Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBronzePickle]

I think that at the moment we've got it roughly as efficient as we can make it. If we do hire more linemen, we're probably going to end up paying more for their service than what we get out of it.
If we hire more freighters, we'll also be paying more cost for not as much better value.
If we try to rebuild the system to be more resistant to weather, it will still put people out of power while everything's changed over, still cost a lot of money, and not necessarily increase efficiency except for the case of a storm.
That said, if we took the time to replace the equipment broken during the storm with the more storm-resistant equipment, just letting the inevitable toll of nature become a point of reform instead of truly adding the expenses into the budget, it might be feasible.

[Virex]

Depends on where your equipment has to come from and how bad the area has been hit. Much of the equipment needed to repair the grid after a major disaster is going to have to be carried by ship or truck from quite a distance (I expect there to be local storages for equipment, but they don't have the capacity to store the amount of equipment and utilities you need in a disaster case). So you're looking at at least 2, maybe even 4 days transport from the production/storage site to the drop-off point near the disaster area. Stuff that has to come by ship, for example cables and towers (it's just not viable to transport all that by truck over large distances, you'd cause all kinds of traffic problems) also needs to be unloaded at a relatively undamaged port and transported by truck, adding another 2 days in a bad case. so you're easily looking at 4 days to a week before you even have all the equipment on-site. Of course some parts of the grid can be restored before that, but in a bad case it's going to take more than week for everything to be back on no matter what way you turn it. And since the grid has to be repaired in a certain order to avoid electrocuting people I don't think you could cut the two-week time down by much. Maybe you can shave off a day, but at what cost? (Note that this is what we call a "back of the envelope" estimation. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but the true value is unlikely to deviate by more than 25%)


If for example a heavily forested area is hit then the bottleneck is no longer the time needed to transport the equipment, but how fast a path can be cleared to everything that needs to be repaired. You just can't carry everything by helicopter, so you'll need to remove downed trees and patch up roads before you can reach the location, which may take weeks in bad cases.

[Andir]

Subjectivity:
People cannot read your mind and understand your words as their ordinary meaning. That you have a subjective, internal meaning inside your mind, doesn't mean people have to read your mind, they can't. Rather it means you have to express this in words....

If you can't read my mind, why do you keep trying?  You assumed I meant that good pay = "glamorous" work.

The Good/Glamorous thing:
I'm not implying anything, western civilization and common usage do. "Among the best paid," jobs are good/glamorous jobs in common usage. Yes or no? The answer is yes.... You've had this problem before on this thread, people will read your words and ascribe the common everyday meaning to them. You know or should know this. Your subjective, internal meaning can't be known by people reading your words. Your readers will be ordinary reasonable people understanding your words in their ordinary reasonable meanings

No.  Glamorous is extravagant.  Sitting on soft chairs.  Glamorous does not equal good.  You can have good work without it being glamorous or terrible.  "A good day's work" does not always mean luxurious/glamorous.

Is "Among the Best Paid," A.) Good, B.) Bad, or C.) Neutral in common usage?

Good, but that doesn't mean the conditions of that work are good.  You are filling in blanks.  You can have terrible pay, but be doing something you love.  Pay =/= condition of work.

Your words, weren't talking about the catagory of the job as "blue or white collar." The only words you have are about the PAY, not the manual or non manual nature of the job.

My words explicitly said "blue collar".  You are reading something else into them.

You saying your comments were about "blue collar" is wrong, because your words and your citation, only go to PAY.... You may subjectively, internally, mean something else, but if so you have failed to describe this outside your mind where the rest of us can read it.

And you filled it in with what you thought instead of asking for more information.  See the problem here?

Avatars:
You brought in avatars as a strawman.

I brought it up as an aside, unrelated to the argument at hand.  (See, the word: "Also" and parenthesis.)

(Also, it would go a long way if your avatar was not a cat bearing teeth....  Freaking Psychology.)

I mean mine as a joke, and most people take it that way, the punchline is "this is why we can't have nice things." Do you think most people actually believe the cat is saying that? No

Good, then when I make a joke about something you find aggressive or has some personal feelings, we can agree that it shouldn't matter to the conversation at hand?  Also, I never said that the cat was saying it.  The words are meaningless to the image it portrays to me.

You're grasping and running out of points so you're attacking my aesthetic choices, which you know have no bearing on this argument. I brought in vector's avatar as an example. The fact that she has pie as an avatar doesn't detract from or add to her arguments.

Vector's avatar actually does bring good thoughts to mind.  I generally treat Vector with respect (as she does to me.)  Probably more so because pie is good.  I've been bitten by cats and I know it hurts like nothing else.  I simply stated that your avatar makes me feel defensive.  Take it or leave it... but don't use it to try to discredit me.

The fact that I have a cat jokingly saying "this is why we can't have nice things." doesn't detract from mine. Most people here have cartoons as avatars, what does that "say about them?"

It makes me think they are young in spirit or age. (depending on the cartoon, some can be edgy and/or sex related.  The cat makes me think you are angry.

This is the same point as the "Good:" header above, that it means something to you doesn't register. Common, Ordinary, Meaning, because I can't read your mind and no one else can either. Until and unless you spell out your thoughts, no one knows what you mean.

I did spell it out.  I said that your avatar (to me) paints a picture of a cat bearing teeth.

[Truean]

I think that at the moment we've got it roughly as efficient as we can make it. If we do hire more linemen, we're probably going to end up paying more for their service than what we get out of it.
If we hire more freighters, we'll also be paying more cost for not as much better value.
If we try to rebuild the system to be more resistant to weather, it will still put people out of power while everything's changed over, still cost a lot of money, and not necessarily increase efficiency except for the case of a storm.
That said, if we took the time to replace the equipment broken during the storm with the more storm-resistant equipment, just letting the inevitable toll of nature become a point of reform instead of truly adding the expenses into the budget, it might be feasible.

Respectfully, I don't necessarily agree with you about not getting enough out of hiring more line workers to restore power sooner, which is the best we can do absent massive infrastructure projects (which perhaps we should do).

Here is only a small portion of what is to be gained by having a faster electrical restoration after blackouts: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/long-power-outages-cost-restaurants-thousands/
Think of all that food being thrown away in warehouses, grocery stores, restaurants, even your own individual refrigerator. That adds up to lots and lots of money.

Here is my thinking economically:

If the cost of the remedy is less than the harm from not using the remedy, then do it.
(Keep in mind, there are feedback effects to hiring more people, who in turn spend their paychecks)

I grant you, this only applies to blackout situations and losses from blackouts, but if the money adds up and you save more by restoring service faster, then why not? It may be a narrow instance, but one with an expensive loss.

Depends on where your equipment has to come from and how bad the area has been hit. Much of the equipment needed to repair the grid after a major disaster is going to have to be carried by ship or truck from quite a distance (I expect there to be local storages for equipment, but they don't have the capacity to store the amount of equipment and utilities you need in a disaster case). So you're looking at at least 2, maybe even 4 days transport from the production/storage site to the drop-off point near the disaster area. Stuff that has to come by ship, for example cables and towers (it's just not viable to transport all that by truck over large distances, you'd cause all kinds of traffic problems) also needs to be unloaded at a relatively undamaged port and transported by truck, adding another 2 days in a bad case. so you're easily looking at 4 days to a week before you even have all the equipment on-site. Of course some parts of the grid can be restored before that, but in a bad case it's going to take more than week for everything to be back on no matter what way you turn it. And since the grid has to be repaired in a certain order to avoid electrocuting people I don't think you could cut the two-week time down by much. Maybe you can shave off a day, but at what cost? (Note that this is what we call a "back of the envelope" estimation. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but the true value is unlikely to deviate by more than 25%)


If for example a heavily forested area is hit then the bottleneck is no longer the time needed to transport the equipment, but how fast a path can be cleared to everything that needs to be repaired. You just can't carry everything by helicopter, so you'll need to remove downed trees and patch up roads before you can reach the location, which may take weeks in bad cases.

This is true and very logistically minded. Whether you upgrade the system or hire more linemen to maintain it or both, the availability, proximity and movement of spare parts is a legitimate concern, especially in remote locations.

I'd say more dispersed spare part repositories might help, but then I'm working on cases about scrap metal theft right now [sigh]. Thus, they would have to be really well watched warehouses to keep the copper thieves from them. I admit I don't currently have an answer to this puzzle at the present time, though I would enjoy thinking on it.

[sluissa]

Here is only a small portion of what is to be gained by having a faster electrical restoration after blackouts: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/long-power-outages-cost-restaurants-thousands/
Think of all that food being thrown away in warehouses, grocery stores, restaurants, even your own individual refrigerator. That adds up to lots and lots of money.

Truean. In this case, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For less than $1000 those restaurants could buy a small gasoline generator which would easily be able to handle their freezer. Stock up on fuel before the storm and they'd be fine. (We ran our generator for more than a week, which powered 2 household freezers with more than enough capacity on less than 100 gallons.)

For a few thousand they could buy one that would be able to run off of the natural gas lines which (likely, if they're a restaurant) run straight to their business. Most of the time those lines aren't disrupted.

[Nadaka]

...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-claims-hurricane-earthquake-were-god-messages-politicians-155051199.html

[Andir]

...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-claims-hurricane-earthquake-were-god-messages-politicians-155051199.html

I hate when people express this kind of "logic".

[Truean]

Subjectivity:
People cannot read your mind and understand your words as their ordinary meaning. That you have a subjective, internal meaning inside your mind, doesn't mean people have to read your mind, they can't. Rather it means you have to express this in words....

If you can't read my mind, why do you keep trying?  You assumed I meant that good pay = "glamorous" work.

The Good/Glamorous thing:
I'm not implying anything, western civilization and common usage do. "Among the best paid," jobs are good/glamorous jobs in common usage. Yes or no? The answer is yes.... You've had this problem before on this thread, people will read your words and ascribe the common everyday meaning to them. You know or should know this. Your subjective, internal meaning can't be known by people reading your words. Your readers will be ordinary reasonable people understanding your words in their ordinary reasonable meanings

No.  Glamorous is extravagant.  Sitting on soft chairs.  Glamorous does not equal good.  You can have good work without it being glamorous or terrible.  "A good day's work" does not always mean luxurious/glamorous.

Is "Among the Best Paid," A.) Good, B.) Bad, or C.) Neutral in common usage?

Good, but that doesn't mean the conditions of that work are good.  You are filling in blanks.  You can have terrible pay, but be doing something you love.  Pay =/= condition of work.

Your words, weren't talking about the catagory of the job as "blue or white collar." The only words you have are about the PAY, not the manual or non manual nature of the job.

My words explicitly said "blue collar".  You are reading something else into them.

You saying your comments were about "blue collar" is wrong, because your words and your citation, only go to PAY.... You may subjectively, internally, mean something else, but if so you have failed to describe this outside your mind where the rest of us can read it.

And you filled it in with what you thought instead of asking for more information.  See the problem here?

Avatars:
You brought in avatars as a strawman.

I brought it up as an aside, unrelated to the argument at hand.  (See, the word: "Also" and parenthesis.)

(Also, it would go a long way if your avatar was not a cat bearing teeth....  Freaking Psychology.)

I mean mine as a joke, and most people take it that way, the punchline is "this is why we can't have nice things." Do you think most people actually believe the cat is saying that? No

Good, then when I make a joke about something you find aggressive or has some personal feelings, we can agree that it shouldn't matter to the conversation at hand?  Also, I never said that the cat was saying it.  The words are meaningless to the image it portrays to me.

You're grasping and running out of points so you're attacking my aesthetic choices, which you know have no bearing on this argument. I brought in vector's avatar as an example. The fact that she has pie as an avatar doesn't detract from or add to her arguments.

Vector's avatar actually does bring good thoughts to mind.  I generally treat Vector with respect (as she does to me.)  Probably more so because pie is good.  I've been bitten by cats and I know it hurts like nothing else.  I simply stated that your avatar makes me feel defensive.  Take it or leave it... but don't use it to try to discredit me.

The fact that I have a cat jokingly saying "this is why we can't have nice things." doesn't detract from mine. Most people here have cartoons as avatars, what does that "say about them?"

It makes me think they are young in spirit or age. (depending on the cartoon, some can be edgy and/or sex related.  The cat makes me think you are angry.

This is the same point as the "Good:" header above, that it means something to you doesn't register. Common, Ordinary, Meaning, because I can't read your mind and no one else can either. Until and unless you spell out your thoughts, no one knows what you mean.

I did spell it out.  I said that your avatar (to me) paints a picture of a cat bearing teeth.

Subjectivity:
Here is what I am saying "Private meaning you ascribe to your words in your mind doesn't register to people reading them." That is the exact opposite of reading your mind, it is stating that what is in your mind isn't registering or relevant, not that I am registering or thinking it is relevant.

Words have ordinary meanings understood by ordinary readers. You must know these if you are to communicate effectively. Ordinary meanings, not what you want them to mean, determine how your words will be read, period. This is something that has repeatedly gotten you in trouble here, I recommend you learn from it.

Glamorous = type of good, high pay = good
First, Glamorous is a type of good, it certainly isn't a type of bad, or neutral. Thus it is a specific type of good. Second, the specific type of good glamorous is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glamorous  "Excitingly attractive."

If glamorous is a type of good, specifically excitingly attractive, and high pay is a type of good, specifically excitingly attractive, then high pay =glamorous.

So high wages are good, and excitingly attractive, and thus glamorous.... The word fits, beautifully.
This is especially true especially after conceding the next point that high wages = good.

High Pay as Good, Bad or Neutral

Is "Among the Best Paid," A.) Good, B.) Bad, or C.) Neutral in common usage?

Good, but that doesn't mean the conditions of that work are good.  You are filling in blanks.  You can have terrible pay, but be doing something you love.  Pay =/= condition of work.

The condition of work is not relevant here, please be so kind as to see next point immediately below:

It's still about you not understanding that you need to use "Common, ordinary meanings"

You saying your comments were about "blue collar" is wrong, because your words and your citation, only go to PAY.... You may subjectively, internally, mean something else, but if so you have failed to describe this outside your mind where the rest of us can read it.

And you filled it in with what you thought instead of asking for more information.  See the problem here?

Please let me illustrate specifically why the common ordinary meaning dictates that your words, whether or not you wanted them to, are not talking about "blue or white collar" but rather would be understood to be talking about pay by the average, ordinary reasonable person.

Also, I believe that line workers are among the best paid "blue collar" jobs that you can get:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos195.htm

First, the words in this sentence have little if anything to do with working conditions. Your "belief," as it is expressed in words in the sentence went to pay. You didn't discuss working conditions, or compare them to other blue collar jobs, or white collar, or anything. You DID NOT SAY, "are among the best treated," or "have the best working conditions of," or anything else like that. You DID SAY "best paid." The comparison word "BEST" modifies "PAID," not "BLUE COLLAR" and thus your words were, to the ordinary reader using common ordinary meaning, talking about and comparing pay. You DID NOT SAY "Best blue collar jobs" YOU SAID "Best Paid 'blue collar' jobs." Thus, if I had to interpret these words in court, like in a contract, I'd say you were talking about pay. I'd win that one, because everything points to "paid" or in a different tense "pay."

What you subjectively in your own head mean, doesn't matter if it contradicts what you write down, because all we see is what you write down. I've had a lot of clients learn this the hard, expensive way.

Avatars:
Again, it doesn't bear on the argument. I could have a bale of hay or anything else. The cat is supposed to be "talking." I dunno. Lots of other people think it's a joke, you don't for some reason. If a picture of a cat seriously makes you think I'm some kind of angry person, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Most people, don't have that impression of me. Sure, the cat's ears are back, but it's trying to get the cat's mouth open to make it look like it is "speaking."

You've had a long history of this happening in thread....

[ChairmanPoo]

For what its worth, I find your avatar funny...

[Vector]

Everyone who is not currently relaxing should cool it.  The thread nowhere says that bickering and biting pieces out of each other is a good idea.

[Luke_Prowler]

...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-claims-hurricane-earthquake-were-god-messages-politicians-155051199.html

Any time I hear someone use "God" in a non-theological argument, I just wanna throw bricks at people.

[Andir]

Subjectivity:
Here is what I am saying "Private meaning you ascribe to your words in your mind doesn't register to people reading them." That is the exact opposite of reading your mind, it is stating that what is in your mind isn't registering or relevant, not that I am registering or thinking it is relevant.

Words have ordinary meanings understood by ordinary readers. You must know these if you are to communicate effectively. Ordinary meanings, not what you want them to mean, determine how your words will be read, period. This is something that has repeatedly gotten you in trouble here, I recommend you learn from it.

I recommend you learn from it.  Do not read into what people write.

Here's the exact post:

There is no practical way for a single municipal vendor to keep enough linemen on call to handle this kind of wide destruction. And even if they did, they would risk loosing their workers and stored materials to storm damage. It really is better to have the material and workers distributed so that they can perform normal work most of the time, but be available to respond en mass to rare destructive events.

Also, I believe that line workers are among the best paid "blue collar" jobs that you can get:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos195.htm

Here's what you thought I was saying:

Your point was, as plainly stated, that line workers were, "among the best paid "blue collar" jobs you can get."

I said:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's because you don't get it. "Most line installers need several years of on-the-job training." Then of course there's the high on the job mortality (death) rate, and the fact that all those electrical fields you're pointing out give you cancer if you're a lineman too, especially so because you're around them all the time, up close and personal.... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/156/10/913.full . Historically it was one of the single worst jobs with 1 out of every 2 linemen dying due to work related causes http://ibew765.org/. Electrocutions were the fifth highest type of work related cause of death in the most recent reports. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-131/ This is the problem with America, people don't know half of what they think they do, look at a website without knowing anything and say "I could do that, they have it pretty good!' Then the next logical step is saying they have it "too good." Then we take stuff away from others who deserve it because we haven't figured out it isn't easy, they are good at their jobs and make it look easy. "It's harder than it looks."

I gave you specific examples of why it is NOT all that great and directly refuted your point with cited answers. You don't get [it] that linemen have a not so glamorous job, and I illustrated points showing that they don't.

(underline emphasis mine)
In that single post there was no mention of work condition.  You implied that I meant well paid == glamorous.  Nadaka was talking about the cost to municipalities.  I added to that.  You interpreted that and added words to my post (my mouth.)  You implied that high pay somehow equated to safe work conditions. (see links)

I said they get paid well.  It could have been taken to mean that that's a greater burden on the municipalities... it could have been taken many ways.  You decided to take the confrontational meaning and tried to pinpoint me as anti-worker.

Glamorous = type of good, high pay = good
First, Glamorous is a type of good, it certainly isn't a type of bad, or neutral. Thus it is a specific type of good. Second, the specific type of good glamorous is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glamorous  "Excitingly attractive."

If glamorous is a type of good, specifically excitingly attractive, and high pay is a type of good, specifically excitingly attractive, then high pay =glamorous.

So high wages are good, and excitingly attractive, and thus glamorous.... The word fits, beautifully.
This is especially true especially after conceding the next point that high wages = good.

High Pay as Good, Bad or Neutral

Is "Among the Best Paid," A.) Good, B.) Bad, or C.) Neutral in common usage?

Good, but that doesn't mean the conditions of that work are good.  You are filling in blanks.  You can have terrible pay, but be doing something you love.  Pay =/= condition of work.

The condition of work is not relevant here, please be so kind as to see next point immediately below:

And now you try to back-pedal and state that this was never about condition of work?  You are trying to weasel your way into the belief that you are not wrong here.

It's still about you not understanding that you need to use "Common, ordinary meanings"

I did.  It was an opinion about the fact that line workers are highly paid.  They are also "blue collar" workers (you like using definitions... Wikipedia is a publicly editable forum where people collaboratively decide on definitions and rules.  If you don't agree with the meaning, feel free to change it.)

A blue-collar worker is a member of the working class who typically performs manual labor and earns an hourly wage. Blue-collar workers are distinguished from those in the service sector and from white-collar workers, whose jobs are not considered manual labor.
Blue-collar work may be skilled or unskilled, and may involve manufacturing, mining, building and construction trades, mechanical work, maintenance, repair and operations maintenance or technical installations. The white-collar worker, by contrast, performs non-manual labor often in an office; and the service industry worker performs labor involving customer interaction, entertainment, retail and outside sales, and the like.

Does it say anything about the danger levels?  You implied that with your post above.

You saying your comments were about "blue collar" is wrong, because your words and your citation, only go to PAY.... You may subjectively, internally, mean something else, but if so you have failed to describe this outside your mind where the rest of us can read it.

And you filled it in with what you thought instead of asking for more information.  See the problem here?

Please let me illustrate specifically why the common ordinary meaning dictates that your words, whether or not you wanted them to, are not talking about "blue or white collar" but rather would be understood to be talking about pay by the average, ordinary reasonable person.

Also, I believe that line workers are among the best paid "blue collar" jobs that you can get:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos195.htm

First, the words in this sentence have little if anything to do with working conditions. Your "belief," as it is expressed in words in the sentence went to pay. You didn't discuss working conditions, or compare them to other blue collar jobs, or white collar, or anything. You DID NOT SAY, "are among the best treated," or "have the best working conditions of," or anything else like that. You DID SAY "best paid." The comparison word "BEST" modifies "PAID," not "BLUE COLLAR" and thus your words were, to the ordinary reader using common ordinary meaning, talking about and comparing pay. You DID NOT SAY "Best blue collar jobs" YOU SAID "Best Paid 'blue collar' jobs." Thus, if I had to interpret these words in court, like in a contract, I'd say you were talking about pay. I'd win that one, because everything points to "paid" or in a different tense "pay."

Right... so why did you bring up work condition?  I'm not sure how you think you "win" anything here.... maybe the ability to twist conversations.

You've had a long history of this happening in thread....

Yep, and you keep presenting it like it's some kind of scarlet letter that will always make you right... when, in fact, you are terribly wrong right now and trying to turn it around.

Everyone who is not currently relaxing should cool it.  The thread nowhere says that bickering and biting pieces out of each other is a good idea.

Perfectly cool here, but I'm being labeled as a bigot and I don't appreciate it.

[Vector]

. . .

I would recommend that people currently involved in this argument step away from the thread for a couple of hours and do something engaging.  Perhaps stroke kittens, knit a scarf, help a granny across the street, or similar.

[kaijyuu]

It's more fun if you help the granny halfway across the street, and let her fend for herself for the remainder.

Any time I hear someone use "God" in a non-theological argument, I just wanna throw bricks at people.

Oh God, me too!


(Just trying to lighten the mood. Ow! Stop poking me with sticks!)

[Virex]

Why throw bricks at people when it's more fun to throw people at bricks?


Anyway, besides the suggestion to knit a scarf for grandma's kitty, you may want to think about why you are arguing. Because most of the arguments seem to be aimed at proving that you're not wrong, which to me seems kind of pointless when you're a.) On the internet and pseudonymous and b.) doing yourself a greater disservice by painting yourself as suborn then by backing down.