Is more efficient shopping where you spend less effort, less money and impact the environment less a bad thing?
I live in a town of 15,000. The nearest larger city is 25 miles away. The nearest metro area is 50 miles.
If I need something I can't find in town--a frequent case as I have odd requirements, I can't afford to go anywhere else.
It costs me $1.08 per round trip mile to drive, and the travel time to the nearest city is an hour round-trip.
If I shop, I have to go to multiple locations, and physically walk around...which takes time, and I am disabled enough that even a fairly brief walk is tiring. When I find what I was looking for, the price is often significantly higher than online.
The overhead of getting to and from the stores is killer unless I am spending hundreds of dollars.
This is why Sears & Roebuck did so well...shopping became convienent, quick and cheap.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Small shops are dying...Is this a bad thing?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Taxes aren't without benefits...
Been thinking about taxes and how much people hate them, and I came to the conclusion that part of that is due to the fact that unlike every other product or service which people buy, government entities rarely if ever spend any effort to 'sell' the services and products they provide.
The fact is, people don't appreciate things which they get without cost--and most government stuff doesn't tie the delivered product/service to the cost which is paid.
This separation leaves people feeling discontent when they receive a service or tax bill, since they don't associate it with anything that they have received.
For example, the City provides clean, healthful, and good tasting water at a very low cost. But people don't compare that to the prices they pay for bottled water-which is often no better and sometimes much worse than the city water.
(I've had bottled water which came from "The Kansas City Municipal water supply." Otherwise known as the Missouri River.)
I've noticed that incoming students seem to assume the city water is bad, without tasting it-- since the city flushes the mains in the summer, it is likely that the first few gallons of water in the dorms will taste bad, so perhaps some at least taste it.
Now,it takes at least 1 gallon/day per person for minimal cooking, drinking and cleaning--most people use much more, since a short shower takes up to 20 gallons.
Purchased by the gallon from W-M @ $.78/gallon that is $284.70 per person per year, or $71.17 per quarter. That is just drinking, cooking and a sponge bath/tooth brushing. A five minute shower each day would bring that up by $7.80/day, or $2839.20 per year, for a total of $3123.90/year/person, or $780.97 per quarter per person!
By way of contrast, my quarterly water bill is under $35 per quarter per person.
Merely providing this information on the billing and information sheets put out by the water department would help connect the product to the cost.
Adding a comparison of the current quarter with the previous quarter and YTD usage would make people more aware of sharp changes in usage--usually caused by a leak, but unless the difference is substantial for some time, we currently don't notify people. This would save people money, and make them more aware of their usage of this limited and valuable resource.
Similar comparison sheets could be issued with tax bills, listing by line item what was included, and detailing what each means--for instance, not only the cost for the street department, but a cost/mile of roadway and a statement of how much roadway there is (most people seriously underestimate how many miles of road are in an area.)
Pointing out the safety value of street lights, police response time, road repairs etc--all of which can be monetized and all of which are worth more than they cost would make these things more valuable. An itemized list and a comparison on the bill of each line item's cost and it's monetized value, would go a long way to showing people what they are getting for their money.
As a friend recently pointed out, you can easily move to places with much lower taxes--and nearly no services.
Compare my $35/quarter water bill with a $780.97 value, it's a bargain!
Were this to be done on all levels of government, many people might be less critical of how much many social services cost for what they deliver.
The fact is, people don't appreciate things which they get without cost--and most government stuff doesn't tie the delivered product/service to the cost which is paid.
This separation leaves people feeling discontent when they receive a service or tax bill, since they don't associate it with anything that they have received.
For example, the City provides clean, healthful, and good tasting water at a very low cost. But people don't compare that to the prices they pay for bottled water-which is often no better and sometimes much worse than the city water.
(I've had bottled water which came from "The Kansas City Municipal water supply." Otherwise known as the Missouri River.)
I've noticed that incoming students seem to assume the city water is bad, without tasting it-- since the city flushes the mains in the summer, it is likely that the first few gallons of water in the dorms will taste bad, so perhaps some at least taste it.
Now,it takes at least 1 gallon/day per person for minimal cooking, drinking and cleaning--most people use much more, since a short shower takes up to 20 gallons.
By way of contrast, my quarterly water bill is under $35 per quarter per person.
Merely providing this information on the billing and information sheets put out by the water department would help connect the product to the cost.
Adding a comparison of the current quarter with the previous quarter and YTD usage would make people more aware of sharp changes in usage--usually caused by a leak, but unless the difference is substantial for some time, we currently don't notify people. This would save people money, and make them more aware of their usage of this limited and valuable resource.
Similar comparison sheets could be issued with tax bills, listing by line item what was included, and detailing what each means--for instance, not only the cost for the street department, but a cost/mile of roadway and a statement of how much roadway there is (most people seriously underestimate how many miles of road are in an area.)
Schools have a monetized value to society, but it is almost never brought up in the same breath as school taxes.
Since it's not highlighted, many people without children feel that they are getting 'nothing' for their tax dollars.
This is far form the case. Well educated people cost society less in services, pay more in taxes, and are healthier, happier and more productive--education makes a city a much more enjoyable and safer place to live.
Educated people are less likely to be victims of fraud, more likely to vote after consciously choosing a candidate, less likely to permit public officials to become corrupt.
Since it's not highlighted, many people without children feel that they are getting 'nothing' for their tax dollars.
This is far form the case. Well educated people cost society less in services, pay more in taxes, and are healthier, happier and more productive--education makes a city a much more enjoyable and safer place to live.
Educated people are less likely to be victims of fraud, more likely to vote after consciously choosing a candidate, less likely to permit public officials to become corrupt.
Pointing out the safety value of street lights, police response time, road repairs etc--all of which can be monetized and all of which are worth more than they cost would make these things more valuable. An itemized list and a comparison on the bill of each line item's cost and it's monetized value, would go a long way to showing people what they are getting for their money.
As a friend recently pointed out, you can easily move to places with much lower taxes--and nearly no services.
Were this to be done on all levels of government, many people might be less critical of how much many social services cost for what they deliver.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Friday, September 3, 2010
human embryonic tissue for research
Currently there is yet another court battle about the use of human embryonic tissue for research.
The controversy is centered upon whether or not an embryo is human.
Since the embryos used are going to be destroyed, using their tissue is exactly the same as organ transplants from the dead.
You're not killing an embryo to use it for research, you are using a dead embryo to supply research which will save many lives, just as you are using the organs of a dead accident victim to save lives.
The matter of humanity is irrelevant.
If you're against transplants and the use of corpses for medical research, then say that, don't try and confuse the issue!
The controversy is centered upon whether or not an embryo is human.
Since the embryos used are going to be destroyed, using their tissue is exactly the same as organ transplants from the dead.
You're not killing an embryo to use it for research, you are using a dead embryo to supply research which will save many lives, just as you are using the organs of a dead accident victim to save lives.
The matter of humanity is irrelevant.
If you're against transplants and the use of corpses for medical research, then say that, don't try and confuse the issue!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)