The Number 2 of the One-Two Middle Class Squeeze

[Brant Gaede]

Number 1 is economics, but the elites behind the squeeze in all respects are herein exposed.

nypost.com/2014/09/28/inside-the-plot-against-the-middle-class/

[Selene]

Once again, we have a section of the cultural elitists making enormous decisuions for the individual citizen.

Architects who design from a "social perspective" are still gatekeepers who believe that they can control man with their design schemes.

Nice find Brant...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Tucson has just spent 100 million--almost half Federal--on a nifty downtown rail system benefiting mostly government workers and college students from the university. They could have simply put up a few buses on the same routing for minimal cost with no need for an impossible never-happening amortization. Alternate, renewable energy is of the same ilk, along with "climate change" and recycling. Etc., etc., etc.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

Tucson has just spent 100 million--almost half Federal--on a nifty downtown rail system benefiting mostly government workers and college students from the university. They could have simply put up a few buses on the same routing for minimal cost with no need for an impossible never-happening amortization. Alternate, renewable energy is of the same ilk, along with "climate change" and recycling. Etc., etc., etc.

--Brant

whats wrong with recycling? as long as it isn't mandated it does prevent waste and metal scrapers not only make a living from it but hey also carry away stuff you may want to get rid of for free, such as the old stove I replaced at one of my rentals a week ago--just put the old one on the porch with a sign on it and away it goes!

And whats wrong with renewable energy if it isnt mandated-- i mean we will need it at some point and its best to get some advancement on the technology before its crunch time (though crunch time may not be in my life)

[Brant Gaede]

They are both mandated. Renewable at least by incentives. As for recycling, most of it goes into the landfill anyway. Boy Scouts used to pick up newspapers. That worked for Mom and Dad used their vehicles at no cost to the bottom line. We are not talking about the stuff you and I put on the curb to be picked up for free by whomever drives by wanting it.

But also consider the cost to run those recycling trucks. Capital, fuel, labor. Your bill goes up consequently, maybe by 30-40%.

Another problem for recycling is it degrades the future value of landfills for what doesn't go into them now--as potential mining sites.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

They are both mandated. Renewable at least by incentives. As for recycling, most of it goes into the landfill anyway. Boy Scouts used to pick up newspapers. That worked for Mom and Dad used their vehicles at no cost to the bottom line. We are not talking about the stuff you and I put on the curb to be picked up for free by whomever drives by wanting it.

But also consider the cost to run those recycling trucks. Capital, fuel, labor. Your bill goes up consequently, maybe by 30-40%.

Another problem for recycling is it degrades the future value of landfills for what doesn't go into them now--as potential mining sites.

--Brant

Costs of running what recycling trucks? You must live somewhere where recycling is mandated and handled by the city?town? I don't so I guess I can't relate.

As far as your last statement, I too have wondered about landscapes being future mining sites. Sounds real sci-fi--aliens come to earth and discover we have troves of resources, in the landfills : ) Especially if we could figure out a way to use old plastic as fuel, that would be awesome.

[Brant Gaede]

Each Monday comes the recycling truck here. On Wednesday, garbage. This is Pima County. In Tucson proper they do the same thing. Everybody gets a recycling barrel. As Forest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

--Brant

most people are well programmed to unthinkingly believe this crap--and not to think about much of all, actually

http://youtu.be/rExEVZlQia4

[Derek McGowan]

Each Monday comes the recycling truck here. On Wednesday, garbage. This is Pima County. In Tucson proper they do the same thing. Everybody gets a recycling barrel. As Forest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

--Brant

most people are well programmed to unthinkingly believe this crap--and not to think about much of all, actually

http://youtu.be/rExEVZlQia4

ya know, I really like Penn and Teller (say them live years ago) and the few episodes of Bullshit that I have seen have been excellent and the interviews I've seen with Penn on various media has been informative, but this particular episode didn't prove anything and I'm upset because I thought they would bring some new insight.

I would have to re watch it to really do myself justice in criticizing it but a few issues

1.people do make money off recycling more than just aluminum cans, there are private businesses that recycle computer parts for one.

2. there are private businesses that recycle, this is not just some government thing.

3. are there any places that have a mandate to recycle? not just providing you with a can but ones who will fine you if your regular trash stream has newspaper in it?

4. businesses ARE paid by the recycling companies to recycle cardboard, I know that as a fact.

5. that exercise of having those folks pick through bags of trash dropped at their feet blew up in the show's face. Not only were the folks okay with the multiple cans, but why would they have to dig through a bag of trash to sort it anyway? If they are using that system they would be sorting as they went along!

6. The continuous mentions of how the recycling programs run by government costs 8 billion in involuntary tax money has NO argumentative effect on the environmentally conscious who dont care how much it costs. That is just bad technique.

7. Penn mentions that there are 3 times as much forest as in the 1920s-- thats because of environmental movements!! Again, bad technique.

8. to talk about the cost of having the trucks pick up and process your recycling and saying that that means it actually costs more than making something new has two issues but the bigger issue it that saving money is not the goal of those who have a recycling mentality!

I dont recycle myself but they really could have done a better job. Sounded more like preaching to a choir than trying to see the other sides viewpoint and convince them of their possible error.

[william.scherk]

Tucson has just spent 100 million--almost half Federal--on a nifty downtown rail system benefiting mostly government workers and college students from the university.

Blame Canada! Toronto did not retire its streetcar fleet as did every other North American city but Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Here's a picture of the new long and low streetcars that are going to replace all the older vehicles.

Blame also Portland, Oregon. Before federal dollars were available for streetcars, that city built a four-mile long line through its old and tired 'warehouse district' (Pearl District). That district boomed, populated, and led to a still-going re-construction of the area. Billions of dollars of construction and investment were leveraged from the ribbons of steel say its promoters and analysts... (though see CATO's harrumphing article on these dollars and the subsidies and urban philosophy behind it)

What attracts all the other cities in America to build streetcar lines or networks? Overwhelmingly, in each case, the cities and communities involved believe they will recreate the real-estate boom experienced in Portland (the Portland system is expanding, too). Seattle was the first out of the barn to mimic Portland's streetcar, and there a boom did also occur (they too are expanding their streetcar and light rail system).

Here's a cool Google Streetview image of a newly urbanized corner on Seattle's Lake Union streetcar route. Click the image to go the corner, and move the slider on the inset image. You can see the entire vicinity grow from ruins to beautiful modern neighbourhood.

In Tucson, as I understand it, the new streetcar is touted as largely responsible for a surge in real-estate ventures. In all the other cities, who knows if a line of rail in the street can in every case lead to re-urbanization?

If I were to bet, I'd say Cincinnati, Dallas, Tucson, Seattle, and Charlotte will be the most successful in spurring more intense development. The cities that will fail to see urbanization will likely be those who, like Salt Lake City, simply laid down rails without a coherent plan.

Have you ridden the Tucson streetcar, Brant? If you go along its route you should be able to report if the pace of re-development quickens over the coming years or if the touted benefits were a hoax.

They could have simply put up a few buses on the same routing for minimal cost with no need for an impossible never-happening amortization.

Buses are not attractive to new ridership compared to a streetcar ... they rattle and bump and lurch. They get old quickly. Streetcars last forty years or more, require less maintenance than buses, and have a permanence no bus line can claim.

The biggest reason Toronto did not swap out its streetcars for buses is capacity. That single new train carries more that three buses. I should mention that Toronto has embarked upon a further rail extension plan, and will lay about fifty miles of new track for 'light rail' ...

All that fact and opinion on streetcars aside, and all the bumf about plans, investment and growth aside -- the US experiment with reintroducing fixed rails in its streets will continue, and I'd love to be able to be in that future where rails reconquer the urban world. I'd like to see the full fifty mile Washington DC system built out and pumping. I wonder if Dagny would like it ...

Alternate, renewable energy is of the same ilk, along with "climate change" and recycling. Etc., etc., etc.

Each of these concepts are distinct in my mind. Renewable energy is an historical fact, and a part of economic development across the world. Think Hydroelectric ... all the way from massive dams to micro-hydro. Think of massive wind and solar farms. In some advanced nations (like Germany) renewables produce a sizable and growing fraction of supplies.

Recycling is just that. If something can be squeezed to give more value than a kilo of raw garbage, then it can go through the consumption cycle one or more times. It makes what would otherwise be refuse into derivative commodities. (one funny example of recycling as economically wise is the story of one of China's richest women, Zhang Yin. She rather smartly imported massive amounts of American garbage (in the form of cardboard and other paper waste) and recycled it into a product to sell back!)

As for recycling, most of it goes into the landfill anyway.

This is not true, Brant. Although my region has not reached the heights of Kamikatsu or Edmonton, garbage in does not mean garbage out. Our regional dump produces methane, soil, compost, metals, plastics, and so on. It produces electricity from incinerators and recovers further elements from the ash. You seem to be suggesting that separated materials do not generally go to a recycling plant, but instead are dumped into the same piles as undifferentiated trash and crap. Surely you know this is not true on the whole ...

Kamikatsu does seem to have gone entirely mad. From "The Town Without Trash":

In Kamikatsu, there’s no such thing as trash. You won’t find a single garbage bin in any of the town’s homes, and there’s not a dump anywhere within driving distance. Instead, the resourceful residents must compost all waste from their food, and sort other trash into 34 separate categories, with sections for plastic bottles, razor blades, Styrofoam, and various other paraphernalia.

The crazy part? Most locals actually seem to like the extreme recycling process. Kikue Nii, one resident, claims that the town’s no-waste policy makes her more mindful of what she’s using, and helps her to take advantage of every last scrap. “I think I produce less waste because I have to compost it,”

Another problem for recycling is it degrades the future value of landfills for what doesn't go into them now--as potential mining sites.

Why would someone go to the lengths of burying undifferentiated masses of trash -- and then only later attempt to dig and make money from it? It makes much more sense to salvage, filter, pick, process and pack into bundles or bins, scavenge and sift -- and recover value before it all goes into a pit or pile or furnace.

I mentioned Edmonton (capital of the socialist hellhole Alberta). It is probably the most advanced system for waste management in North America. Here's a link to the breadth of their programme.**

The Dutch and the Norwegians have probably reached the acme of integrated waste management.

But also consider the cost to run those recycling trucks. Capital, fuel, labor. Your bill goes up consequently, maybe by 30-40%.

Costs of running what recycling trucks? You must live somewhere where recycling is mandated and handled by the city?town? I don't so I guess I can't relate.

As far as your last statement, I too have wondered about landscapes being future mining sites. ... Especially if we could figure out a way to use old plastic as fuel, that would be awesome.

I just don't see the point in dumping shit in a hole, and putting off recycling to a distant future. Why not make money now?

PS -- thanks for that analysis of the Bullshit video, Derek!

__________________

** Edmonton is miles ahead of the Vancouver region. Their system squeezes its garbage until it gives up its value. From Citylab:

Edmonton, a Canadian city of 877,926, is renowned for its highly integrated and innovative waste-management system. Built on a long-term vision of using waste as a resource instead of burying it in landfills, the system is focused on sustainability and environmental protection.

Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre is a 233-hectare site that encompasses the world's largest collection of integrated state-of-the-art facilities for solid waste management. This includes the largest composting facility of its type in North America, a materials recovery facility for sorting recyclables, an integrated processing and transfer facility, a leachate treatment facility, an electronics waste recycling facility, a construction-and-demolition waste recycling facility, a landfill gas plant that generates sufficient energy to power 4600 homes, and an advanced energy research facility. Canada’s first waste-to-biofuels facility for municipal waste also opened recently at this site.

These facilities, combined with efficient waste collection systems and community engagement, enable the City of Edmonton to divert up to 60 percent of residential waste from landfills, with a goal of 90 percent when the waste-to-biofuels facility is fully operational in 2016.

Edited September 29, 2014 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Oh my. I can never figure if you like to be contrary or right. Possibly both, with the happenstance latter frosting on the cake.

Surely--don't call me surly--you don't expect me to answer you when you didn't answer me save with a debate format in which you took too much time?

--Brat

haven't ridden it yet; I'm not a government worker or university student

the ride ends at Linda--the one block street I was first aware of living on in the 1940s (the summer of '46--first memories--to the summer of '51 when I got on a Connie, age 7, and flew to Columbus to spend a year with my grandparents)--that's what's plastered on the electronic sign as the streetcar heads west across the Santa Cruz (usually dry) River

up at the university front gate in the mid 1950s you could still see the streetcar tracks of a previous incarnation embedded in the asphalt from the early 1930s' shut down because cars and buses were cheaper (still are)

bring back the Ford Tri-Motor!

your brain is too big to wrestle with me!

[Mikee]

William,

About your "funny example of recycling"... You can't make convincing arguments about the economics of recycling when the government is throwing billions of dollars of taxpayer money at it. You wouldn't need government money if it were feasible privately, but given government money of course you'll find 'entrepreneurs' willing to take the money. I agree with Brant (and P & T), recycling is bullshit.

[Brant Gaede]

Each Monday comes the recycling truck here. On Wednesday, garbage. This is Pima County. In Tucson proper they do the same thing. Everybody gets a recycling barrel. As Forest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

--Brant

most people are well programmed to unthinkingly believe this crap--and not to think about much of all, actually

http://youtu.be/rExEVZlQia4

ya know, I really like Penn and Teller (say them live years ago) and the few episodes of Bullshit that I have seen have been excellent and the interviews I've seen with Penn on various media has been informative, but this particular episode didn't prove anything and I'm upset because I thought they would bring some new insight.

I would have to re watch it to really do myself justice in criticizing it but a few issues

1.people do make money off recycling more than just aluminum cans, there are private businesses that recycle computer parts for one.

2. there are private businesses that recycle, this is not just some government thing.

3. are there any places that have a mandate to recycle? not just providing you with a can but ones who will fine you if your regular trash stream has newspaper in it?

4. businesses ARE paid by the recycling companies to recycle cardboard, I know that as a fact.

5. that exercise of having those folks pick through bags of trash dropped at their feet blew up in the show's face. Not only were the folks okay with the multiple cans, but why would they have to dig through a bag of trash to sort it anyway? If they are using that system they would be sorting as they went along!

6. The continuous mentions of how the recycling programs run by government costs 8 billion in involuntary tax money has NO argumentative effect on the environmentally conscious who dont care how much it costs. That is just bad technique.

7. Penn mentions that there are 3 times as much forest as in the 1920s-- thats because of environmental movements!! Again, bad technique.

8. to talk about the cost of having the trucks pick up and process your recycling and saying that that means it actually costs more than making something new has two issues but the bigger issue it that saving money is not the goal of those who have a recycling mentality!

I dont recycle myself but they really could have done a better job. Sounded more like preaching to a choir than trying to see the other sides viewpoint and convince them of their possible error.

P n T have fairness issues. They were completely unfair to Nathaniel Branden when they did a show on self esteem because they only take one side.

Recycling does happen pretty much automatically when private capital sees a profit benefit. Throw in other people's money--tax money--and something else kicks in: waste.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

William,

About your "funny example of recycling"... You can't make convincing arguments about the economics of recycling when the government is throwing billions of dollars of taxpayer money at it. You wouldn't need government money if it were feasible privately, but given government money of course you'll find 'entrepreneurs' willing to take the money. I agree with Brant (and P & T), recycling is bullshit.

and yet there are qyuite a number of private companies that actually handle the waste and a number of companies that give the waste to those companies to recycle. Again I know that in cardboard recycling (which is done by private companies like Allied waste) the businesses that participate are paid by the pound of cardboard placed in the specially marked bins.

What about second hand clothing stores, they are recycling and they aren't all (are any of them) taking government subsidies (maybe on tax write-offs)

Pallets. A friend of mine work pretty high up in operations for Giant food stores. He said the entire trucking budget for the company wide fleet was paid for annually by recycling the pallets the food comes on.

What financial negatives is Subaru getting out of their zero waste factories (must be killing them)

[Derek McGowan]

Recycling does happen pretty much automatically when private capital sees a profit benefit. Throw in other people's money--tax money--and something else kicks in: waste.

--Brant

still you are thinking to much in terms of financial motivations, everyone's actions are not caused by that and that certainly wouldn't be true of the environmentally conscious. Dont forget that being environmentally conscious leads one to push back against development and profits

[Mikee]

William,

About your "funny example of recycling"... You can't make convincing arguments about the economics of recycling when the government is throwing billions of dollars of taxpayer money at it. You wouldn't need government money if it were feasible privately, but given government money of course you'll find 'entrepreneurs' willing to take the money. I agree with Brant (and P & T), recycling is bullshit.

and yet there are qyuite a number of private companies that actually handle the waste and a number of companies that give the waste to those companies to recycle. Again I know that in cardboard recycling (which is done by private companies like Allied waste) the businesses that participate are paid by the pound of cardboard placed in the specially marked bins.

What about second hand clothing stores, they are recycling and they aren't all (are any of them) taking government subsidies (maybe on tax write-offs)

Pallets. A friend of mine work pretty high up in operations for Giant food stores. He said the entire trucking budget for the company wide fleet was paid for annually by recycling the pallets the food comes on.

What financial negatives is Subaru getting out of their zero waste factories (must be killing them)

If we'd just stop the lying and stop the subsidies we'd find out just what value there is and what items truly are worth recycling. Let people who want to and will profit by it, either financially or feeling good about it, freely engage in it. The problem is, everybody who 'feels good' and have been told they're saving the world wants to force everyone else to do what they do regardless of the cost or how much world saving they're actually accomplishing. And they stack the deck. That's not fair.

Thinking about it, I find it ironic that where I live in California we have mandatory recycling we have guys rummage through the recycle bins at night stealing the aluminum cans which is about the only thing in there worth recycling. Ironic because the recycling trucks are picking up the waste after most of the value has been picked out. Private enterprise at work. I've seen guys on bicycles with stacks of cardboard on the backs of their bicycles (!) headed for the recycling center to get a few bucks. What the recycling center pays for (outside of the pickup bin) I'm guessing is the stuff actually worth recycling. Taking stuff out of these curbside bins is of course illegal but no one does anything about it. I certainly don't have the heart or desire to stifle a budding entrepreneur. Illegal activities are the only bottom rungs left on the ladder. Well, there's food stamps and welfare but that's a ladder to nowhere.

[william.scherk]

Oh my. I can never figure if you like to be contrary or right. Possibly both, with the happenstance latter frosting on the cake.

I aim to be factual, rational and friendly where possible. I keep my interventions fluid, depending on what strikes me as remarkable.

I have long nursed an interest in urban issues, especially transportation. I am competent to give historical and economic notes on streetcars and the rash of projects across the USA. You can think of me as a kind of sad hobbyist/trainspotter. I mean no harm.

Here's another Streetview rendering, this time of Portland's South Watefront district, featuring those ribbons of steel at the very end of their loop. Click through to explore this shiny new nabe's transformation.

Surely--don't call me surly--you don't expect me to answer you when you didn't answer me save with a debate format in which you took too much time?

You are somewhat unpredictable. I do write for my own sake first of all, secondly to inform, thirdly to entertain. Perhaps the next time you think of streetcars you will think of a gamble made with these old tools, that they will spark renaissance along the rails as in Portland, Toronto, Seattle ...

With recycling and renewables, I figure you knew enough to recognize the economic value in salvage and re-use, and so tried to give a picture of rich-world industrial advancement. I thought your claims were weak in a couple of instances, and that you might be happy with a bland corrective on a couple of points. The wider OL audience can thumb me up or down according to their wont, according to their estimation of my utility. Since I am my own best audience, I am satisfied just having a comment finished and up on the internets!

You could think of me as a rather blandly rational volunteer fact-checker who tries to add value.

[Brant Gaede]

You may add value but that value is on the other side of the divide where good motivated folks try to add value with taken money.

--Brant

you can drag the discussion to the other side of the fence across the great OL default, but it always snaps back to the question of freedom in all its glorious and sometimes inglorious aspects

[Selene]

Derek:

Are you aware that some of the best environmentalists that I have met were hunters, fishermen, farmers and people who understand the reasons to conserve, preserve and protect the land.

A...

[Derek McGowan]

Derek:

Are you aware that some of the best environmentalists that I have met were hunters, fishermen, farmers and people who understand the reasons to conserve, preserve and protect the land.

A...

absolutely

[Selene]

Derek:

Are you aware that some of the best environmentalists that I have met were hunters, fishermen, farmers and people who understand the reasons to conserve, preserve and protect the land.

A...

absolutely

Good, glad we are on the same page...I can remember not one of them who was in favor of an intrusive government "managing and protecting the land."

Government across the globe is the largest polluter.

Government is innately corrupt in the manner they "mangage" the land, see Teapot Dome Scandal.

So. here in our town, it is a $500.00 fine for violating the recycling law.

Nice touch don't you think?

Like government red light cameras, they cause more accidents, the accidents are more severe and the political

contracts given to the connected firms would even make a Marylander blush.

A...

Mandated Recycling - Stupid, Unhealthy, Expensive Treatment, known by it's government acronym [sUET].

[Jules Troy]

Edmonton is now also working on creating fertilizer from waste water as well.

[Selene]

Edmonton is now also working on creating fertilizer from waste water as well.

Take a look a Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxian Toilet ...http://www.bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/dymaxion-world/dymaxion-bathroom

Dymaxion Bathroom

Worried by the poor sanitation, inefficiency, and high cost of bathrooms, Bucky came up with a solution in 1936.

The four, stamped sheet metal or molded plastic sections are each light enough to be carried by two workers. They'll fit up tight staircases and through narrow doors, allowing retrofitting in existing structures. All the appliances, pipes, and wires are built-in, limiting on-site construction to mere hook-up.

With the sections bolted together, the interior has no germ-harboring nooks, crannies, grout cracks or anything that can rot. Large-radius corners make germicidal swabbing easy and complete. Downdraft ventilation draws fumes and steam to the undersink vent. Both sink and (deep) bath-shower are arranged to ease the care of children and seniors. The mirror doesn't steam up, the sink doesn't splatter, and the toilet paper stays dry.

Dymaxion Bathrooms are to be equipped with "Fog Gun" hot water vapor showers that use only a cup of water to clean hygienically without soap. Remarking that "Nature had designed humans to separate urine and excrement. Both are valuable chemistry, and should be collected for further use," Bucky specified a waterless "Packaging Toilet" that deftly shrink-wrapped the stuff for pickup for later composting. (Ordinary toilets use approximately 2000 gallons of pure drinking water per year to flush - and waste - one human's "exhaust" that, if dried out, would scarcely fill two 5-gallon pails.)

Freaking 1936!! yep...7.8 decades ago...these should be in every Nursing Home, re-hab facility and hospiral.

A...