Congressional Democrats reveal that working Americans are paying the price for Trump's $1.5 trillion military funding, with gas prices soaring and families struggling to afford essentials. Are Republicans prioritizing war over the well-being of American families?
An excavator and a person digging a hole charge two vastly different rates.
Equipment is $100+ an hour, plus the operator at $30+, hole digging can be done minimum wage. If your excavator is broken and you try and charge the same rates, you’re gonna be outta business fast. It’s up to you to be fluid enough and have labour to handle issues like this. Like if it breaks down, you better already have a contingent plan, even if it costs your own paycheque.
That said, companies will do posts holes for $20 a hole with 10 minimum. But that’s free access and an auger only. Removal is on you.
Yes, you’ve found the holes in a simplified toy example meant to convey how complicating logistics can mean neither party in a transaction is benefiting from increased prices.
If you want to join me, there’s a Physics 101 class in the other room assuming a vacuum with zero friction and a simple pendulum on a massless string; we can go point out all the ways their example is bullshit.
You realize that the excavator is more expensive so it gets it done faster yeah? Labor is dirt cheap, a dozen guys can do the same thing for a fraction of the price. It’s just gonna take 10 days instead of 1.
You’re just talking in circles about nothing. I’m pointing that out, but it’s also not surprising that you missed this…
but it’s also not surprising that you missed this…
missed
Obtuse pedants will really think “Wow, everyone else sure is stupid” because people make simplifications that don’t literally reflect the real world for the sake of an illustration.
Yes, I am aware that the overhead and efficiency of an excavator conspire to elevate the price of the job of digging a simple hole.
In the toy example you apparently didn’t read because you were too busy sweatily crafting a response, this excavator operator charges the same hourly rate “$x” while digging by hand that they did when they were going to use the excavator. That is explicitly unrealistic; the demand in real life is not even remotely that inflexible that they could get away with that. No. Shit. You can’t actually linearize the cost of this kind of inefficiency. There’s no friction, the excavator doesn’t require ongoing expenses to operate, and the string is massless.
You won. You owned the example problem by pointing out that there’s no such thing as an elastic collision. A+. You win physics and get to leave the class. Please.
Do you think typing paragraphs and bloviating makes you seem more intelligent?
Maybe there’s a reason why a “toy example” isn’t a good example to use in these cases, since everyone knows it’s far more complex. You don’t get your point across by missing points and pretending to be simple after the fact, just makes you look foolish and now trying to backtrack. You fucked up, own it instead of backing yourself into a corner.
It’s actually very simple, excavators are used to get gigs done faster, never cheaper. The person paying for a bunch of diggers instead of the excavator will actually probably pay less, the job will just take a factor of time longer though. But paying 10 guys $8 an hour is cheaper than an excavator and operator! Amazing how your actually asinine example completely falls apart when logic and facts are applied.
You just have no clue about the example you picked, so it’s picked apart easy by people who are experience in that field.
But bloviate, that’ll make your situation better lmfao.
You just have no clue about the example you picked, so it’s picked apart easy by people who are experience in that field.
Yes, I had no clue that excavators have overhead and are expensive pieces of machinery to operate. You got me. I was totally unaware that there’s not a singular dollar per hour amount that a hole digger (official job title) charges regardless of equipment and time. The fact that events wouldn’t have played out like the stupid toy example I made up in five seconds in the real world is honestly blowing my fucking mind.
I bow before your knowledge of ways to be an obnoxious pedant who overlooks the point of the example for the sake of an “um, ackshually”. Thank you for setting me straight.
You know, I was wondering if maybe I should say something like “I was going to dig a hole with a shovel, but I hurt my back, so it’ll take me longer” (still simplified, of course) specifically to cut down on pedantry risk, but then I decided to have just a modicum of faith that people wouldn’t be as deliberately as obtuse as you are.
An excavator and a person digging a hole charge two vastly different rates.
Equipment is $100+ an hour, plus the operator at $30+, hole digging can be done minimum wage. If your excavator is broken and you try and charge the same rates, you’re gonna be outta business fast. It’s up to you to be fluid enough and have labour to handle issues like this. Like if it breaks down, you better already have a contingent plan, even if it costs your own paycheque.
That said, companies will do posts holes for $20 a hole with 10 minimum. But that’s free access and an auger only. Removal is on you.
Yes, you’ve found the holes in a simplified toy example meant to convey how complicating logistics can mean neither party in a transaction is benefiting from increased prices.
If you want to join me, there’s a Physics 101 class in the other room assuming a vacuum with zero friction and a simple pendulum on a massless string; we can go point out all the ways their example is bullshit.
You realize that the excavator is more expensive so it gets it done faster yeah? Labor is dirt cheap, a dozen guys can do the same thing for a fraction of the price. It’s just gonna take 10 days instead of 1.
You’re just talking in circles about nothing. I’m pointing that out, but it’s also not surprising that you missed this…
Obtuse pedants will really think “Wow, everyone else sure is stupid” because people make simplifications that don’t literally reflect the real world for the sake of an illustration.
Yes, I am aware that the overhead and efficiency of an excavator conspire to elevate the price of the job of digging a simple hole.
In the toy example you apparently didn’t read because you were too busy sweatily crafting a response, this excavator operator charges the same hourly rate “$x” while digging by hand that they did when they were going to use the excavator. That is explicitly unrealistic; the demand in real life is not even remotely that inflexible that they could get away with that. No. Shit. You can’t actually linearize the cost of this kind of inefficiency. There’s no friction, the excavator doesn’t require ongoing expenses to operate, and the string is massless.
You won. You owned the example problem by pointing out that there’s no such thing as an elastic collision. A+. You win physics and get to leave the class. Please.
Do you think typing paragraphs and bloviating makes you seem more intelligent?
Maybe there’s a reason why a “toy example” isn’t a good example to use in these cases, since everyone knows it’s far more complex. You don’t get your point across by missing points and pretending to be simple after the fact, just makes you look foolish and now trying to backtrack. You fucked up, own it instead of backing yourself into a corner.
The fact you think 180 words is worth remarking on actually explains a lot about why you’re having such a hard time with this.
It’s actually very simple, excavators are used to get gigs done faster, never cheaper. The person paying for a bunch of diggers instead of the excavator will actually probably pay less, the job will just take a factor of time longer though. But paying 10 guys $8 an hour is cheaper than an excavator and operator! Amazing how your actually asinine example completely falls apart when logic and facts are applied.
You just have no clue about the example you picked, so it’s picked apart easy by people who are experience in that field.
But bloviate, that’ll make your situation better lmfao.
Yes, I had no clue that excavators have overhead and are expensive pieces of machinery to operate. You got me. I was totally unaware that there’s not a singular dollar per hour amount that a hole digger (official job title) charges regardless of equipment and time. The fact that events wouldn’t have played out like the stupid toy example I made up in five seconds in the real world is honestly blowing my fucking mind.
I bow before your knowledge of ways to be an obnoxious pedant who overlooks the point of the example for the sake of an “um, ackshually”. Thank you for setting me straight.
You know, I was wondering if maybe I should say something like “I was going to dig a hole with a shovel, but I hurt my back, so it’ll take me longer” (still simplified, of course) specifically to cut down on pedantry risk, but then I decided to have just a modicum of faith that people wouldn’t be as deliberately as obtuse as you are.
If everyone’s excavators are broken it’s going to cost more for everyone.
People pay more for stuff to get done faster, it’s not always cheaper in the end. It’s just faster and easier, why do you think it’s cheaper?
Physical labour is dirt cheap, sue it’s gonna take 10x as long, but it’s still cheaper than the excavator.