Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:43:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:igtepet6bl237k70iff1v4vtd7bkd1htgu@4ax.com:

It will be even fewer after Tesla goes bankrupt.

You make folks feel that it is a goddamned shame that you do not go
bankrupt.

We're old fashioned. We sell things for more than they cost to make.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


Moving people over to electric cars is going to be particularly
important for these countries.




** Be much like re-arranging the deck chairs on the proverbial...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.

One of the problems of trying to discuss anything related to EVs is when people start discussing issues that they know nothing about, LITERALLY NOTHING. This post is for anyone who hasn't already realize there literally is no issue with charging EVs.

It has been discussed here before that EV energy usage per car is at a level that in the US all charging can be accommodated during times when supply exceeds demand and so literally no electric generating facilities are required until the adoption of EVs reaches 100% and grows further because of population growth. Population growth will require more generating facilities anyway.

Not only can EV charging be accommodated by the existing grid, the daytime surplus of power that is starting to appear can be easily absorbed by EVs. Rather than plugging in at night, in some areas they may give away free electricity to charge EVs.


> Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt.

Literally makes no sense...


> Spare me the PV + huge batteries nonsense - that cannot possibly work on such a scale in most places at a sane cost.

The batteries in question are in the EVs. This is about charging EVs, right??? Maybe that is why you are so off track.


> EVs are still a novelty item, be far easier to get folk to by smaller vehicles ( not SUVs ) and use them only sparingly - else share or rent as need be.

Does anyone know what vehicles he is talking about here? I'm sure he knows, he just doesn't know how to express himself.


> Taxing petrol and diesel fuel heavily would do that quick smart.

I won't agree that fuel should be taxed based on the issues it creates. The tax money should go into researching ways to prevent releasing more carbon or cleaning up some of what is out there already.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Winfield Hill]

Phil Allison wrote...

Winfield Hill bulshitted wildly as usual:

I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute,

** Err - what car is that then, a Prius ?

My car's efficiency is pretty typical.

my house uses about 28kWh/day.

** So more than 1kW continuously ?

By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,

** A figure, plucked right out of his fat arse.

We don't have natural gas on our street, and
use electricity for water heating, stoves,
HVAC system, etc. 27kWh/day per person is a
country-wide total usage statistic for the USA.

** Now for some actual reality:

Assuming overnight charging for 8hrs at 3kW
is the norm - a figure oft quoted by EV makers
- a householder here would get a bill 3 or 4
times the one they get now.

24kWh is enough charge to drive 90 miles. Few
people need to do that every day; if they have
such a long commute, they'd better car pool.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:m71fpedrkm9qimhijpe573i0v8vu5lkt9g@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:43:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:igtepet6bl237k70iff1v4vtd7bkd1htgu@4ax.com:

It will be even fewer after Tesla goes bankrupt.

You make folks feel that it is a goddamned shame that you do not go
bankrupt.

We're old fashioned. We sell things for more than they cost to
make.

Ask Sony how selling several millions of units of the PS3 for less
than it cost to make them worked out for them.

Yo are a brainless wonder.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:33:05 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

I know. The UK is pretty much doomed. They have painted themselves in a corner with precedence and now have no way out other than by sea which is where they put their wind farms.

Too bad they can't get that power to their cars. Such a waste.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:ua1fpeliqsdoto4ij3tig41gchhjg5u28r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to
-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000
jobs in the next several years according to their own
study.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than
they ever did.

John lacks the intelligence to know how the really big companies
operate.

Cincinnati Milacron was non-union throughout its existence.
Other machine tool companies too. Those whom made use of the
machines though (the operators not the owners) were pretty largely
unionized, especially if it was for a bigger player like the auto
guys or say General Electric.

It many times meant a gaurantee of specific skillsets as well.

Still needed in some circles just to keep the riff raff and fakes
culled.

Still needed in others simply to keep bean counters unable to see
the value in maintaining their employees' standards of living in
check.

Hourly employees should be considered more of an asset than they
are, and dangling the HUGE pool of able players over one's head as an
excuse for only giving pay increases that do not even cover the cost
of living is as characterless as the horseshit Donald J. Trump pulls.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:05:27 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:ua1fpeliqsdoto4ij3tig41gchhjg5u28r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to
-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000
jobs in the next several years according to their own
study.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike to
protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than
they ever did.


John lacks the intelligence to know how the really big companies
operate.

Cincinnati Milacron was non-union throughout its existence.
Other machine tool companies too. Those whom made use of the
machines though (the operators not the owners) were pretty largely
unionized, especially if it was for a bigger player like the auto
guys or say General Electric.

It many times meant a gaurantee of specific skillsets as well.

Still needed in some circles just to keep the riff raff and fakes
culled.

Still needed in others simply to keep bean counters unable to see
the value in maintaining their employees' standards of living in
check.

Hourly employees should be considered more of an asset than they
are, and dangling the HUGE pool of able players over one's head as an
excuse for only giving pay increases that do not even cover the cost
of living is as characterless as the horseshit Donald J. Trump pulls.

We don't have any hourly employees.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:50 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Winfield Hill bulshitted wildly as usual:

---------------------------------------


Phil Allison wrote...

EVs need electric energy, masses of the stuff.

So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like
3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire
power grid - at huge public expense.

Poor data.


** Nope - very real data.


I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute,

** Err - what car is that then, a Prius ?

Using examples only you know about is 100% bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------


my house uses about 28kWh/day.


** So more than 1kW continuously ?

That is very UNUSUAL where I live in Sydney, unless it is the dead of winter, the home fully electric and folk are home all day.


By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,


** A figure, plucked right out of his fat arse.


etc. So my car requires 6/53 = 11% more


** Now for some actual reality:

LOL, not from YOU!!!

I figured you had some screwed up way of figuring this and I was right. lol


> Assuming overnight charging for 8hrs at 3kW is the norm - a figure oft quoted by EV makers - a householder here would get a bill 3 or 4 times the one they get now.

Please show me this reference. I've never seen anything remotely like this from EV makers.

That would be 24 kWh or approximately 120 miles of range. One some models like a Kia, that is nearly the full tank of electrons. Do you drive 120 miles each day? 120 miles/day is about 44,000 miles per year!

Read my post which uses the 15,000 mile per year figure (~40 miles per day) which is still a bit high for the US, but maybe you have more people driving across the outback than here.


> If charging were continued at peak demand times - the local grid would collapse with triple the usual load.

You ignore several things. First, charging doesn't have to be done when other things are using power in the house. Charge at night when other loads are light. Even if the car usage was 24 kWh a day, comparing it to residential usage is not useful. There are still many users drawing significant power, proportionally more in fact. Here on winter nights when my heat pump can't keep up and the electric coils come on at 10 kW (like all the other heat pumps) the utility doesn't care because the other users are not drawing power. When my AC draws 3 kW in the late afternoon of hot, summer days the utility cares a lot because virtually everyone is drawing power and straining the grid.

There is almost no extra capacity available in domestic AC power supply - easily proved by simply monitoring the supply voltage.

It drops to barely acceptable values ( like 210VAC instead of 240 ) at peak demand times on cold mornings and evenings.

That is a poor way to evaluate anything other than the distribution to your home. Is that the case for EVERYONE???


> The most common impediment to sales of EVs is the customer has no reliable way of charging the damn thing - despite being the ONLY user in the area.

Yes, that is true in your neck of the woods. Other places have good networks.

<ranting trimmed>

> .... Phil

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:424b5d9a-b42d-4796-bc0f-56d11f8d8f4a@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:11:28 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f5e3e12e-035f-4fec-b11b-cd96cf51e2eb@googlegroups.com:

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine
requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds.
Not if you count the control electronics

It is not just that.

The entire drivetrain is different.

Also, no thermal or proximity considerations need to be made
for a
bladder of flammable liquid or an extremely hot exhaust and
exhaust line elements passing near it.

The basic car of any type is the carraige and the suspension
and
steering and braking parts (and lighting).

Powerplant is a different animal.

And you were wrong there too, as an electric powered vehicle
has
control elements for the motors and they have parts too. The
difference is that their hundreds of parts are pre-assembled
before the productoion line, and simply go in as modules.

In fact, entire driveline elements can be pre-assembled. That
makes their assembly line capacity much faster than a normal
automotive build.

I'd say they could build cars of the line to the tune of
hundreds a
day. Likely considerably faster than ICE driveline builds.

Aside from the unibody assembly segment, the entire thing could
be
automated to the point where human utilization is only where
certain fastener elements are found to be difficult to manage
with machine vision, etc.

As they perfect touch sensitivity in robotics, they may well
overcome that (fastener lead in) issue, and remove humans
altogether from final assembly lines.

I won't continue debating this with you as you are just plain
wrong.

We are discussing labor and the only discussion of parts is in
that context. Electronic assemblies are built by machines with
virtually no labor involved, certainly nothing like proportional
to the number of parts.

I didn't even read further in your response because there is no
value in it.

You obviously never read the posts of others. I clearly was
referring to labor and spoke on robotic assumption of their roles on
an automotive manufacturing assembly floor.

Nothing about contract manufacturing of a PCB assembly. Damn you
are thick, asswipe. I even mentioned sub-assemblies.

It would decidedly appear that you are the dopey fuck without a
grasp of manufacturing processes or the tech advances therein.
Humnas would already be gone from the line, were it not for the
elements I spoke of.

And that was BEFORE you 'stopped reading' and spouted your
horseshit, blatantly missing where I was talking DIRECTLY on the
topic of labor.

You are truly stupid.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:11:37 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 10/3/2019 9:54 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 9:30:13 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:
"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ddf8d4d-6806-47b8-958a-01e215d7a737@googlegroups.com...
By your analysis a copper sheet would require more labor to produce than a
hand painting. Just because it cost more.


Ackshooally...

I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

That copper touched a LOT of machinery along its way from the mill (whether
from virgin ore or recycled scrap) to your hands.

It probably didn't have labor directly applied to it, no. Not like the old
days when a smith beat it with a hammer a million times. But indirectly,
there may well be more man-hours in it from the operators and managers
running the equipment, mills and supply chain, or the amortized labor of the
engineers and technicians who designed and built the machinery.

I mean, really -- it costs literally nothing to dig ore out of the ground.
Here's a shovel, have fun! Resources are almost free*. It's making use of
it that costs capital (shovels, trucks, separators, smelters..), or labor,
or both. Every process, every product, is value-add!

*A statement itself worthy of argument. Mining sites tend to be low cost
land, and tend not to be widely inhabited... or tend not to cost much to the
local governments to, ahem, relocate said inhabitants. Or in some cases,
can be mined laterally.

Did you know there are hundreds(?) of oil wells in the middle of LA, to this
day? Hidden inside nondescript buildings, they do directional drilling,
slowly extracting the resources under the city. The mineral rights, to
which, probably aren't all that cheap, but I have no idea how long they've
been held; they might well have been a pittance back in the day.

May not work as well in countries with unlimited vertical property rights...

I figured someone would want to trace the history of every bit of work that went into making the copper.

This is where I insert my obligatory link to "I, Pencil"
https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl.html
I apologize that every site needs to give praise and speak of all the
virtues, just page down about 1/3 to the start where it says in large
print,
I, Pencil
By Leonard E. Read

Mikek

However the same analysis can be applied to the hand worked painting.
So this is a degenerate way of looking at the issue... likely from a
degenerate thinker. <grin

No one tried to analyze the cyclical, ultimate labor involved in the process of hand painting starting with the invention of fire which is required to make some of the pigments such as burnt umber.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:mp4fpe17o4vr6nuef6cf1ffpj21i45p4r3@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:05:27 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:ua1fpeliqsdoto4ij3tig41gchhjg5u28r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-
to -electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000
jobs in the next several years according to their own
study.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike
to protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than
they ever did.


John lacks the intelligence to know how the really big companies
operate.

Cincinnati Milacron was non-union throughout its existence.
Other machine tool companies too. Those whom made use of the
machines though (the operators not the owners) were pretty largely
unionized, especially if it was for a bigger player like the auto
guys or say General Electric.

It many times meant a gaurantee of specific skillsets as well.

Still needed in some circles just to keep the riff raff and
fakes
culled.

Still needed in others simply to keep bean counters unable to
see
the value in maintaining their employees' standards of living in
check.

Hourly employees should be considered more of an asset than they
are, and dangling the HUGE pool of able players over one's head as
an excuse for only giving pay increases that do not even cover the
cost of living is as characterless as the horseshit Donald J.
Trump pulls.

We don't have any hourly employees.

A DOPEY, PUNK, KNOW NOTHING JACKASS like you without a fucking clue
has NO BUSINESS opining on what you think the world has matured past
in the realm of labor.

You are a social mental midget, and that is an insult to all mental
midgets.

I rest my case. Until your next intelligence devoid crack.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:17:45 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

I think the vastly increased lifetime and reduced maintenance of vehicles
now as compared to last century has way more influence on the demand
and workforce than the change to electrical vehicles.

We are nearly 20 years into this century. Your comparison is not relevant to the conversation.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 9:51:05 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 04/10/19 12:04, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 7:33:05 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 04/10/19 08:33, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:18:41 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-to-electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000 jobs in the next several years according to their own study.

Electric cars require fewer parts, workers and time to build.

This does not appear to be hype or exaggeration. An engine requires thousands of parts while electrics are hundreds. While material issues need to be solved for EVs to be produced in such quantities, what to do about surplus workers?

35,000 jobs lost in 5 or 10 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Maybe we can employ them making chargers? Soylent green stations.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The issue is what percentage of the fleet will electric vehicles be in the future. My guess is it will be very small, so it will have little effect on the workforce. Also, families will find it very difficult to rely on EV for their sole mode of transportation.

LOL I don't understand why people are in denial about EVs. By "fleet" I assume you mean car production? Talk to Ford who will be introducing new EVs next year. Ford will have a Lincoln SUV as well. In fact, the Ford board fired the CEO in part because he wasn't moving fast enough.

GM is planning to introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.

Isn't it pretty clear that the auto makers are in line for the conversion to EVs?

If you think EVs aren't practical for families you are just kidding yourself.

In the UK 40% of cars are parked on the street without
access to electricity.

That's not an insuperable problem.

But surprisingly difficult in some cases.



My local power distribution company has a published strategy:
https://www.westernpower.co.uk/downloads-view/29293

There are many problematic areas which might or might not be
practical/economic to solve.

For the foreseeable future, this will be a representative
experience:
"A colleague who lives in London did charge his car from
his terraced house and covered the cable, which ran across
the pavement, with basic safety kit to stop passing pedestrians
from tripping up. He okayed everything with his council
but ultimately his neighbours weren't happy and he decided
to give his electric car up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48881117

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.


Conservation areas. Who pays the cost - councils definitely
won't since they haven't got the money for potholes

Of course all such problems will disappear after a no-deal
brexit. (Or more likely we'll have much more urgent problems
so that we don't care about such problems/solutions)



Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.


We aren't that cold.

Not yet. Give it another 50 years and a slowing or end of the Gulf Stream current. Your latitude puts you about even with Hudson Bay. Cold territories indeed.

You might try being a little proactive rather than trying to justify hanging on to the past so hard. It may play out better for the UK.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:15:30 AM UTC-4, Randy Day wrote:

In article <4b7de1d1-fa3e-4798-b652-20bb6e90c2dc@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...

[snip]

Somebody with a better crystal ball would see the council cutting a slot in the pavement, burying the cable and putting a socket into the kerb.

There would be some engineering involved to keep
out road grit, or to prevent shorting when that
street puddle forms after a rainstorm, or when
that ice dam floods your sidewalk during the
spring melt.

Parking meters already have power connections - in Canada you plug your car into them to power the heater that stops the radiator from freezing solid.

Where did you encounter that? As a Canadian, I've
never seen parking meters anywhere in Canada that
allow you to plug in to them. Plus, around here,
they're replacing meters with kiosks you walk to
to pay for your time in your spot.

Most places where parking meters are deployed,
you're not expected to be parked long enough
for your engine to get cold - generally, time
limits are 1/2-2hrs.

Companies with off-street parking provide power
connections for employee vehicles, but not
public/municipal parking facilities.

I don't know about Canada, but in Minnesota I'm told they have them.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 19:12:53 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:mp4fpe17o4vr6nuef6cf1ffpj21i45p4r3@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:05:27 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:ua1fpeliqsdoto4ij3tig41gchhjg5u28r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:07:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:44 am, Rick C wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/gm-strike-highlights-how-shift-
to -electric-cars-puts-future-auto-jobs-at-risk.html

Key Points

Some 48,000 unionized GM workers are on strike.

The shift to electric vehicles could cost the UAW 35,000
jobs in the next several years according to their own
study.


Is there a single instance anywhere in the world where a strike
to protect jobs had the desired effect?

Sylvia.

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than
they ever did.


John lacks the intelligence to know how the really big companies
operate.

Cincinnati Milacron was non-union throughout its existence.
Other machine tool companies too. Those whom made use of the
machines though (the operators not the owners) were pretty largely
unionized, especially if it was for a bigger player like the auto
guys or say General Electric.

It many times meant a gaurantee of specific skillsets as well.

Still needed in some circles just to keep the riff raff and
fakes
culled.

Still needed in others simply to keep bean counters unable to
see
the value in maintaining their employees' standards of living in
check.

Hourly employees should be considered more of an asset than they
are, and dangling the HUGE pool of able players over one's head as
an excuse for only giving pay increases that do not even cover the
cost of living is as characterless as the horseshit Donald J.
Trump pulls.

We don't have any hourly employees.



A DOPEY, PUNK, KNOW NOTHING JACKASS like you without a fucking clue
has NO BUSINESS opining on what you think the world has matured past
in the realm of labor.

You are a social mental midget, and that is an insult to all mental
midgets.

I rest my case. Until your next intelligence devoid crack.

I was in a union once. Well, not really: our boss paid off the union
boss to leave us alone when we went out on ships.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:47:33 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

No, a safety issue or pay 'plan' ought to be negotiated, and if the
'management' is organized and professional, so ought their opposite
number be, across the table. The phrase 'wage slavery' isn't just
hyperbole.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 12:41:48 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 3 Oct 2019 17:56:57 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Rick C wrote...

The shift to electric vehicles could cost
the UAW 35,000 jobs.

An pretty accurate way to evluate jobs is to
look at raw costs. EVs cost more than ICs.
Ultimately that means more labor, up and down
the line. Maybe not UAW jobs, but still jobs.

It will be even fewer after Tesla goes bankrupt.

It is very possible that Tesla will go bankrupt or more likely be bought by a company for their technology. By 2023 Tesla will be facing serious competition from many sides, likely some 40 to 60 alternative BEV models. By 2023 Tesla will most likely be selling the models S, X, 3, Y, Roadster, Truck and Semi. With competition ramping up and competitive charging facilities for non-Teslas being more available, Tesla may find less demand for their cars than a company that size can make profitable. So by 2025 or perhaps a bit later, they might just be swallowed up by a big player.

I hope knowing that brings a ray of sunshine into your otherwise lonely, tiny life.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:47:33 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Globalization has made strikes, and unions, make less sense than they
ever did.

No, a safety issue or pay 'plan' ought to be negotiated, and if the
'management' is organized and professional, so ought their opposite
number be, across the table. The phrase 'wage slavery' isn't just
hyperbole.

If you don't like your job, quit and find a better one. Employers have
to compete for employees.

Who are you to tell the world how to negotiate employment/labor practices? You run your company, let others run theirs. You just love to shoot your mouth off as if you have all the answers and yet you are where you have no stake or impact on most of these issues.

Unions fight the natural market forces. They untimately kill their own
jobs... under 7% now in the private sector. They still fluorish in
government positions, because government has no competition and makes
no profit.

Incidentally, unions didn't "create the weekend." Railroads did.

Unions created proper wages and proper working conditions. In the end workers are as much vested in the proper running of a company as management. They know this and it's one reason why the unions are currently in such a tough spot. They know jobs will have to be cut and they need to find the least painful path forward for the workers that still keeps the factories open.. It's not all about the company.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:57:56 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Phil Allison wrote...

Winfield Hill bulshitted wildly as usual:

I think my case is typical. My car takes
about 6kWh for my 22-mile commute,

** Err - what car is that then, a Prius ?

My car's efficiency is pretty typical.

my house uses about 28kWh/day.

** So more than 1kW continuously ?

By national statistics my wife and I account
for another 25kWh more, at work, stores, infrastructure,

** A figure, plucked right out of his fat arse.

We don't have natural gas on our street, and
use electricity for water heating, stoves,
HVAC system, etc. 27kWh/day per person is a
country-wide total usage statistic for the USA.

** Now for some actual reality:

Assuming overnight charging for 8hrs at 3kW
is the norm - a figure oft quoted by EV makers
- a householder here would get a bill 3 or 4
times the one they get now.

24kWh is enough charge to drive 90 miles. Few
people need to do that every day; if they have
such a long commute, they'd better car pool.

You only gets 4 mi/kWh? I would have expected your car to do better. The model 3 gets 4-5 mi/kWh.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209