corporate welfare solution, which in the
end is just getting it's hydrogen from THE EXACT SAME
PLACE. That is to say, water.
So even if we'd have to plug the car in every now &
then -- or even nightly -- there's still a net GAIN in
energy. We still eliminate storage & transportion
costs & energy, even though the Hydrogen comes from
THE EXACT SAME SOURCE (i.e. "water").
As you point out, when we consider the cost of something,
like gasoline, we don't always look at the cost of the
alternatives (such as hydrogen (leakage, fueling dangers,
etc.)).
There are none, EXCEPT if you insist that we must go with
the corporate welfare solution.
Again, one gallon of water contains more than 5 pounds of
Hydrogen, which has more energy than 2 gallons of
gasoline.
No leakage issues. No fueling dangers. No storage issues.
No energy "overhead" from transportation & storage.
These "issues" only exist if we have a government worried
about maintaining corporate profits, even as it actively
seeks to drive wages down on working men & women.
Again, this isn't a "Conspiracy theory," or any kind of
"Theory" at all. It is our government's policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 09:38:07 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1112217857.520985.51600
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Of course the exploitation of workers coincided with the secularization
of capitalism beginning in the late 18th century...
Yes, except for those slaves, some of them owned by the Catholic church.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a
formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person.
-- Eric Hoffer
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 10:52:14 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <zwi6iv402@sneakemail.com> wrote
cherniymonakh@hotmail.com wrote
Of course the exploitation of workers coincided with the
secularization of capitalism beginning in the late 18th century...
Yes, except for those slaves, some of them owned by the
Catholic church.
And the Southern Baptist Convention was originally put together
to counter northern abolitionists.
But it's insane to pretend that exploitation began in the 1700s.
Exploitation -- like murder, rape & all those other nasty
human crimes -- dates to the beginning of our species.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
31 Mar 2005 01:26:36 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
cherniymonakh@hotmail.com wrote in news:1112217857.520985.51600
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Of course the exploitation of workers coincided with the
secularization
of capitalism beginning in the late 18th century...
Yes, except for those slaves, some of them owned by the Catholic
church.
The worldwide extent of exploitation is far worse and more extensive
now and post-Enlightenment than it had been prior to that. The
Spaniards actually introduced some positive changes in Mexico (attempts
at fostering literacy, the peasants were no longer fair game for human
sacrifice hunting expeditions, etc.) Can you say the same about child
sweatshops, 100,000s deaths for oil, etc. etc.?
Erich Fromm's Sane Society included an excerpt from a Business manual
from 18th century England. The manual described in a disgusted tone
the practice of scoundrels who undersell their competitors. It was
considered shameful and a sin to destroy one's neighbor's livelihood
for mere profit
(and Fromm is btw an atheist). At that time, man as God's image was
considered the center of the universe; capital was to serve him, and
not vice versa.
regards,
BM
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a
formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person.
-- Eric Hoffer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 02:45:35 PM |
|
|
"Carl Melander" <Cmelander@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1112193543.867901.64890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I read this study some guy did as part of his thesis in American
Economics, on the effect Walmart had on the median income in counties
they placed their stores into. If I remember correctly it was a 25-35%
decrease in median household income. Most of these low wage employers
like to keep their public image up by making a lot of charitible
contributions. Sad thing is that the people receiving the aid are
mostly likely victims of their policies to begin with.
I think we should treat our work force like a member of our families,
not like third class citizens.
Personally, I don't do WalMart. I don't mind paying a decent price for
something. WalMart cheap means the labor got screwed, not the store or
the manufacturer.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed
conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a
heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true,
not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when
anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our
situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's
eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was
ending forever."
-- Ann Druyan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 11:27:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1112120840.495049.176870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Carl Melander <Cmelander@gmail.com> wrote:
This discussion is related to a news story that I heard about a week
ago. The general topic was related to not only allowing illegal
immigration into our country but how it was actually going to help our
economy. There are two big issues concerning this topic.
Minor nitpick:
I suppose this is related to atheism in that it doesn't mention god or
religion, but the charter for alt.atheism suggests rather strongly that
you start the subject line of posts like this with "OT: " -- Off Topic.
On the
"Con" side they are taking low skill jobs regularly held by
undereducated American workers because the immigrant workers will work
for an average of 66% less money than their American counter parts.
I know very few Americans, no matter how desperate, who are willing to
take a job harvesting broccoli or celery or strawberries by hand, no
matter what the pay. You might find a few willing to wash dishes, if
there are power tools involved. White boys mowing lawns are a thing of
the past. There are a great many jobs no Americans want.
On
the "Pro" side they are allowing small business owners to hire
workers for less money creating more capital gains which can be
invested back into the communities.
This is my opinion in a nutshell (Large nutshell). I think we should
allow people to immigrate into our country but we need to be objective
about how we allow them to enter. I don't think this practice should
be as restrictive as it should be focused on education and adaptation.
We should form a unified language, my vote goes for English. A unified
language is not only going to help us out when trying to order a cheese
burger at the local Mickidees but it going to increase the standard of
living for those who can't speak the language currently. We live in a
society were so much depends on communication and that dependence is
only going to increase.
You are going to force immigrants to learn English at the point of
which gun?
Increasing profits by hiring lower wage
immigrant works doesn't help our society. Do we really want to create
another underclass in our already marginal society? I honestly think
that in a sense that this is a one way road to fiscal slavery. I'll
explain this with a store of a guy named Bob.
Bob is an immigrant who moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Winnipeg,
Manitoba in search of warmer weather. Bob speaks mostly French and his
English is a little rusty (For some reason he ends every sentence with
an "eh?") Bob has a wife and 2.5 children. Bob is seeking work so
that he can make a living in his new home land. He goes to Mickidees
and get a job flipping fries and frying burgers. The manager tells Bob
that he can only pay him $5.15 an hour because he doesn't have
previous experience frying burgers and that the corporate office has
placed a salary cap on people "without experience." Bob is ok with
this because he is ambitious and thinks he'll work his way up the
ladder, like everyone else. Bob soon find out that it is difficult to
make a living on $850 a month. Rent is $500. Utilities are another
$100, and $250 in food doesn't go far. Bob is stuck. He can't quit
because he needs to feed the family. He can't find new work because
now his only experience is frying burgers. Everyone seems to have these
salary caps for workers "without experience". He doesn't have the
education to advance in his field of work. His employer finds it easier
to hire his immigrant buddy for $5.15 than it is to give him a raise.
"This is fiscal slavery, eh?" Bob says with dismay.
Your story happens to American citizens more often than it happens to
the average immigrant. Whether it's poor choices, poor education, lack
of drive or just plain bad luck, lots of people, citizens included, get
stuck in that rut.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'rich' get richer and the 'poor' get poorer and the middle class surrender: An objective discussion. |
30 Mar 2005 11:47:09 PM |
|
|
"Frank J Warner" <warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote
I know very few Americans, no matter how desperate,
who are willing to take a job harvesting broccoli or
celery or strawberries by hand, no matter what the pay.
"Low paying" describes the pay, not the job.
Minimum wage jobs include everything, even manufacturing
& office work. You may enjoy believing that when they're
talking about foreign labor all they mean is farm work, but
they don't.
The best example of an economic "sob story" I heard, in
support of Bush's scheme, was a business owner in
Georgia. THIS WAS ON CNN! The poor, poor man just
couldn't find Americans willing to do his kind of work.
Yup. He spend a couple of thousand dollars advertising
for help, only to still come up dry. So this poor dear
man -- awash with the love of Christ & an appreciation
for capitalism -- turned to illegal aliens. Not by choice,
but out of desperation.
Turns out he was paying $8 an hour for construction jobs.
He couldn't find construction workers willing to support
a family on $8 an hour? No *****?
This man was held up as *Exactly* the kind of business
man who was offering "jobs" that "no American wanted."
Yes, CNN actually played this one with a straight face,
actually took that stance that this man was unfortunate.
I'll tell you, in all sincereity, there is no shortage of
American workers who want those jobs. They just don't
want the abject poverty involved in trying to support
a family on an $8 an hour construction job. Yet, this was
an example of the kind of man Bush's plan was supposed
to help.
That's exploitation. That's artificially driving down
wages. That's an unforgivable crime.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
OT: Cities Shed Middle Class, and Are Richer and Poorer for It
OT: Immigrant children make learning a richer experience for all, study shows
Size of China's Aid Marks a Policy Shift, but Is Still Dwarfed by That of Richer Countries
Our leaders or "The rich get richer"
OT: The Rich Get Richer
How to make China even richer
While Capitalist America gets poorer, Communist China gets richer.
OT: Why the rich must get richer
| Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down wi
Re: GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down without people taking some medicine."
Re: GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down without people taking some medicine."
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
And Conversatives are IGNORANT: LIBERALS ARE GREAT FUN TO LAUGH AT! ==> Bush-Lies-regime "plan": If the middle class is complaining about unfairness TAX EM TILL THEY KNOW WHAT REAL POVERTY IS SO THEY WILL BETTER APPRECIATE THE LITTLE THEY HAVE! -- "H
I am furthermore middle-class, so I present you.
|
|
|
