51–60 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and one should also account for the reduced tax burden of dying younger.
But then you also have to account for the reduced earning potential due to dying younger :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the argument could be made that the average American runs a calorie surplus so some percentage of the food/fuel cost could be deducted, for Americans, at least, no?
No, not unless you take full control of their diet (they'd probably object to that). People respond to extra work by eating more. > But the argument could be made that the average American runs a calorie surplus It really can't; running a calorie surplus would result in constant weight gain. What you actually see is extreme weight stability.
I'm really surprised at the comparison of motorbikes to cars. I don't own a motorbike, but my impression was that compared to cars the fuel costs are trivial. This data suggests a cost reduction of only ~25%. Was it dumb of me to expect a cost reduction of >75%?
Nobody should buy a motorcycle imagining that they have lower operating costs. Aside from fuel, motorcycles have high budgets for tires, engine maintenance (due to the aforementioned appetite for high specific power, and relative lack of scale in their manufacturing), insurance, likelihood of theft or other total casualty, need to continuously refresh your riding apparel on approximately 5 year basis, expensive consumable items like drive chains and sprockets, and so on and so forth. Also there is generally a lack of miles over which to amortize the time-denominated costs like insurance.
Not all fuel consumption is the same. Gasoline is way under-priced in the US when traffic, pollution and road construction costs are factored in. On the other hand, high quality, sustainably farmed produce is overpriced, most significantly from sustained subsidies for corn and the associated increase in the cost of arable land.
[1] Can't find a great all-encompassing source, but e.g.: http://www.c2es.org/publications/cost-us-forest-based-carbon... says $30-90 per ton
[2] Burning as is about 9kg CO2 per gal. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11
This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…
Glancing at the wikipedia article which the author uses doesn't clarify this, nor does Wikipedia's citation. I didn't check the citation's citation.
Clearly we want net calories. Average humans burn ~100 kcal per hour doing their normal activities during the day, so that could potential change the figure from 210 kcal per hour walking, to 110.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not unless you take full control of their diet (they'd probably object to that). People respond to extra work by eating more. > But the argument could be made that the average American runs a calorie surplus It really can't; running a calorie surplus would result in constant weight gain. What you actually see is extreme weight stability.
I guess the issue is surplus relative to what - recommended daily calorie intake vs. the calories required to maintain excess weight. My point was the former, yours seems to be the latter.
Your response, as far as I can see, says that because Americans already run a caloric surplus, x extra work should only lead to x' - k extra food intake, where the missing k energy is made up by the existing caloric surplus. I responded then and respond again now that this perspective makes no sense; the extra work is an ongoing expenditure and must be exactly balanced by an ongoing intake. For the supposed caloric surplus to be offset against the extra work of extra walking, the person would need to be experiencing constant weight gain beforehand. Nobody[1] is.
You may think that Americans weigh too much, but that's irrelevant; a change in weight is a nearly-pure one-time effect with no influence on dietary requirements. They are eating exactly the amount they already use for the activities they already do.
Am I missing something about your point?
[1] Actually, people with Prader-Willi syndrome will eat if it is possible to eat, no matter how full they are. They will experience constant weight gain if not subject to external control. But they have a serious genetic defect.
This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…
This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…
How many Ethiopian restaurants, improv theaters, and dueling piano bars did you pass? A lot of niche interests can't sustain themselves at all with only a small fraction of a small population.
If I was an Ethiopian restaurant owner would I prefer a restaurant in a dense neighborhood with five families living in apartments right on top of me, or would I prefer to be in a strip mall at the corner of an American suburb with nobody in walking distance and only a few hundred families within a mile? I know which one I'd want.