Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Lava · May 1, 2004, 08:11 pm

Bob_Dobbs:
> you could go spend some money on some entertainment, use drugs, write some graffiti, or go to the unemployment center and earn a few bucks cycling on the machine for a few hours. it'll be useful for you coz you'll get a few bucks and better health and mood and attitude from exercising.

you'd be pushed to generate a few /cents/ in an hour. Theres no chance that would pay for the bikes, the power control equipment, the building space, one member of staff, security, the insurance, it may not even pay to light the place. Its a complete money sink with no positive output.

> if there was a way to turn unskilled labor into a useful valuable product

there is, many such schemes have been run in the last century. The problem is that staffing, providing equipment and supervision costs such that there really isnt much profit in it, unfortunately.

> our problems of unemployment and classism would be over.

how would a Victorian style workhouse remove classism? Have you ever wondered why the workhouse system was abandoned?

> i propose voluntary use of electricity generating manual devices. for example, exercise bikes equipped with magnets and copper wire, or kinetic devices implanted in shoes or armbands.
>
>even if this amount of electricity is not enough to become a real paycheck, those who participate in the program are trying to help and are exerting themselves to assist society.

no they would cost society, in 2 ways:
first the cost of the project, approximately none of which would be recouped
second the cost of the extra food theyd need would far outweigh the power output

> by that merit these people could be rewarded in some way to offset their poverty and reward their ambition,

ambition? 'Yes Sir! I'd like to be a hamster Sir!'

> this is not a 'job'. it's like recycling cans. 5 cents a can, no employment involved. 5 cents a watt, no employment involved, or whatever the right price is.

here its 8 cents a kilowatt hour. If theyre real musclebound and work like a rabid dog for 1 hour solid, that leccy could be sold to the grid for upto 3 cents!

> this is not a for-profit company.

no kidding

> it's a service to the community

no

> that is marginally involved with money and electricity. it'll give unemployed people something to do that won't cost them money they don't have.

it will, it costs them to get there, and it will cost them big time in food.

> it probably isn't as cost-effective as cranking up the power plant a little more or even building a new one, but it will address social problems

how? by taking folk off the street? helping them get jobs would be way more productive.

> it'd hardly break the bank to borrow a few dozen exercise bikes from junkyards or the museum of science and rig them with magnets and wire them up to a central battery and sell that electricity on the grid.

why would you use bikes that have been junked? You need working ones, ones that meet all the latest safety standards so you dont get sued. Ie new ones.

then there's:

cost of building rent / buy
staff
electricity
insurance
qualified instructor to avoid injuries
etc
etc
it would be a big big money sink

> fuck, you could sell refreshments at the door if you want to turn some extra profit from this.

to people living on welfare? who cant afford them? Why not

> for the politicians, it will marginally decrease our dependance on foreign oil. lol!

it will increase it: oil is used to provide power used in growing, processing, transporting, preparing, and storing food. And hard exercisers are gonna need a _lot_ more food.

> the 'unemployment center' is a better choice because it will produce electricity to a certain capacity,

light and heat for the building will use up whats produced, and probably more

> and anyone can do it, unless they are on disability in which case they need no such help.

of course that isnt actually true, there are loads of people that cant. There are reasons people are unemployed.

> both concepts would provide some kind of paid-activity for the unemployed to perform, both could potentially seperate the lazy from the downtrodden if the employment policies were incorporated.

of course the employment marketplace does that already...

> the point is that you're trying, even if there are problems.

to do what? There is no value in trying to do something stupid.

> both in your post and in the work world this should be respected in some way.

why? If I had an employee come to me who told me they generated their own power all day doing this I'd think they were bonkers, it would give me serious concerns about employing them. At best I'd think they were only mildly mentally defective.

> free time can be an expensive burden for many welfare recipients. imagine an idle tuesday with nothing to do. no job, nothing. you could go spend some money on some entertainment, use drugs, write some graffiti, or go to the unemployment center and earn a few bucks cycling on the machine for a few hours.

correction, a few cents. Which would not pay for the extra food needed, let alone anything else.

> it'll be useful for you coz you'll get a few bucks

no

> and better health

possibly.

> and mood and attitude from exercising.

I doubt it, not if youre not into it but forced to do it. Th Victorian workhouses were hated.

> 'pointless' labor can have significant positive impacts which you are overlooking. and what makes you think that the electrical contribution will be almost nil?

factual numbers, I guess

> if we had even 1/3 of the unemployed/underemployed in america doing this for even 4 hours a day we could produce significant energy, at least on local levels.

1/3 is optimistic. If by significant you mean it could light and heat the building, I'd say it was questionable.

>>"The unemployed can jog in the street or go to a public library if they're looking for something to do."
>that's a very laissez-faire attitude. that would defeat the concept of an unemployment center, and no one is going to pay you for jogging or going to a library.

just as no-one would for pedalling a bike.

> do you grasp the fundamental benefits and cost reductions of this plan?
>
>benefits -

>-health, mood <-- maybe
>-electricity <-- no
>-something organized to do <-- so?
>-refining the lazy from the group of unemployed <-- the job marketplace already does that
>-remibursing those unemployed with employable qualities <-- nope

>savings
> -less idleness,

no benefit - in fact a loss of parent to child time is a negative thing. So is a loss of time during which they could be working towards getting a job.

> crime, drug use,

possibly

> poverty,

would make that worse by failing to get on with getting a job, and requiring far more extra food than getting paid.

> social atrophy

what do you mean by that?

Wouldnt learning some skills, or attending jobcentre where they help you get a job, or going to anger management, or a therapist etc be far more useful?

Regards, Lava

May 1, 2004, 08:11 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Lava Igneous Magma Posts: 716	Bob_Dobbs: > you could go spend some money on some entertainment, use drugs, write some graffiti, or go to the unemployment center and earn a few bucks cycling on the machine for a few hours. it'll be useful for you coz you'll get a few bucks and better health and mood and attitude from exercising. you'd be pushed to generate a few /cents/ in an hour. Theres no chance that would pay for the bikes, the power control equipment, the building space, one member of staff, security, the insurance, it may not even pay to light the place. Its a complete money sink with no positive output. > if there was a way to turn unskilled labor into a useful valuable product there is, many such schemes have been run in the last century. The problem is that staffing, providing equipment and supervision costs such that there really isnt much profit in it, unfortunately. > our problems of unemployment and classism would be over. how would a Victorian style workhouse remove classism? Have you ever wondered why the workhouse system was abandoned? > i propose voluntary use of electricity generating manual devices. for example, exercise bikes equipped with magnets and copper wire, or kinetic devices implanted in shoes or armbands. > >even if this amount of electricity is not enough to become a real paycheck, those who participate in the program are trying to help and are exerting themselves to assist society. no they would cost society, in 2 ways: first the cost of the project, approximately none of which would be recouped second the cost of the extra food theyd need would far outweigh the power output > by that merit these people could be rewarded in some way to offset their poverty and reward their ambition, ambition? 'Yes Sir! I'd like to be a hamster Sir!' > this is not a 'job'. it's like recycling cans. 5 cents a can, no employment involved. 5 cents a watt, no employment involved, or whatever the right price is. here its 8 cents a kilowatt hour. If theyre real musclebound and work like a rabid dog for 1 hour solid, that leccy could be sold to the grid for upto 3 cents! > this is not a for-profit company. no kidding > it's a service to the community no > that is marginally involved with money and electricity. it'll give unemployed people something to do that won't cost them money they don't have. it will, it costs them to get there, and it will cost them big time in food. > it probably isn't as cost-effective as cranking up the power plant a little more or even building a new one, but it will address social problems how? by taking folk off the street? helping them get jobs would be way more productive. > it'd hardly break the bank to borrow a few dozen exercise bikes from junkyards or the museum of science and rig them with magnets and wire them up to a central battery and sell that electricity on the grid. why would you use bikes that have been junked? You need working ones, ones that meet all the latest safety standards so you dont get sued. Ie new ones. then there's: cost of building rent / buy staff electricity insurance qualified instructor to avoid injuries etc etc it would be a big big money sink > fuck, you could sell refreshments at the door if you want to turn some extra profit from this. to people living on welfare? who cant afford them? Why not > for the politicians, it will marginally decrease our dependance on foreign oil. lol! it will increase it: oil is used to provide power used in growing, processing, transporting, preparing, and storing food. And hard exercisers are gonna need a _lot_ more food. > the 'unemployment center' is a better choice because it will produce electricity to a certain capacity, light and heat for the building will use up whats produced, and probably more > and anyone can do it, unless they are on disability in which case they need no such help. of course that isnt actually true, there are loads of people that cant. There are reasons people are unemployed. > both concepts would provide some kind of paid-activity for the unemployed to perform, both could potentially seperate the lazy from the downtrodden if the employment policies were incorporated. of course the employment marketplace does that already... > the point is that you're trying, even if there are problems. to do what? There is no value in trying to do something stupid. > both in your post and in the work world this should be respected in some way. why? If I had an employee come to me who told me they generated their own power all day doing this I'd think they were bonkers, it would give me serious concerns about employing them. At best I'd think they were only mildly mentally defective. > free time can be an expensive burden for many welfare recipients. imagine an idle tuesday with nothing to do. no job, nothing. you could go spend some money on some entertainment, use drugs, write some graffiti, or go to the unemployment center and earn a few bucks cycling on the machine for a few hours. correction, a few cents. Which would not pay for the extra food needed, let alone anything else. > it'll be useful for you coz you'll get a few bucks no > and better health possibly. > and mood and attitude from exercising. I doubt it, not if youre not into it but forced to do it. Th Victorian workhouses were hated. > 'pointless' labor can have significant positive impacts which you are overlooking. and what makes you think that the electrical contribution will be almost nil? factual numbers, I guess > if we had even 1/3 of the unemployed/underemployed in america doing this for even 4 hours a day we could produce significant energy, at least on local levels. 1/3 is optimistic. If by significant you mean it could light and heat the building, I'd say it was questionable. >>"The unemployed can jog in the street or go to a public library if they're looking for something to do." >that's a very laissez-faire attitude. that would defeat the concept of an unemployment center, and no one is going to pay you for jogging or going to a library. just as no-one would for pedalling a bike. > do you grasp the fundamental benefits and cost reductions of this plan? > >benefits - >-health, mood <-- maybe >-electricity <-- no >-something organized to do <-- so? >-refining the lazy from the group of unemployed <-- the job marketplace already does that >-remibursing those unemployed with employable qualities <-- nope >savings > -less idleness, no benefit - in fact a loss of parent to child time is a negative thing. So is a loss of time during which they could be working towards getting a job. > crime, drug use, possibly > poverty, would make that worse by failing to get on with getting a job, and requiring far more extra food than getting paid. > social atrophy what do you mean by that? Wouldnt learning some skills, or attending jobcentre where they help you get a job, or going to anger management, or a therapist etc be far more useful? Regards, Lava