Assume for a moment that less guns in public hands means higher levels of public safety. I know that studies have not shown this and there are few data points that even support this, but for the moment, pretend this is so.
Grandfathering is a tool of scoundrels when it comes to gun restrictions. The point of putting gun restrictions in place is usually touted as being for public safety. "It's for the children." "If it saves one child's life its worth it." However, the politicians that propose these laws and then include a grandfather clause show their true colors. The 1994 AWB had a grandfather clause, the SAFE Act and the Colorado laws have grandfather clauses.
As an aside, "grandfathering" got its start as a technique used by Democrats in conjuction with other laws to ensure that whites could vote (because their grandfather did) while blacks couldn't (because they couldn't pass a reading test or pay a poll tax). Since gun control has its roots in racism, I find it appropriate that the technique of grandfathering would be included.
Back to the topic at hand. What are the true colors of politicians who propose such laws? Well, just take a look at what is said to pass the law and what the law does. The law is said to increase public safety because these guns or magazines that are being banned are so much more dangerous than "safe" guns. Yet because of the grandfather clause, the public is allowed to keep the ones that they already own. Furthermore, since many laws don't get enacted for 30 days to 180 days after passage, people are allowed to stock up on the items that will be banned, but aren't yet.
So which is it? If the guns and magazines that are being restricted are so dangerous and public safety will be increased so much more by passage of these restrictions, then why would you allow people to continue to own the firearms in question. If the public is still allowed to own them and stock up on them in the days before the ban starts, then why bother with the ban in the first place?
Put simply, if the politician really cared about public safety and they really thought that restricting certain guns would increase that safety, then they would call for a confiscation. Except they have said they aren't going to confiscate anyone's guns. Which means there is no reason to restrict them in the first place.
Any gun law that has a grandfather clause in it should be voted down by gun control supporters, because it obviously isn't going to increase public safety. However, if control of the populace and not public safety is the chief concern, then vote for it. Vote for everything that restricts the people.
Showing posts with label Societal quirks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Societal quirks. Show all posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
GUN "Almost" FACTS 101: Can Terrorists buy guns in the US?
There is a series of videos from the organization "Protest Easy Guns" titled Gun Facts 101 that can be found on YouTube. Comments are not allowed so originally I had the idea of fisking them with my own video. Alas, that takes way too much time. So I just will do a line by line analysis of the "Almost Facts" (in italics) that are presented. This one is on Terrorists and Guns.
Absolutely, in fact Al Qaida training manuals were found that recommended that potential terrorists acquire weapons inside the United States.
I can’t really deny this. Not because I have seen the training manuals, but because it makes logical sense. Do you know what else makes logical sense? If you are going to operate in Britain, wait until you are in Britain to acquire your weapons (even with their draconian gun laws which don’t seem to keep guns out of the hands of their criminals – as seen by their rising gun crime rates). If you are a terrorist from say Saudi Arabia, and are assigned to carry out a mission in the US which won’t take place for another year, does it make any sense to risk your capture by trying to smuggle weapons into the US (unless you happen to be a professional weapons smuggler)? Or would it make more sense to enter the US with a clean record, and get the weapons needed later (because the only weapon you may need is a boxcutter and they sell those at hardware stores in every one of the 50 states)?
Do you know what else the terrorist training manuals recommend? Blend in. Don’t be overtly “muslim”. Don’t attend mosque. Wear western clothes. Hang out with westerners. Heck, even indulge in some of the western vices like alcohol. So, with this logic, we should be targeting everybody in the US who DOESN’T look like a terrorist.
They specifically mentioned how any type of weapon is available at gun shows.
They would be gravely mistaken then. Probably got that misinformation from the US media though, so it is understandable. Unlike the writers of these terrorist manuals, I have been to gun shows. You can’t buy any type of weapon there. What you can buy are knifes, revolvers, pump shotguns, lever rifles, semi-auto shotguns and rifles, and ammunition. You know the kind of weapons you can buy in sporting goods stores across America. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no C4, not even a fully automatic machine gun.
But what about all of those books that tell you how to convert your semi-auto into a fully automatic bullet hose? Well, have you ever read any of them? Some of them aren’t illegal to do – because they don’t work! Some of them will turn your $500 rifle into a $500 paperweight. And some of them will actually make a fully automatic rifle (its still illegal in the US). Unfortunately, the books don’t tell you which kind they are. And even if they did, there is this wonderful thing called the internet, it is available in nearly every library across the nation – no criminal background check required. And even if the internet wasn’t invented, a basic knowledge of how semi-autos or full autos work will be enough to allow a passably mechanically inclined person to make their own. They make fully automatic weapons with hand tools in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This isn't rocket science people. It is a technology that is older than the moveable type printing press.
In fact around our country we offer a virtual flea market for terrorists because we can buy assault weapons, 50 calibers, concealable assault weapons, handguns, and we offer them whatever they want.
Like boxcutters. In spite of the fact that boxcutters were the weapon of choice in the largest terrorist action in the world, I can still buy them at a dozen places in my city and never have to show an ID. This country also provides a virtual flea market for terrorist who wish to construct explosives or poisonous gas. I know how to make both from components I can buy at any grocery store, and I didn’t even read a terrorist manual.
In fact we offer them conversion kits, so if they want to make their semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons they can buy that here too.
Really? Where are these conversion kits? Does Wal-Mart stock them? I am not saying that people can’t turn their semi-automatics into automatics (which is still illegal), what I am saying is there is not a market that someone can buy a conversion kit off of Ebay and be set to go. Semi-to-full auto conversion kits are sold in this country, both above ground to FFLs that are allowed to make full auto (for law enforcement) and on the black market. Terrorists wouldn’t be going the FFL route since they are not law enforcement. Which leaves the black market. Besides Vatican City, which country doesn’t have a black market?
It just seems absolutely outrageous that at a time when we are taking off our shoes in the security at the airport lines,
Perhaps it is the taking shoes off that is outrageous. There are 700 million airline passengers a year in America. Taking our shoes off and then putting them back on probably only takes 30 seconds on average. That is 5.8 million hours of time. At a wage rate of $20/hour, we are spending minimum of $100 million/ year of lost productivity to do what? There was one instance of a terrorist trying to ignite his shoes on fire (before the taking off of shoes at screening). He was subdued by passengers. In fact every terrorist attack against airlines since 9/11 has been stopped by the passengers on the aircraft. Funny how knowing that you will die changes your perspective and what actions you are willing to take in an emergency.
The TSA likes to brag about all of the weapons that they confiscate in airports each year including loaded guns. However, having read several of the tests that have been done of airport security and the abysmal pass rate, there are probably hundreds or thousands of passengers a day that have something illicit on the airplane. Yet there haven't been an uptick of airplane bombings - because the people have no ill intentions. Likewise before the TSA found all of this stuff, it was likely getting past security and on to planes. Yet there wasn't a rash of airplane bombings before either. Terrorist attacks on airplanes happen to be a rare event both before the TSA and after the TSA.
and just yesterday morning I was pulled aside because I had a tiny bottle of water that I had forgotten about in a bag that I was taking on a plane,
And that tiny bottle of water posed no threat. In fact, it was so dangerous that they simply tossed it in the garbage can near the screening line. Do you know why a terrorist hasn’t just waited for a packed security line and detonated a bomb there. 1) its not flashy enough, terrorists want to get noticed, and right now the gold standard was 9/11 – unless they can top that, they aren’t going to get the publicity they want 2) while it would provide a temporary disruption at that airport, what are we going to do, move the security barrier back farther? 3) we have already disrupted our economy enough with air travel through the TSA, I doubt that attacks at airports would have any other effect.
so we go through all these measures for security and yet terrorists can come here and acquire weapons in great numbers.
"Measures for security" do not mean that security is present, only that there is the outward appearance of doing something. Do you want to see real security? Go to a Las Vegas casino. Except that you won't "see" it. Doesn't mean that it isn't there though.
Part of living in a country of immigrants that is open to visitors is the fact that some of those immigrants or visitors might not have the best of intentions. The only 100% effective way to stop this is to stop all immigration and tourism. I don’t think that is going to work and I happen to like the immigrants and the tourists. Besides, terrorists can come here and acquire gasoline in large volumes. Is there a push to limit the sales of gasoline or even tanker trucks?
And if you put the availability together with the fact that Congress and the current president have long advocated destroying gun background check data after 24 hours
There is the law, which says we will not have a national gun registry, and to meet this law, we destroy the records that could be used to assemble that registry.
that has gotten in the way of law enforcement who have been trying to get leads on potential terrorists and go after them.
Huh? There is no question on the form that you check if you are a terrorist. Terrorists are not buying guns in large numbers. At least not in the US. If they were, we would have had terrorist shootings all the time, instead we have one – which the US government won’t recognize as a terrorist action, and which very well may have been a lone wolf with terrorist sympathies. The federal government has far better databases to check for terrorists – they are called visitor visas.
When the background checks that are conducted when that data is destroyed right away we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists.
No, we are preventing a registry of gun owners from being formed. But using this logic, by not having a background check for boxcutters, we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists. By not asking everyone if they are a terrorist, we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists. There are only a finite number of resources that can be used. It is to our benefit to use those resources in a way that will provide the best results.
So certainly in a time when library records are being looked at with greater scrutiny and other personal information on Americans yet somehow gun information is held sacred and destroyed because nobody can see that.
Perhaps we need to hold more information sacred. Why does the federal government or any government care what library books I check out (besides, this is so easily bypassed by just reading the books in the library and never checking them out)? The outrage shouldn’t be that gun information is held sacred, the outrage should be that all of our personal information is not held sacred. We live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, without a suspicion of guilt and some corroborating evidence, there is no reason for any government agent to go snooping around looking for more evidence of illegal activity.
So again you put that together with the availability and you have a definite destination for terrorists.
No, America is a destination for terrorists because we represent everything they hate. We don’t subscribe to the philosophy that if you don’t follow X group’s interpretation of Y then you are an infidel and deserve to be killed. There is no more better definition of barbarism than that. America has been dragging the rest of the world away from barbarism for a long time – it doesn’t mean we haven’t had our faults or backsliding but the world looks to America as the antithesis of barbarism, otherwise they wouldn’t come running to us when trouble happened. (I mean really, even Great Britain asked us if we would side with them over a second war for the Falklands – thankfully we have said we would stay out of it).
Absolutely, in fact Al Qaida training manuals were found that recommended that potential terrorists acquire weapons inside the United States.
I can’t really deny this. Not because I have seen the training manuals, but because it makes logical sense. Do you know what else makes logical sense? If you are going to operate in Britain, wait until you are in Britain to acquire your weapons (even with their draconian gun laws which don’t seem to keep guns out of the hands of their criminals – as seen by their rising gun crime rates). If you are a terrorist from say Saudi Arabia, and are assigned to carry out a mission in the US which won’t take place for another year, does it make any sense to risk your capture by trying to smuggle weapons into the US (unless you happen to be a professional weapons smuggler)? Or would it make more sense to enter the US with a clean record, and get the weapons needed later (because the only weapon you may need is a boxcutter and they sell those at hardware stores in every one of the 50 states)?
Do you know what else the terrorist training manuals recommend? Blend in. Don’t be overtly “muslim”. Don’t attend mosque. Wear western clothes. Hang out with westerners. Heck, even indulge in some of the western vices like alcohol. So, with this logic, we should be targeting everybody in the US who DOESN’T look like a terrorist.
They specifically mentioned how any type of weapon is available at gun shows.
They would be gravely mistaken then. Probably got that misinformation from the US media though, so it is understandable. Unlike the writers of these terrorist manuals, I have been to gun shows. You can’t buy any type of weapon there. What you can buy are knifes, revolvers, pump shotguns, lever rifles, semi-auto shotguns and rifles, and ammunition. You know the kind of weapons you can buy in sporting goods stores across America. No grenades, no rocket launchers, no C4, not even a fully automatic machine gun.
But what about all of those books that tell you how to convert your semi-auto into a fully automatic bullet hose? Well, have you ever read any of them? Some of them aren’t illegal to do – because they don’t work! Some of them will turn your $500 rifle into a $500 paperweight. And some of them will actually make a fully automatic rifle (its still illegal in the US). Unfortunately, the books don’t tell you which kind they are. And even if they did, there is this wonderful thing called the internet, it is available in nearly every library across the nation – no criminal background check required. And even if the internet wasn’t invented, a basic knowledge of how semi-autos or full autos work will be enough to allow a passably mechanically inclined person to make their own. They make fully automatic weapons with hand tools in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This isn't rocket science people. It is a technology that is older than the moveable type printing press.
In fact around our country we offer a virtual flea market for terrorists because we can buy assault weapons, 50 calibers, concealable assault weapons, handguns, and we offer them whatever they want.
Like boxcutters. In spite of the fact that boxcutters were the weapon of choice in the largest terrorist action in the world, I can still buy them at a dozen places in my city and never have to show an ID. This country also provides a virtual flea market for terrorist who wish to construct explosives or poisonous gas. I know how to make both from components I can buy at any grocery store, and I didn’t even read a terrorist manual.
In fact we offer them conversion kits, so if they want to make their semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons they can buy that here too.
Really? Where are these conversion kits? Does Wal-Mart stock them? I am not saying that people can’t turn their semi-automatics into automatics (which is still illegal), what I am saying is there is not a market that someone can buy a conversion kit off of Ebay and be set to go. Semi-to-full auto conversion kits are sold in this country, both above ground to FFLs that are allowed to make full auto (for law enforcement) and on the black market. Terrorists wouldn’t be going the FFL route since they are not law enforcement. Which leaves the black market. Besides Vatican City, which country doesn’t have a black market?
It just seems absolutely outrageous that at a time when we are taking off our shoes in the security at the airport lines,
Perhaps it is the taking shoes off that is outrageous. There are 700 million airline passengers a year in America. Taking our shoes off and then putting them back on probably only takes 30 seconds on average. That is 5.8 million hours of time. At a wage rate of $20/hour, we are spending minimum of $100 million/ year of lost productivity to do what? There was one instance of a terrorist trying to ignite his shoes on fire (before the taking off of shoes at screening). He was subdued by passengers. In fact every terrorist attack against airlines since 9/11 has been stopped by the passengers on the aircraft. Funny how knowing that you will die changes your perspective and what actions you are willing to take in an emergency.
The TSA likes to brag about all of the weapons that they confiscate in airports each year including loaded guns. However, having read several of the tests that have been done of airport security and the abysmal pass rate, there are probably hundreds or thousands of passengers a day that have something illicit on the airplane. Yet there haven't been an uptick of airplane bombings - because the people have no ill intentions. Likewise before the TSA found all of this stuff, it was likely getting past security and on to planes. Yet there wasn't a rash of airplane bombings before either. Terrorist attacks on airplanes happen to be a rare event both before the TSA and after the TSA.
and just yesterday morning I was pulled aside because I had a tiny bottle of water that I had forgotten about in a bag that I was taking on a plane,
And that tiny bottle of water posed no threat. In fact, it was so dangerous that they simply tossed it in the garbage can near the screening line. Do you know why a terrorist hasn’t just waited for a packed security line and detonated a bomb there. 1) its not flashy enough, terrorists want to get noticed, and right now the gold standard was 9/11 – unless they can top that, they aren’t going to get the publicity they want 2) while it would provide a temporary disruption at that airport, what are we going to do, move the security barrier back farther? 3) we have already disrupted our economy enough with air travel through the TSA, I doubt that attacks at airports would have any other effect.
so we go through all these measures for security and yet terrorists can come here and acquire weapons in great numbers.
"Measures for security" do not mean that security is present, only that there is the outward appearance of doing something. Do you want to see real security? Go to a Las Vegas casino. Except that you won't "see" it. Doesn't mean that it isn't there though.
Part of living in a country of immigrants that is open to visitors is the fact that some of those immigrants or visitors might not have the best of intentions. The only 100% effective way to stop this is to stop all immigration and tourism. I don’t think that is going to work and I happen to like the immigrants and the tourists. Besides, terrorists can come here and acquire gasoline in large volumes. Is there a push to limit the sales of gasoline or even tanker trucks?
And if you put the availability together with the fact that Congress and the current president have long advocated destroying gun background check data after 24 hours
There is the law, which says we will not have a national gun registry, and to meet this law, we destroy the records that could be used to assemble that registry.
that has gotten in the way of law enforcement who have been trying to get leads on potential terrorists and go after them.
Huh? There is no question on the form that you check if you are a terrorist. Terrorists are not buying guns in large numbers. At least not in the US. If they were, we would have had terrorist shootings all the time, instead we have one – which the US government won’t recognize as a terrorist action, and which very well may have been a lone wolf with terrorist sympathies. The federal government has far better databases to check for terrorists – they are called visitor visas.
When the background checks that are conducted when that data is destroyed right away we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists.
No, we are preventing a registry of gun owners from being formed. But using this logic, by not having a background check for boxcutters, we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists. By not asking everyone if they are a terrorist, we are losing an opportunity to go after terrorists. There are only a finite number of resources that can be used. It is to our benefit to use those resources in a way that will provide the best results.
So certainly in a time when library records are being looked at with greater scrutiny and other personal information on Americans yet somehow gun information is held sacred and destroyed because nobody can see that.
Perhaps we need to hold more information sacred. Why does the federal government or any government care what library books I check out (besides, this is so easily bypassed by just reading the books in the library and never checking them out)? The outrage shouldn’t be that gun information is held sacred, the outrage should be that all of our personal information is not held sacred. We live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, without a suspicion of guilt and some corroborating evidence, there is no reason for any government agent to go snooping around looking for more evidence of illegal activity.
So again you put that together with the availability and you have a definite destination for terrorists.
No, America is a destination for terrorists because we represent everything they hate. We don’t subscribe to the philosophy that if you don’t follow X group’s interpretation of Y then you are an infidel and deserve to be killed. There is no more better definition of barbarism than that. America has been dragging the rest of the world away from barbarism for a long time – it doesn’t mean we haven’t had our faults or backsliding but the world looks to America as the antithesis of barbarism, otherwise they wouldn’t come running to us when trouble happened. (I mean really, even Great Britain asked us if we would side with them over a second war for the Falklands – thankfully we have said we would stay out of it).
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Mayor Confused by Article?
Mayor Nutter wants an investigation because of an article? Well, there must be something very controversial so I decided to read the article. Now, having never lived in Philadelphia, I am looking at this as an outsider. In fact, the largest city I ever lived in was Tulsa, and even then, I lived right at the edge of town (or at least at the time it was the edge of town, it has grown since then).
The article about Philadelphia is rather interesting. Let me sum it up some. Philadelphia has gone through a large demographic shift since the 1930s. Some white people have no problem interacting with the black people in their neighborhood. Some white people do. Some black people have no problem interacting with the white people in their neighborhood. Some black people do. So where is the controversy?
This isn't a story about race relations in Philadelphia so much as it is a microcosm of race relations everywhere in the world, throughout the history of the world. Some people don't like to mix with others not of their "race" while others don't mind at all. We look at race as a black/white issue primarily in the US, largely as a relic of our slave history.
But go to Africa and talk among the Tutsis and Hutus. They hate each other. Well, some of them hate each other. To the point that they are willing to slaughter each other. They can see differences between themselves, but I doubt many westerners could.
In the US we like to lump Asians together (because they aren't that large a percentage of our population). But in many cases their families have been in America more than 100 years (which is longer than some of my family has been here) and only genetically resemble their cousins from across the Pacific. Furthermore, try telling a Chinese person they are the same as a Korean or a Japanese (or vice versa), and don't ever think of lumping them in with Thai or Vietnamese.
So what investigation needs to occur? How about none. How about we recognize that some people are different. How about we realize that we don't live in a Utopia. How about those of us who don't care about the color of the next person's skin continue on with life and enjoying each other's company. How about we just leave those that do alone, they are the ones missing out on friendships.
There is nothing controversial about this article. I didn't learn any new general ideas from it. What it did tell me is the specific opinions of several different people around Philadelphia and how they look at race. I wasn't suprised to find that their opinions run a broad spectrum.
The article about Philadelphia is rather interesting. Let me sum it up some. Philadelphia has gone through a large demographic shift since the 1930s. Some white people have no problem interacting with the black people in their neighborhood. Some white people do. Some black people have no problem interacting with the white people in their neighborhood. Some black people do. So where is the controversy?
This isn't a story about race relations in Philadelphia so much as it is a microcosm of race relations everywhere in the world, throughout the history of the world. Some people don't like to mix with others not of their "race" while others don't mind at all. We look at race as a black/white issue primarily in the US, largely as a relic of our slave history.
But go to Africa and talk among the Tutsis and Hutus. They hate each other. Well, some of them hate each other. To the point that they are willing to slaughter each other. They can see differences between themselves, but I doubt many westerners could.
In the US we like to lump Asians together (because they aren't that large a percentage of our population). But in many cases their families have been in America more than 100 years (which is longer than some of my family has been here) and only genetically resemble their cousins from across the Pacific. Furthermore, try telling a Chinese person they are the same as a Korean or a Japanese (or vice versa), and don't ever think of lumping them in with Thai or Vietnamese.
So what investigation needs to occur? How about none. How about we recognize that some people are different. How about we realize that we don't live in a Utopia. How about those of us who don't care about the color of the next person's skin continue on with life and enjoying each other's company. How about we just leave those that do alone, they are the ones missing out on friendships.
There is nothing controversial about this article. I didn't learn any new general ideas from it. What it did tell me is the specific opinions of several different people around Philadelphia and how they look at race. I wasn't suprised to find that their opinions run a broad spectrum.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Recycled Blogging
I started blogging in 2007. Actually, I more started dabbling in blogging. Really, it was mostly just dipping my toe in the water. I wrote two blog posts in 2007. 2008 was a much more productive year, I wrote 9 blog posts. Naturally, back then I didn't have a lot of people reading. Looking over the statistics, it is interesting to see that the vast majority of my posts were read by less than a dozen people.
So, I thought I would be lazy and recycle some of them. Recycling a blog post is easy. Pull it up, up date the information on it. And then slap a new publish date. BAM! New blog post. In case you are one of the 5 people that may have read it in the past, I am not trying to insult you. It has just been a few years, and some of the posts are still relevant today.
And that's OK, because its my blog. And since so few read them the first time, it will probably be new to you anyway!
So, I thought I would be lazy and recycle some of them. Recycling a blog post is easy. Pull it up, up date the information on it. And then slap a new publish date. BAM! New blog post. In case you are one of the 5 people that may have read it in the past, I am not trying to insult you. It has just been a few years, and some of the posts are still relevant today.
And that's OK, because its my blog. And since so few read them the first time, it will probably be new to you anyway!
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
GUN "Almost" FACTS 101: High Capacity Magazines
There is a series of videos from the organization "Protest Easy Guns" titled Gun Facts 101 that can be found on YouTube. Comments are not allowed so originally I had the idea of fisking them with my own video. Alas, that takes way too much time. So I just will do a line by line analysis of the "Almost Facts" (in italics) that are presented. This one is on High Capacity Magazines.
A high capacity magazine is filled with bullets.
Not to start off by being a English grammar junkie, be “A high capacity magazine may be filled with cartridges” would be a more accurate statement. A bullet and a cartridge are not the same thing. A cartridge is a combination of shell, primer, gunpowder, and bullet. Only the bullet comes out the muzzle of the gun (if you have more than the bullet coming out the front end of the gun, then you have some bigger problems to worry about). If you loaded a magazine with bullets, you would have a great paperweight. If you want to look at it from a weapon standpoint it would be a blunt force object, although, there are many cheaper, more available, and more effective alternatives (i.e. rocks). So, if you want a high capacity magazine to be effective, then you need to fill it with cartridges. Also, when you buy a high capacity magazine, there won’t be any cartridges in it. You have to buy those separately. I know, I know, I am nitpicking here, but if your organization is suppose to “educate” people then you open yourself up to nitpicking when you are wrong.
And the number of bullets can be anywhere from say well six is considered rather standard
Actually, there is no such thing as a universal standard. Some handguns have a standard magazine capacity (assuming that a standard magazine fits completely – or nearly completely – into the grip) of 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. Its all a function of the cartridge size, grip width, and grip length. For the most popular sizes of handgun (.380, 9 mm, .40, .45) very few can be purchased with a OEM 6 round capacity or less magazine. For rifles and shotguns it gets even more complicated.
Tubular magazines may hold only two or three rounds, but that is usually because there is a plug taking up the extra space. Why the plug? Because many state laws limit the amount of ammunition loaded into a firearm while hunting. I don’t hunt, so any firearm I own currently or in the future would have such ridiculousness removed so that I can have the maximum designed capacity or greater. Anything less just means I need to reload more when I go to the range. Standard tubular magazines can fit as many cartridges as will fit along the length of the barrel. For a .22 Short, this could be upwards of 20 rounds is an off the shell rifle.
For detachable magazines, the options are nearly limitless (and the standard magazine that is purchased with a firearm is likewise nearly limitless). For instance, the standard image one has of the Tommy Gun is probably with a 50 or 75 round drum magazine.
and that’s basically around the capacity that hunters use.
No, not really. That’s what SOME hunter’s use because they are limited by state laws. And in a lot of cases, hunter's only need one round (particularly if you hunt with a muzzle loader). In some places (or with some calibers), there are no such limits. For instance, there are crazy people who hunt hogs or bears or other wildlife with handguns that have capacities of more than 6 rounds. This is far more sporting than using a rifle at 300 yards, but in this case “more sporting” to me also means more insane. Our primate hunting instincts and skills long since were discarded on our evolutionary journey to the top of the food chain. In any case, hunters use magazines with less than six rounds because A) they only plan on taking 1 shot or B) state law limits them to less than six rounds. The firearm still works the same way with 7-30 rounds in it.
High capacity is considered generally anything above six rounds of bullets as you see in this picture here, in the magazine.
Um, actually, the only time that high capacity magazine was defined in federal legislation (1994 Assault Weapons Ban) the cutoff was set at 10 rounds. More than 10 rounds was considered “high” capacity. New York has now defined it as 7 rounds. But other states have defined it as 15 rounds or 20 rounds, so even the various governments who believe in high capacity magazine limits haven't come to a consensus as to how many that is.
The capacity can go up to 20 rounds, 30 rounds, 40.
I know, isn’t it great! And then if you have a belt-fed weapon it has the same effect of having a 100, 200, 500, 1000 or more round magazine. So, if great hunters only use 1 shot per trip, why have 20, 30, or 40 round magazines? Because everyone who shoots is not a great hunter, or even a hunter period. As mentioned before, “high” capacity magazines allow me to reload less at the range.
This is an example of a magazine in an assault pistol.
you generally will see what folks call banana clips sometimes they’ll use that expression.
Well, if we are talking about third world nations, former eastern bloc countries, communist countries, or terrorists then yes. The “banana clip” (it is really a magazine, not a clip) is a unique feature of the AK-47 and its 7.62 x 39mm derivatives because…..
Because as the number of bullets increase, the magazine kind of comes around in a curved shape.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of cartridges (not bullets). It has to do with the geometry of the cartridge. Most cartridges are straight walled (i.e. the shell is cylindrical). The 7.62x39mm round is tapered (i.e. the shell is conical). The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is straight walled. Sometimes, on their magazines, there will be a slight angle. This angle serves no function in regards to the ammunition, although it may aid when using the magazine as a grip. Personally, I think the designers were just jealous with the total coolness of the AK-47 and wanted to pretend that their weapon was just as cool. Its not. Face it, for all of its backwardness, some good things came out of the Soviet Union. They are primarily limited to the AK-47 and Anna Kournikova. (The Mosin-Nagant was developed in Tsarist Russian so it doesn’t count).
There are also round magazines that can hold even greater than 50 rounds.
These are properly called drum magazines. Having cartridges stacked up in a magazine has practical limits to the amount you can put in. A drum uses a spiral or circular spring to put 50, 75, 100, or 150 rounds in a fairly compact package. For more than this, you basically have to go the belt-fed route.
And the reason that these are so dangerous is that as the Long Island Railroad Shooter showed,
No, the Long Island Railroad Shooter was dangerous, irrespective of whether he had a gun in his hand or a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb (of course then he wouldn’t be called a shooter, but a bomber or an arsonist – either way, he is still a murderer).
when you put a high capacity magazine in a gun you can just keep firing.
…Until your cartridges run out, in which case you need to reload.
It makes it much more difficult for Law Enforcement to take the person down
What makes it difficult for shooters bent on mass murder to be taken down by law enforcement is not the “high” capacity magazine of the shooter, its that the law enforcement personnel are not there when the shooting starts (and usually not there for several minutes after the shooting starts). Gun Free Zones make it more difficult to take a shooter down.
and we end with tragically many more victims when high capacity magazines are used.
Depending on how you define “high” capacity. Using the AWB definition of 10 rounds as the cutoff most mass shootings were accomplished with low capacity magazines. Even when a weapon was used that had a "high capacity" magazine (such as Aurora, Newtown, or Virginia Tech), the shooter also used another weapon which did not have a "high capacity" magazine. In most of these mass shootings, the perpetrator had several (in some cases dozens) of magazines and did frequent reloads to the point that even though a "high capacity" magazine may have been used, it was reloaded before being fully expended. In other words, a low capacity magazine could have been substituted just as easily.
So when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in the United States in ’04, the ban on high capacity magazines also expired.
Of course, the ban didn’t actually ban the magazines. It just banned the manufacture of new magazines. All of the old magazines were still legal to own, sell, and use.
So it’s only in a few localities where that ban exists.
Massachusetts and New York have been known recently as the keepers of Liberty. Oh wait, I was thinking about the beginning of the country. Recently, Massachusetts and New York have been the epitome of the nanny state. Unsuprisingly, comparing crime in areas that have the ban and don't have the ban has shown that it has done nothing to decrease crime or mass shootings.
So in most of the United States it is now legal to purchase high capacity magazines.
It’s also legal to purchase “high” capacity gasoline vehicles. You don’t even need a driver’s license to go fill up two five gallon gas cans. Flour is sold in 50 lb bags to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Matches are given away like candy. Bleach and Ammonia can be found in most every grocery store in the US and aren’t even in locked cabinets (in most cases there isn’t even a foil seal on them).
And this is good, because a criminal justice system that is focused on the object rather than the person will provide little justice and breed more criminals.
A high capacity magazine is filled with bullets.
Not to start off by being a English grammar junkie, be “A high capacity magazine may be filled with cartridges” would be a more accurate statement. A bullet and a cartridge are not the same thing. A cartridge is a combination of shell, primer, gunpowder, and bullet. Only the bullet comes out the muzzle of the gun (if you have more than the bullet coming out the front end of the gun, then you have some bigger problems to worry about). If you loaded a magazine with bullets, you would have a great paperweight. If you want to look at it from a weapon standpoint it would be a blunt force object, although, there are many cheaper, more available, and more effective alternatives (i.e. rocks). So, if you want a high capacity magazine to be effective, then you need to fill it with cartridges. Also, when you buy a high capacity magazine, there won’t be any cartridges in it. You have to buy those separately. I know, I know, I am nitpicking here, but if your organization is suppose to “educate” people then you open yourself up to nitpicking when you are wrong.
And the number of bullets can be anywhere from say well six is considered rather standard
Actually, there is no such thing as a universal standard. Some handguns have a standard magazine capacity (assuming that a standard magazine fits completely – or nearly completely – into the grip) of 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. Its all a function of the cartridge size, grip width, and grip length. For the most popular sizes of handgun (.380, 9 mm, .40, .45) very few can be purchased with a OEM 6 round capacity or less magazine. For rifles and shotguns it gets even more complicated.
Tubular magazines may hold only two or three rounds, but that is usually because there is a plug taking up the extra space. Why the plug? Because many state laws limit the amount of ammunition loaded into a firearm while hunting. I don’t hunt, so any firearm I own currently or in the future would have such ridiculousness removed so that I can have the maximum designed capacity or greater. Anything less just means I need to reload more when I go to the range. Standard tubular magazines can fit as many cartridges as will fit along the length of the barrel. For a .22 Short, this could be upwards of 20 rounds is an off the shell rifle.
For detachable magazines, the options are nearly limitless (and the standard magazine that is purchased with a firearm is likewise nearly limitless). For instance, the standard image one has of the Tommy Gun is probably with a 50 or 75 round drum magazine.
and that’s basically around the capacity that hunters use.
No, not really. That’s what SOME hunter’s use because they are limited by state laws. And in a lot of cases, hunter's only need one round (particularly if you hunt with a muzzle loader). In some places (or with some calibers), there are no such limits. For instance, there are crazy people who hunt hogs or bears or other wildlife with handguns that have capacities of more than 6 rounds. This is far more sporting than using a rifle at 300 yards, but in this case “more sporting” to me also means more insane. Our primate hunting instincts and skills long since were discarded on our evolutionary journey to the top of the food chain. In any case, hunters use magazines with less than six rounds because A) they only plan on taking 1 shot or B) state law limits them to less than six rounds. The firearm still works the same way with 7-30 rounds in it.
High capacity is considered generally anything above six rounds of bullets as you see in this picture here, in the magazine.
Um, actually, the only time that high capacity magazine was defined in federal legislation (1994 Assault Weapons Ban) the cutoff was set at 10 rounds. More than 10 rounds was considered “high” capacity. New York has now defined it as 7 rounds. But other states have defined it as 15 rounds or 20 rounds, so even the various governments who believe in high capacity magazine limits haven't come to a consensus as to how many that is.
The capacity can go up to 20 rounds, 30 rounds, 40.
I know, isn’t it great! And then if you have a belt-fed weapon it has the same effect of having a 100, 200, 500, 1000 or more round magazine. So, if great hunters only use 1 shot per trip, why have 20, 30, or 40 round magazines? Because everyone who shoots is not a great hunter, or even a hunter period. As mentioned before, “high” capacity magazines allow me to reload less at the range.
This is an example of a magazine in an assault pistol.
And this is an example of a cute cuddly sidearm. See its pink!
An assault rifle generally has a magazine that hangs down
Unless it comes out the side, or the top, or contained within the pistol grip, or is belt fed like I mentioned above. All of these configurations have their advantages and disadvantages. All of them have varying capacities.
and ones that we have seen in photos from the Iraq war we see a lot of soldiers with them
That is because soldiers shoot their guns a lot in combat (just like I shoot my guns a lot at the range – except that I am not trying to kill anyone and no one is shooting back). So it would make no sense to reload after six rounds. These photos are not limited to the Iraq War. Any war since the beginning of the 20th Century has featured “high” capacity magazines (they have also featured a lot of “low” capacity magazines).you generally will see what folks call banana clips sometimes they’ll use that expression.
Well, if we are talking about third world nations, former eastern bloc countries, communist countries, or terrorists then yes. The “banana clip” (it is really a magazine, not a clip) is a unique feature of the AK-47 and its 7.62 x 39mm derivatives because…..
Because as the number of bullets increase, the magazine kind of comes around in a curved shape.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of cartridges (not bullets). It has to do with the geometry of the cartridge. Most cartridges are straight walled (i.e. the shell is cylindrical). The 7.62x39mm round is tapered (i.e. the shell is conical). The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is straight walled. Sometimes, on their magazines, there will be a slight angle. This angle serves no function in regards to the ammunition, although it may aid when using the magazine as a grip. Personally, I think the designers were just jealous with the total coolness of the AK-47 and wanted to pretend that their weapon was just as cool. Its not. Face it, for all of its backwardness, some good things came out of the Soviet Union. They are primarily limited to the AK-47 and Anna Kournikova. (The Mosin-Nagant was developed in Tsarist Russian so it doesn’t count).
There are also round magazines that can hold even greater than 50 rounds.
These are properly called drum magazines. Having cartridges stacked up in a magazine has practical limits to the amount you can put in. A drum uses a spiral or circular spring to put 50, 75, 100, or 150 rounds in a fairly compact package. For more than this, you basically have to go the belt-fed route.
And the reason that these are so dangerous is that as the Long Island Railroad Shooter showed,
No, the Long Island Railroad Shooter was dangerous, irrespective of whether he had a gun in his hand or a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb (of course then he wouldn’t be called a shooter, but a bomber or an arsonist – either way, he is still a murderer).
when you put a high capacity magazine in a gun you can just keep firing.
…Until your cartridges run out, in which case you need to reload.
It makes it much more difficult for Law Enforcement to take the person down
What makes it difficult for shooters bent on mass murder to be taken down by law enforcement is not the “high” capacity magazine of the shooter, its that the law enforcement personnel are not there when the shooting starts (and usually not there for several minutes after the shooting starts). Gun Free Zones make it more difficult to take a shooter down.
and we end with tragically many more victims when high capacity magazines are used.
Depending on how you define “high” capacity. Using the AWB definition of 10 rounds as the cutoff most mass shootings were accomplished with low capacity magazines. Even when a weapon was used that had a "high capacity" magazine (such as Aurora, Newtown, or Virginia Tech), the shooter also used another weapon which did not have a "high capacity" magazine. In most of these mass shootings, the perpetrator had several (in some cases dozens) of magazines and did frequent reloads to the point that even though a "high capacity" magazine may have been used, it was reloaded before being fully expended. In other words, a low capacity magazine could have been substituted just as easily.
So when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in the United States in ’04, the ban on high capacity magazines also expired.
Of course, the ban didn’t actually ban the magazines. It just banned the manufacture of new magazines. All of the old magazines were still legal to own, sell, and use.
So it’s only in a few localities where that ban exists.
Massachusetts and New York have been known recently as the keepers of Liberty. Oh wait, I was thinking about the beginning of the country. Recently, Massachusetts and New York have been the epitome of the nanny state. Unsuprisingly, comparing crime in areas that have the ban and don't have the ban has shown that it has done nothing to decrease crime or mass shootings.
So in most of the United States it is now legal to purchase high capacity magazines.
It’s also legal to purchase “high” capacity gasoline vehicles. You don’t even need a driver’s license to go fill up two five gallon gas cans. Flour is sold in 50 lb bags to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Matches are given away like candy. Bleach and Ammonia can be found in most every grocery store in the US and aren’t even in locked cabinets (in most cases there isn’t even a foil seal on them).
And this is good, because a criminal justice system that is focused on the object rather than the person will provide little justice and breed more criminals.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Hollywood is a Dump!
Not all of Hollywood mind you (I haven't been to most of it), just the Hollywood Boulevard. The place made famous by having stars of the stars in the sidewalk. I was in LA for a business trip and some friends and I went up to Hollywood.
Coming out of the Hollywood and Highland Metro station, we immediately saw the stars on the walk of fame. The first corner had a Frederick's of Hollywood, so there really is a place, not just randomly named stores in malls across America. It went downhill from there.
Walking East, we were met with following 6 types of businesses:
1) Lingerie shops, none of which looked as classy as Frederick's
2) Smoke shops (and I should include Marijuana Clinics in this as well - I was told by the worker that it was legal and he could get me a doctor's referal if needed)
3) Tattoo parlors (sometimes as part of a lingerie shop or smoke shop or both)
4) Mom & Pop restaurants (we never went in one of these, but they might be good)
5) Tour companies to take you around and see the homes of the stars
6) Scientology shops/temples/recruit centers, I don't know what you would call them, but when the front window is covered with 1000 copies of the same L. Ron Hubbard book it has something to do with Scientology
The further East we went, the seedier it looked. By Hollywood and Vine, we turned back on the other side of the street. Same stuff. There are three things on Hollywood Blvd that don't look like dumps. The TCL Chinese Theater (with all of the concrete handprints), across from this the El Capitan Theater (owned by Disney - they were getting ready for the premiere of The Great and Powerful Oz that night) and the semi shopping mall/strip mall next to these.
Everything else looks like you wouldn't want to be there after dark. Except for the stars, they do look pretty cool.
Coming out of the Hollywood and Highland Metro station, we immediately saw the stars on the walk of fame. The first corner had a Frederick's of Hollywood, so there really is a place, not just randomly named stores in malls across America. It went downhill from there.
Walking East, we were met with following 6 types of businesses:
1) Lingerie shops, none of which looked as classy as Frederick's
2) Smoke shops (and I should include Marijuana Clinics in this as well - I was told by the worker that it was legal and he could get me a doctor's referal if needed)
3) Tattoo parlors (sometimes as part of a lingerie shop or smoke shop or both)
4) Mom & Pop restaurants (we never went in one of these, but they might be good)
5) Tour companies to take you around and see the homes of the stars
6) Scientology shops/temples/recruit centers, I don't know what you would call them, but when the front window is covered with 1000 copies of the same L. Ron Hubbard book it has something to do with Scientology
The further East we went, the seedier it looked. By Hollywood and Vine, we turned back on the other side of the street. Same stuff. There are three things on Hollywood Blvd that don't look like dumps. The TCL Chinese Theater (with all of the concrete handprints), across from this the El Capitan Theater (owned by Disney - they were getting ready for the premiere of The Great and Powerful Oz that night) and the semi shopping mall/strip mall next to these.
Everything else looks like you wouldn't want to be there after dark. Except for the stars, they do look pretty cool.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Let's Pay Teachers What They are Worth (exactly what we are paying them now)
The most popular post that I have by far is about mothers not being worth $100,000. It probably made some people mad, but my wife and mother still talk to me. So today, I am going to tackle another shibboleth. Teachers, specifically public school teachers. I attended school in 4 different districts growing up. If there was one universal theme that I remember from all of them, it is that teachers weren't paid enough. They even went on strike one day, for the children.
I have several friends who are teachers. If there is one universal theme that can be had from them it is that teachers aren't paid enough. So, I feel safe in saying that for the last 30-50 years, teachers don't think they are paid enough. I say that is a big fat pile of steaming cow dung. Before you tar and feather me, hear me out first. One piece of glurge you may have received in you inbox is this diatribe:
Someone was having a little fun and tried their hand at sarcasm. Of course in their zeal to make teaching look like a simple business where they are getting shafted by averaging $50K a year while giving services worth $105K made me laugh. Whoever wrote this failed any business classes they took. If you are going to do a teacher=business comparison, you have to go the whole way. So to start with I put the above numbers into a spreadsheet:
No, funny math, I agree that their calculations are correct. For the total revenue. Except that I thought I would adjust it a bit. First off, I am not a scrooge, so I'll pay them for a full 8 hours (there are lots of full time jobs that don't pay for the casual overtime you put in so I'm not shorting teachers any more than society is shorting other non-hourly workers). I am also going to pay them for 20 extra days in the year, so 200 days total work days.
Now the per kid charge I have to disagree with. Since the author uses babysitting as the yardstick, I'll do the same. Most babysitters (and day cares) have a first child charge, and then it is discounted for each additional child. Now normally they do this by family, but in this case, people are not individually choosing the teacher, the state is. So I'll assume that the state gets billed $5 for the first child and $2 for each additional child.
So, my analysis looks a little different, but close enough for a starting point:
If you are satisfied with that, then pat yourself on the back and keep believing that the average public school teacher is worth $100,000. Except remember, we are comparing this to a business, so the teacher is a revenue source, none of the expenses have been added in. The building space can be looked at similar to office building prices (especially since you have use of the library, cafeteria, and playground). School supplies are needed for each student including textbooks, computers, library books, etc. There are support staff that handle all of the office stuff and janitors who clean up. Administrators are needed (because everyone needs a boss). Teachers do get a sweet deal in benefits, thanks to the unions negotiations. So, here is what I think is reasonable (if you disagree, give me some information of why you do, and I'll change the numbers around):
Uh-oh. $34,400 is a lot less than the $50,000 average. But even then, these numbers aren't realistic. According to the Census Bureau, there are roughly 55 million K-12 students and only 3 million K-8 teachers. To be conservative, lets ignore the high school teachers. That is only 19 students per teacher, not 30. If we assumed another 1 million high school teachers than we drop down to 14 students per teacher (coincidentally, I had several classes that had this few students and a couple with even less). So, to be realistic, I'll cut the number of students to 20.
Teachers that I know also put in more than 8 hours a day, so I'll assume an average of 9. Plus I'll assume they work an average of 220 days a year. I'll keep the $5/$2 split for kids, except that we have one more expense to add in if we are going to stay with the babysitting motif. Day cares have a minimum number of staff required for the number of kids - somewhere around 1:7. So, in each classroom, a fine needs to be assessed, per student, per day for the overage.
So, just from a babysitting perspective, each teacher should be paying $40K for the privilege to babysit. But as the author pointed out, your kids get an education too! Well, hopefully, in too many cases you don't. So look at it as a teacher has to be providing at least $90K worth of information/training/mentoring in their job in order to be paid an average of $50K. If not you are a drag on society. $90K is a lot of information (particularly in this digital age).
But don't get on your high horse just yet. Check out some publicly traded companies revenue and divide that by the number of employees and you will find that many of them average $150-300K of revenue per employee (and their employees are not making more than teachers on average). That's a lot more than the above hypothetical teacher is bringing in.
So, teachers get paid what they are worth, sort of. Most of them operating under union contracts get paid by seniority regardless of how well they teach. Private school teachers, on average, get paid less and have less benefits than public school teachers, but you don't hear them complaining. My wife and I home school our kids. As part of it, the school district has the come for half a day once a week to meet state progress requirements. The kids don't get assignments or tests from this half a day, it is just fun learning art, music, PE, and science. Talking with the teachers, they love the job. It has all the positives of being a teacher - seeing kids grow and develop, teaching what they like, involved parents; with none of the negatives - grading papers, teaching to a test, parents that don't care.
If you are a teacher and are not getting paid what you think you are worth, did you not realize this before getting into teaching? Like I said, this complaint has been going on for more than 30 years. The US has put a value on teaching our kids at $50K per year average. If you want to make more than that, practice putting a ball through a net or hitting it with a stick. Society values those people who do it best at around $750K per year (just be aware that if you are only almost the best at those skills, society only values it at around $6K per year, so maybe teaching isn't so bad after all). You're all adults now. Live with your decision, or change your circumstances. Just stop the whining about how unfair it is.
I have several friends who are teachers. If there is one universal theme that can be had from them it is that teachers aren't paid enough. So, I feel safe in saying that for the last 30-50 years, teachers don't think they are paid enough. I say that is a big fat pile of steaming cow dung. Before you tar and feather me, hear me out first. One piece of glurge you may have received in you inbox is this diatribe:
Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year. It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit. We can get that for less than minimum wage.
That’s right. Let’s give them $3 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year. I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET’S SEE…That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on. My calculator needs new batteries.)
What about those special education teachers and the ones with master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here. There sure is.
The average teacher’s salary (nationwide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student– a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!)
WHAT A DEAL!
Someone was having a little fun and tried their hand at sarcasm. Of course in their zeal to make teaching look like a simple business where they are getting shafted by averaging $50K a year while giving services worth $105K made me laugh. Whoever wrote this failed any business classes they took. If you are going to do a teacher=business comparison, you have to go the whole way. So to start with I put the above numbers into a spreadsheet:
| Students | 30 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | $3.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | $3.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 |
| Days per year | 180 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 |
No, funny math, I agree that their calculations are correct. For the total revenue. Except that I thought I would adjust it a bit. First off, I am not a scrooge, so I'll pay them for a full 8 hours (there are lots of full time jobs that don't pay for the casual overtime you put in so I'm not shorting teachers any more than society is shorting other non-hourly workers). I am also going to pay them for 20 extra days in the year, so 200 days total work days.
Now the per kid charge I have to disagree with. Since the author uses babysitting as the yardstick, I'll do the same. Most babysitters (and day cares) have a first child charge, and then it is discounted for each additional child. Now normally they do this by family, but in this case, people are not individually choosing the teacher, the state is. So I'll assume that the state gets billed $5 for the first child and $2 for each additional child.
So, my analysis looks a little different, but close enough for a starting point:
| Reputo | ||
| Students | 30 | 30 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | 3 | $5.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | 3 | $2.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 | $63.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 | 8 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 | $504.00 |
| Days per year | 180 | 200 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 | $100,800.00 |
If you are satisfied with that, then pat yourself on the back and keep believing that the average public school teacher is worth $100,000. Except remember, we are comparing this to a business, so the teacher is a revenue source, none of the expenses have been added in. The building space can be looked at similar to office building prices (especially since you have use of the library, cafeteria, and playground). School supplies are needed for each student including textbooks, computers, library books, etc. There are support staff that handle all of the office stuff and janitors who clean up. Administrators are needed (because everyone needs a boss). Teachers do get a sweet deal in benefits, thanks to the unions negotiations. So, here is what I think is reasonable (if you disagree, give me some information of why you do, and I'll change the numbers around):
| Reputo | ||
| Building Rental per month (includes heating, cooling, plumbing, maintenance, grounds keeping, use of library, cafeteria, and gym facilities) | $0.00 | $2,000.00 |
| School Supplies per student per month (paper, pencils, computers, curriculum, testing, library books, PE equipment, etc.) | $0.00 | $200.00 |
| Support Staff (1@ $40,000 per 4 teachers) | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Administrator (1 @ $100,000 per 20 teachers) | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Benefits (Pension, health insurance, employer portion SS/Medicare, etc.) | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Total Expenses | $0.00 | $66,400.00 |
| Salary of Teacher | $105,300.00 | $34,400.00 |
Uh-oh. $34,400 is a lot less than the $50,000 average. But even then, these numbers aren't realistic. According to the Census Bureau, there are roughly 55 million K-12 students and only 3 million K-8 teachers. To be conservative, lets ignore the high school teachers. That is only 19 students per teacher, not 30. If we assumed another 1 million high school teachers than we drop down to 14 students per teacher (coincidentally, I had several classes that had this few students and a couple with even less). So, to be realistic, I'll cut the number of students to 20.
Teachers that I know also put in more than 8 hours a day, so I'll assume an average of 9. Plus I'll assume they work an average of 220 days a year. I'll keep the $5/$2 split for kids, except that we have one more expense to add in if we are going to stay with the babysitting motif. Day cares have a minimum number of staff required for the number of kids - somewhere around 1:7. So, in each classroom, a fine needs to be assessed, per student, per day for the overage.
| Reputo | Realistic | ||
| Students | 30 | 30 | 20 |
| 1st Student (per hour rate) | 3 | $5.00 | $5.00 |
| Additional Students (per hour rate) | 3 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Hourly Rate | $90.00 | $63.00 | $43.00 |
| Hours worked per day | 6.5 | 8 | 9 |
| Billed amount per day | $585.00 | $504.00 | $387.00 |
| Days per year | 180 | 200 | 220 |
| Total Classroom Revenue | $105,300.00 | $100,800.00 | $85,140.00 |
| Building Rental per month (includes heating, cooling, plumbing, maintenance, grounds keeping, use of library, cafeteria, and gym facilities) | $0.00 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 |
| School Supplies per student per month (paper, pencils, computers, curriculum, testing, library books, PE equipment, etc.) | $0.00 | $200.00 | $200.00 |
| Support Staff (1@ $40,000 per 4 teachers) | $0.00 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Administrator (1 @ $100,000 per 20 teachers) | $0.00 | $5,000.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Benefits (Pension, health insurance, employer portion SS/Medicare, etc.) | $0.00 | $25,000.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Total Expenses | $0.00 | $66,400.00 | $66,400.00 |
| Salary of Teacher | $105,300.00 | $34,400.00 | $18,740.00 |
| Fine for violating 1 adult per 7 children ($25/person/day) | $58,500.00 | ||
| Actual Salary of Teacher | -$39,760.00 |
So, just from a babysitting perspective, each teacher should be paying $40K for the privilege to babysit. But as the author pointed out, your kids get an education too! Well, hopefully, in too many cases you don't. So look at it as a teacher has to be providing at least $90K worth of information/training/mentoring in their job in order to be paid an average of $50K. If not you are a drag on society. $90K is a lot of information (particularly in this digital age).
But don't get on your high horse just yet. Check out some publicly traded companies revenue and divide that by the number of employees and you will find that many of them average $150-300K of revenue per employee (and their employees are not making more than teachers on average). That's a lot more than the above hypothetical teacher is bringing in.
So, teachers get paid what they are worth, sort of. Most of them operating under union contracts get paid by seniority regardless of how well they teach. Private school teachers, on average, get paid less and have less benefits than public school teachers, but you don't hear them complaining. My wife and I home school our kids. As part of it, the school district has the come for half a day once a week to meet state progress requirements. The kids don't get assignments or tests from this half a day, it is just fun learning art, music, PE, and science. Talking with the teachers, they love the job. It has all the positives of being a teacher - seeing kids grow and develop, teaching what they like, involved parents; with none of the negatives - grading papers, teaching to a test, parents that don't care.
If you are a teacher and are not getting paid what you think you are worth, did you not realize this before getting into teaching? Like I said, this complaint has been going on for more than 30 years. The US has put a value on teaching our kids at $50K per year average. If you want to make more than that, practice putting a ball through a net or hitting it with a stick. Society values those people who do it best at around $750K per year (just be aware that if you are only almost the best at those skills, society only values it at around $6K per year, so maybe teaching isn't so bad after all). You're all adults now. Live with your decision, or change your circumstances. Just stop the whining about how unfair it is.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Soda Ban Unintended Consequences
So one of the unintended consequences of the Soda Ban in New York City is that you can't get a 2 Liter bottle of regular coke with your pizza. Apparently a 2 Liter bottle of Diet Coke is OK though. Also, no more pitchers of root beer at birthday parties - because you know it is too tempting for some little kid to just down the whole thing. However, if you go to your local grocery store, you can by 2-liter bottles of Coke (and Mountain Dew) until they run out and order more. Just don't buy them from Dominoes. It is times like these that I am glad I don't live in New York City and wonder why 8 million people still do. But then again, they elected Bloomberg, so they got what they wanted.
I looked at the regulation a little more and found out something. First off, the regulation specifically defines a "sugary drink" as meeting these 4 criteria:
1) Non-alcoholic (so if you are worried about not getting your giant margarita in a 20 oz glass, don't its perfectly legal - unless its a virgin margarita!)
2) Sweetened by manufacturer or establishment with a caloric sweetener (hence the reason Diet Coke is kosher, but regular Coke is not - to say nothing of Mexican Coke which uses real sugar and probably would cause the entire city of New York to go into diabetic shock)
3) More than 25 calories per 8 oz serving
4) Does not contain more than 50% milk or milk substitute
I deal with government regulation on a daily basis. This one is a beauty. There are some obvious work arounds here. So let me use the USDA Nutrition database for some examples of what is legal and illegal. Since a "sugary drink" has to meet all four criteria, as long as we don't meet one criteria, then we're good to go.
Criteria 4 is the first hit. If I have a glass of milk, it can be as big as I want it (because it is more than 50% milk). So, milk is legal. In all of its varieties. Milk, Chocolate Milk, Strawberry Milk, etc. Do you understand that. Milk has 130 calories per serving. Skim milk has 90 calories per serving. Both of them have 50 calories from sugars per 8 oz serving. And since they are more than 50% milk, criteria 4 is not met, therefore, I can order a 2 Liter bottle of milk from Pizza Hut or McDonald's and they can sell it to me without fear of being fined.
Which means Chocolate milk is also legal. Because it is more than 50% milk (unless you use a whole crap ton of Hershey's syrup, in which case, just drink the syrup). So chocolate milk with 200 calories per serving (100 of them from sugar, 50 calories from added sugar) is also legitimate. But a 16.1 oz bottle of Mountain Dew is worth a fine.
Now Eggnog is a bit of a quandry. If it is alcoholic, then it is legal (Criteria 1). If it is the non-alcoholic kind, though, we might have issues. In a typical recipe I have seen, you have a pint of milk, a 1/3 cup of sugar, 4 eggs, and a cup of heavy cream. Now if we can count the heavy cream as milk, then we are safe. If however it doesn't count as milk, then we are going to be cutting it close. A pint is two cups, one cup of cream means 4 eggs and 1/3 cup of sugar have to be less than 1 cup. Maybe if they are small eggs. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say non-alcoholic eggnog is illegal to sell in greater than 16 oz cups. We can call this the Virgin Margharita Loophole. From a health standpoint, the non-alcoholic beverage has to be better for you, yet the city has chosen to leave the alcoholic beverage legal.
Fruit Juice is also OK. And Vegetable Juice. I looked through the nutrition database and obviously numbers vary, but every single fruit or vegetable juice I could find had more than 25 calories (usually a lot more) per 8 oz serving. But since the manufacturer is not adding the sugar (Criteria 2), they are perfectly legal.
Lemon juice in particular, is OK. But Lemonade is NOT! Because they have to add sugar. So, lemon juice with 54 calories per 8 oz serving = good, but lemonade with 106 calories per 8 oz serving = bad. But Chocolate milk at 200 calories per 8 oz serving = good. (Don't ask me what geniuses figured this out.)
Most soft drinks (that aren't diet) have around 100 calories per 8 oz serving. Less than what normal milk has and about the same as Fruit juice. But they are banned from being served in a size greater than 16 oz.
Now with any amount of regulation, people will find ways around it. So let me share mine.
1) Drink more milk. It is ridiculous that the pizza company can't deliver a 2 liter bottle of Coke, but they can send over a gallon jug of chocolate milk.
2) Add alcohol to everything. This could revolutionize the industry, although I admit some combinations might not be appetizing. In college, one of my dorm mates wanted to have a Root Beer - Beer mix. This was after he had already had a few beers. He said it didn't taste that good, and he was inebriated - imagine if you try this sober!
3) Sell components. Have a packet of Coke syrup to be added to a 2 Liter bottle of carbonated water.
4) Stock up on those miny sugar packets and sell unsweetened (not even artificial sweetener) drinks. People will quickly catch on to how many packets are needed for a pitcher. It is ridiculous that you can't sell the customer a 2 liter bottle of coke, but if they have a cup of coffee and like it REALLY sweet, they are allowed to add as many packets of sugar as the establishment stocks.
5) When people order a self serve drink cup, give them two. One for ice and one for the drink. Then they have their full 16 oz of drink and can pour it over the ice as needed.
6) Move out of New York City. Come on, 300 million people in this country don't live in New York City, and yet we get along fine with our lives. Some of us don't even drink sugary drinks that often.
Except Eggnog. I love Eggnog!
I looked at the regulation a little more and found out something. First off, the regulation specifically defines a "sugary drink" as meeting these 4 criteria:
1) Non-alcoholic (so if you are worried about not getting your giant margarita in a 20 oz glass, don't its perfectly legal - unless its a virgin margarita!)
2) Sweetened by manufacturer or establishment with a caloric sweetener (hence the reason Diet Coke is kosher, but regular Coke is not - to say nothing of Mexican Coke which uses real sugar and probably would cause the entire city of New York to go into diabetic shock)
3) More than 25 calories per 8 oz serving
4) Does not contain more than 50% milk or milk substitute
I deal with government regulation on a daily basis. This one is a beauty. There are some obvious work arounds here. So let me use the USDA Nutrition database for some examples of what is legal and illegal. Since a "sugary drink" has to meet all four criteria, as long as we don't meet one criteria, then we're good to go.
Criteria 4 is the first hit. If I have a glass of milk, it can be as big as I want it (because it is more than 50% milk). So, milk is legal. In all of its varieties. Milk, Chocolate Milk, Strawberry Milk, etc. Do you understand that. Milk has 130 calories per serving. Skim milk has 90 calories per serving. Both of them have 50 calories from sugars per 8 oz serving. And since they are more than 50% milk, criteria 4 is not met, therefore, I can order a 2 Liter bottle of milk from Pizza Hut or McDonald's and they can sell it to me without fear of being fined.
Which means Chocolate milk is also legal. Because it is more than 50% milk (unless you use a whole crap ton of Hershey's syrup, in which case, just drink the syrup). So chocolate milk with 200 calories per serving (100 of them from sugar, 50 calories from added sugar) is also legitimate. But a 16.1 oz bottle of Mountain Dew is worth a fine.
Now Eggnog is a bit of a quandry. If it is alcoholic, then it is legal (Criteria 1). If it is the non-alcoholic kind, though, we might have issues. In a typical recipe I have seen, you have a pint of milk, a 1/3 cup of sugar, 4 eggs, and a cup of heavy cream. Now if we can count the heavy cream as milk, then we are safe. If however it doesn't count as milk, then we are going to be cutting it close. A pint is two cups, one cup of cream means 4 eggs and 1/3 cup of sugar have to be less than 1 cup. Maybe if they are small eggs. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say non-alcoholic eggnog is illegal to sell in greater than 16 oz cups. We can call this the Virgin Margharita Loophole. From a health standpoint, the non-alcoholic beverage has to be better for you, yet the city has chosen to leave the alcoholic beverage legal.
Fruit Juice is also OK. And Vegetable Juice. I looked through the nutrition database and obviously numbers vary, but every single fruit or vegetable juice I could find had more than 25 calories (usually a lot more) per 8 oz serving. But since the manufacturer is not adding the sugar (Criteria 2), they are perfectly legal.
Lemon juice in particular, is OK. But Lemonade is NOT! Because they have to add sugar. So, lemon juice with 54 calories per 8 oz serving = good, but lemonade with 106 calories per 8 oz serving = bad. But Chocolate milk at 200 calories per 8 oz serving = good. (Don't ask me what geniuses figured this out.)
Most soft drinks (that aren't diet) have around 100 calories per 8 oz serving. Less than what normal milk has and about the same as Fruit juice. But they are banned from being served in a size greater than 16 oz.
Now with any amount of regulation, people will find ways around it. So let me share mine.
1) Drink more milk. It is ridiculous that the pizza company can't deliver a 2 liter bottle of Coke, but they can send over a gallon jug of chocolate milk.
2) Add alcohol to everything. This could revolutionize the industry, although I admit some combinations might not be appetizing. In college, one of my dorm mates wanted to have a Root Beer - Beer mix. This was after he had already had a few beers. He said it didn't taste that good, and he was inebriated - imagine if you try this sober!
3) Sell components. Have a packet of Coke syrup to be added to a 2 Liter bottle of carbonated water.
4) Stock up on those miny sugar packets and sell unsweetened (not even artificial sweetener) drinks. People will quickly catch on to how many packets are needed for a pitcher. It is ridiculous that you can't sell the customer a 2 liter bottle of coke, but if they have a cup of coffee and like it REALLY sweet, they are allowed to add as many packets of sugar as the establishment stocks.
5) When people order a self serve drink cup, give them two. One for ice and one for the drink. Then they have their full 16 oz of drink and can pour it over the ice as needed.
6) Move out of New York City. Come on, 300 million people in this country don't live in New York City, and yet we get along fine with our lives. Some of us don't even drink sugary drinks that often.
Except Eggnog. I love Eggnog!
Monday, February 25, 2013
2 Shillings and 6 Pence
I have been collecting coins since I
was a child. A previous job had me travel to England regularly and
while filling up my passport with stamps of her Majesty, I began my
collection of British coins. Since that time, British coins are one
of my favorites to collect. Understanding British coinage is
important to making sense of the great English literature.
Unfortunately, they don’t tell you this in high school. Today I am
going to use the novel A Christmas Carol to explain the monetary
amounts.
First we need to understand a little
about British coinage. Let’s begin with the pound sterling, the
official name of the British monetary system. This has its roots all
the way back to Charlemagne who minted small silver pennys that had
240 to a pound, which has its basis in old Roman coinage. In later centuries in England, these were called
sterlings. The fineness of silver was 92.5% which didn’t wear as
much as pure silver, so 92.5% silver came to be known as sterling
silver and that usage extends to today. The symbol, a fancy L with a
line through it, comes from the zodiac sign of Libra, the balance or
scales.
The major subdivisions of the pound
prior to 1971 are the shilling, of which there are 20 in one pound;
and the penny or pence of which there are 12 in one shilling, for a
total of 240 pence in one pound. The symbols for these two coins, s
and d, come from the Roman coins solidus and denarius. So, we can
see that this system of coinage has its origins long before the
English language.
If we wanted to stop here, we would be
missing out on a number of important coins in the British history.
For instance, two farthings equaled a halfpenny and were minted from
the 1300s all the way up to 1960. This was probably one of the most
common coins for everyday life in the middle ages.
The crown first appeared in the 16th
century and was a coin worth 5 shillings, or a quarter pound. There
was also a half crown which was worth 2 shillings and six pence. But
to confuse things, in 1990, the crown was remonetized at 5 pounds.
So, if you want to know how much a crown is worth, you better be sure
what year of coin you are talking about.
The guinea was a gold coin first minted
in the 17th century that originally was worth one pound or
20 shillings. However gold price fluctuations made its value as high
as 30 shillings. In 1816 its value was fixed at 21 shillings. While
no coin currently bears this name, it is used colloquially for one
pound, although the exact amount 21 shillings is still used in horse
racing and livestock trade.
There’s more.
The florin was equal to two shillings.
The tanner was equal to six pence.
The groat was equal to four pence.
In 1971, all of this changed. The major
denomination, the pound sterling was retained and now divided into
100 new pence. The government was hoping that people would use the
term "new pence" to distinguish it from the old pence, but people don’t
always do what the government wants, and called the new denomination
by its symbol, "p". So pence is an old penny, and p is a new penny,
although some people still call the new penny, pence.
On to A Christmas Carol. This story
was written in 1843 so I have used online calculators and historical
British inflation rates to determine what these values would be in
2013 US dollars.
Bob Crachet is poor, how poor? He makes
15 shillings a week - $135 or $7020/yr, less than a minimum wage job
today.
How punitive were the laws in England?
A Tailor was fined 5 shillings for being drunk - $45, less than the
$300 you’ll pay today for a public intoxication charge.
Fezziwig spent a few pounds on the
Christmas Party - $900. Since the party was in his shop, there was no
need to rent a hall, the band was probably employees or
friends, so the $900 was spent on food for the 50 or so guests.
Pretty comparable to today.
Scrooge’s nephew hoped that his good
will towards his uncle would inspire Scrooge to leave Bob 50 pounds - $9000. This gives us an
idea of Scrooge's wealth. His nephew talks about this amount as if it
is a paltry sum of Scrooges wealth. Assuming it is just 0.1%, he and
Marley amassed a fortune of $9 million dollars, in a two person shop.
Impressive.
Mrs Crachet's ribbons cost sixpence -
$4.50 This is also comparable to going down to the mall to buy a
hairbow today.
Peter Crachet was going to make 5
shillings and six pence each week - $49.50 Far below minimum wage,
although coincidentally, my first job was as a lifeguard at Boy Scout
Camp, and I got paid, $49.50 per week. Of course they also provided room and board, but maybe Peter was getting that as part of the deal too!
Did the ghosts really change Scrooge’s
generosity? Scrooge offers a boy half a crown for coming back in 5
minutes - $22.50. Have you ever tipped the pizza man $20. This
isn’t even comparable. This is tipping the guy who took your phone
order $20, because the boy was just a messenger. In the movie adaptations, he gives the actual delivery man a nice tip as well. Scrooge was
definitely a changed man.
As you can see, knowing a little about
foreign currency can help you bring out details in a story that
millions in our country read every year, unawares. I have enjoyed
coin collecting over the years, and even more so, I have enjoyed the
tidbits of trivia it has given me.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
What's in a Date?
One of the complaints from
many people about history is that there are so many dates to
remember. Unfortunately, to help ourselves we use a cookie cutter
approach of picking the important ones and maybe laying them out on a
timeline, while forgetting all the rest.
So lets look in detail at
an important event in history. The birth of America. Independence
Day. July 4th,
1776 America declared its independence from Great Britain and a new
country was formed. Right? Well...maybe. July 4th
is the day that the Continental Congress approved the text of the
declaration. On July 2nd,
they had actually voted for a resolution to declare independence.
But the vote wasn’t quite unanimous. New York’s delegation
didn’t get permission to vote until a week later, July 9th.
Jefferson’s original
text of the declaration was presented to Congress on June 28th.
This of course was proceeded by Congress appointing a committee to
draft such a declaration on June 11th.
The resolution for independence was proposed by Richard Henry Lee on
June 7th. Even
this was proceeded by a preamble passed on May 15th
which clarified a resolution passed on May 10th,
calling for the suppression of authority put in place by the crown of
England. Doesn't that sort of sound like independence?
Rhode Island had already
declared its independence on May 4th,
South Carolina on April 23rd,
and North Carolina had authorized it’s delegates to vote for
independence on April 12th.
Any one of these dates could legitimately be claimed as the “birth
of America.”
We know the text of the
declaration was passed on July 4th,
but what about all of the signatures? Undoubtedly they all were not
put on that sheet on July 4th.
Several of the signers weren’t even members of the Congress that
had passed the resolution. Some historians have the “original”
parchment Declaration of Independence not being produced until July
19th (although
printed copies already existed by then). August 2nd
is a day that is usually put forth as when the majority of signers
penned their name, although at least one signatory is known not to
have signed it until Nov 4th.
While there is no record of a copy specifically being sent to King
George, the declaration had been printed in England and Europe by the
middle of August. Perhaps this notification to our wayward parent
should be America’s birthday.
That’s not too bad is
it? Fifteen possible days for America’s Independence Day, with
July 4th about in
the middle. Except if we gained our freedom through the
Revolutionary War, then perhaps the beginning of the Revolution, at
Lexington on April 19th,
1775 is our birth. Before the Declaration of Independence, Americans
had already fought in the famous battles of Bunker Hill and Ft.
Ticonderoga.
Sometimes the American
Revolution is painted with an even broader brush and includes the
Boston Tea Party in December of 1773 or even the Boston Massacre in
March of 1770. The Sons of Liberty were organized in several of the
colonies in 1765 as a result of the Stamp Act. In 1761, James Otis
argued that the open-ended search warrants Britain used to enforce
the Navigation Acts violated the constitutional rights of the
colonists. But this idea wouldn’t have been possible without John
Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” which was published in
1689.
On the flip side, the
fighting in the Revolutionary War ended on October 19th,
1781 with the surrender at Yorktown. The Treaty of Paris officially
ended the war, and Britain recognized the United States as an
independent country on September 3rd,
1783, although this wasn’t ratified by Congress until January 14th,
1784.
Examining an actual
government structure also gives us some potential dates. The First
Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774 and members were
labeled by the King to be traitors. The Second Continental Congress
convened on May 10, 1775 and was the national government for most of
the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation were adopted on
March 1st, 1781.
The Annapolis Convention
tried to improve the Articles in September of 1786 but did not have
enough states represented. The Philadelphia Convention began on May
14th, 1787 and
ended on September 17th,
1787 with the adoption of the Constitution. This was ratified by the
minimum 9 states. Delaware the first on December 7th,
1787 and New Hampshire the ninth on June 21st,
1788. The last of the thirteen original colonies ratified the
Constitution on May 29th,
1790.
The 1st
US Congress convened and the 1st
President was inaugurated on March 4th,
1789. But it should also be remembered that ratification of the US
Constitution was gained with the promise of a Bill of Rights. On
September 25th,
1789 Congress passed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. Ten of
these amendments were ratified by the necessary 3/4 of states by Dec
15th, 1791. One
more was ratified on May 18th,
1992, more than 200 years after it was passed by Congress. The last
of the twelve remains un-ratified in Constitutional limbo. So
perhaps, America hasn’t yet been born.
There you have it.
Thirty-seven possible dates for the “birth of America.” Sure some
may have more legitimacy, but it goes to show that history isn’t
just isolated dates and places, but more of a pot of stew, simmering
as we continue to add vegetables and spices.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Valentine's Day Spending
Happy Valentine's Day? If you spent less than $130, than you are below average. Actually, if you and your significant other spend less than $260, you are below average. So with $18.6 billion spent on Valentine's Day each year, I just have one question?
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY ON?
My wife and I have been happily married for more than a decade. I would guess that in all of our years of marriage we have maybe spent $260 total. Not each year, total. This year I spent about $20 on my wife. So unless she has a big $240 surprise for me, we will be below average yet again.
Now, $18.6 billion divided by $130 is only 143 million people. Since the population of the US is north of 310 million, my guess is that they are only talking about adults (because if it was households then there would only be around $110 million which would bring the average up more). So possibly, there is even more spending that is going on from the younger crowd, you know the ones who buy giant teddy bears in the hopes of getting the amorous attention of their crush (don't those things cost more than $130 each).
Now, I am not in retail, never have been, but I always wanted to know how "they" figure out how much is spent on each holiday. Halloween seems pretty easy - because it involves primarily candy and costumes, two things which aren't really purchased in massive quantities the reset of the year. Mother's Day probably is made up of cards and flowers. 4th of July is fireworks and burgers. Christmas is probably a little more difficult, but as long as there is some month that is average, then you can compare it. So let me see if I can nuke this out ...
January - ????
February - Valentine's Day
March - Easter (if it happens this month) and St. Patrick's Day
April - Easter (if it happens this month)
May - Mother's Day
June - beginning of summer and Father's Day
July - 4th of July
August - back to school
September - Labor Day picnics (maybe) and some diehard Christmas shoppers
October - probably some Christmas and Halloween
November - Thanksgiving (food) and Christmas
December - Christmas shopping and returns
So, based on my limited understanding, it looks like January is the only month without a major shopping event. But then for an event like Christmas, which the shopping spans several months, how do they identify which sales are Christmas and which are something else, like a birthday.
OK, I understand they get the numbers from a survey. But that then just begs a different set of questions. For instance, if I am being asked in the presence of someone else, I may be inclined to say a higher number just so people don't think I am a cheapskate (no, not really, I don't care what other people think about my spending habits). And, since I am only spending $20, then that means someone is spending $250 to make up for me.
Sure hope his girlfriend doesn't get too fat from all that chocolate.
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SPENDING THAT MUCH MONEY ON?
My wife and I have been happily married for more than a decade. I would guess that in all of our years of marriage we have maybe spent $260 total. Not each year, total. This year I spent about $20 on my wife. So unless she has a big $240 surprise for me, we will be below average yet again.
Now, $18.6 billion divided by $130 is only 143 million people. Since the population of the US is north of 310 million, my guess is that they are only talking about adults (because if it was households then there would only be around $110 million which would bring the average up more). So possibly, there is even more spending that is going on from the younger crowd, you know the ones who buy giant teddy bears in the hopes of getting the amorous attention of their crush (don't those things cost more than $130 each).
Now, I am not in retail, never have been, but I always wanted to know how "they" figure out how much is spent on each holiday. Halloween seems pretty easy - because it involves primarily candy and costumes, two things which aren't really purchased in massive quantities the reset of the year. Mother's Day probably is made up of cards and flowers. 4th of July is fireworks and burgers. Christmas is probably a little more difficult, but as long as there is some month that is average, then you can compare it. So let me see if I can nuke this out ...
January - ????
February - Valentine's Day
March - Easter (if it happens this month) and St. Patrick's Day
April - Easter (if it happens this month)
May - Mother's Day
June - beginning of summer and Father's Day
July - 4th of July
August - back to school
September - Labor Day picnics (maybe) and some diehard Christmas shoppers
October - probably some Christmas and Halloween
November - Thanksgiving (food) and Christmas
December - Christmas shopping and returns
So, based on my limited understanding, it looks like January is the only month without a major shopping event. But then for an event like Christmas, which the shopping spans several months, how do they identify which sales are Christmas and which are something else, like a birthday.
OK, I understand they get the numbers from a survey. But that then just begs a different set of questions. For instance, if I am being asked in the presence of someone else, I may be inclined to say a higher number just so people don't think I am a cheapskate (no, not really, I don't care what other people think about my spending habits). And, since I am only spending $20, then that means someone is spending $250 to make up for me.
Sure hope his girlfriend doesn't get too fat from all that chocolate.
Monday, February 11, 2013
No One is Proposing a Gun Confiscation
That is what I have been reading in the news for the last two months. It is what people on Facebook keep telling me. Its on the TV and the Radio. So it must be true.
California must not be no one. Because someone is proposing a confiscation. Sure it may not be anyone just yet, but it certainly isn't no one.
California must not be no one. Because someone is proposing a confiscation. Sure it may not be anyone just yet, but it certainly isn't no one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)