One thing worse than the $16 McDonald's combo or the $28 Taco Bell lunch is conservative columnist David Brooks claiming his mediocre burger and fries at an airport restaurant cost a whopping $78. (The devil is in the details, or the devil is the lying sack of shit I guess.)
David Brooks Is Getting Absolutely Roasted Over His $78 Airport Meal
The New York Times columnist seems to have left out some details about his tab.newrepublic.com
Go read what I have already explained. There is no added fee for a bathroom. You are trying to argue based on original cost of the house, but once that original cost is recouped.. is there an extra fee for a bathroom? Nope, as that cost is not continuous. That's why that argument is fundamentally flawed.More like slightly tangential. It’s still a place to live with similar costs and requirements to an apartment.
Because I’m still not sure @NWRMidnight agrees I was trying to drive home that 1 bathroom does have a cost associated with it. Unlike most apartments dorms can have less than one bathroom per room and those that do cost less than a residence with 1 bathroom. Which highlights the point.
Err no, it's about preventing death.Compulsory helmet laws are generally _intended_ to destroy bike use. That's the whole point of them. There's no other logical purpose for them.
Nah. If they wanted to 'prevent death' they'd do more to address the cause of those deaths - bad driving, badly-designed vehicles, and badly designed road layouts.Err no, it's about preventing death.
Err no, it's about preventing death.
I mean, why don't they pass laws compelling drivers to wear driving helmets? And maybe full fire-proof suits? If they want to 'prevent death'. Or just ban cars entirely from urban roads? All those measures would be a lot more effective at 'preventing death' than mandating bicycle helmets (which do nothing if you are hit by a car). All compulsory helmet laws do is reduce the number of people who cycle, thus increasing pollution, road-traffic-deaths and cardiovascular disease. The purpose of those laws is very clear - it's quite obviously to get cyclists off the road and out of the way of motorists.
LoL you sure are cynical. Ideally you don't mix cyclists with automobiles, that is just waiting for accidents to happen. Separated lanes are best. London has a congestion charge to reduce the number of outside vehicles no? Pretty sure that doesn't apply to cyclists. People in cars have seatbelts and airbags. Cyclist just has a helmet and if you elect to ride without one, why is that the someone else's fault?
Separated lanes are indeed best. I entirely agree with that bit. Though the best way to achieve separated lanes is to make most of the roads cycle lanes and restrict cars to a few specific 'car lanes'.
The congestion charge is set too low to really have an effect (and even as it is the degree of motorist whinging it produces is ridiculous). People in cars have seatbelts (Americans have airbags because they are so reluctant to wear seat-belts) but those are nothing like as much of an impediment to car use as compulsory helmets are to cycling - they are just part of the car.
Besides, seat-belts are there to protect drivers from the dangers of their own behaviour, the main risk to cyclists comes from motorists - why should cyclists be obligated to take precautions against the bad behaviour of others?
There's even some evidence to suggest that compulsory seat-belt laws increases the risks to everyone outside the vehicles, because it causes motorists to take more risks. One could argue that cars need to be made as dangerous as possible for those inside them, thus causing drivers to be more careful. Instead every measure to keep drivers and passengers safer makes everyone else less safe (e.g. improved roll-cages reduce the visibility from inside the vehicle, making cars more likely to be driven into pedestrians or cyclists).
Same reason we have compulsory seat belt laws now; people are fucking stupid. Really really stupid. Bag of hammers, stare at the sun, drink battery acid stupid.Because there is an inherent difference in survivability, why would you need the government to tell you to wear a helmet?
Because cyclists should have self preservation skills?
Because there is an inherent difference in survivability, why would you need the government to tell you to wear a helmet?
You want to be seen by drivers? Have bright lights and wear reflective clothing. I've had many runins with pedestrians and cyclists that think riding /running/walking on the street in the darkness wearing dark clothing is a good idea. I don't want to run over people you know. Cars are required to operate with lights.
Helmets save lives, on or off the road. Plenty of examples
So do you wear one at all times? For having a shower? Walking down the street? For driving?
Banning cars from most urban roads saves lives. Why aren't you calling for that, if that's your concern?
The evidence, incidentally, is that making helmets compulsory for cycling increases morbidity overall.
Helmets do jack shit when you're getting run over by a motor vehicle or a truck.Err no, it's about preventing death.
Helmets do jack shit when you're getting run over by a motor vehicle or a truck.
They do. They have to - it's a selection-effect. The same pressure does not apply to motorists, because their 'do not kill other people' skills are not subject to the same sort of self-reinforcing pressures.
There's an inherent diifference in 'tendency to kill other people'. Motorists are far better at that than are cyclists (or pedestrians). Why would you put all the burden on the potential victims and let the perpetrators off the hook?
There's an inherent difference in survivability comparing the person firing the gun and the person being shot at - does that mean the solution is to mandate bullet-proof vests rather than to control those who do the shooting?
No, I want drivers TO LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING. And DRIVE AT A REASONABLE SPEED. Also what's the point in wearing 'lights and reflective clothing' when motorists still run you over and then the police argue that the lights and reflective clothing 'blended in with all the other lights in the street' (as happened in one recent case).
I've had too many run-ins with drivers who don't look where they are going, or drive vehicles with terrible sight-lines to think that driving such vehicles in urban areas is a good idea.
It's not up to me to 'be seen' - it's up to drivers to look. Far too many of them don't bother.
Does a bathroom make a place more expensive, less expensive, or does it have no effect on the price?Go read what I have already explained. There is no added fee for a bathroom. You are trying to argue based on original cost of the house, but once that original cost is recouped.. is there an extra fee for a bathroom? Nope, as that cost is not continuous. That's why that argument is fundamentally flawed.
We are not talking about multiple bathrooms. We are taking about the required single basic bathroom.
it's part of of a structure requirement of the house, just like the roof, or the rafters.. it's and "ingredient" for the final product. You might as well be arguing that landlords charge a fee that is baked into the rent for every nail in the house., but that would be a funtimanelly flawed belief, becaue they are not renting a nail. they are renting a complete product. The builder charges that to the first purchaser.. after that, it's a single product/asset, to either be sold again, or rented. You keep going back to construction costs. those cost are paid by the purchaser when they purchase that newly created SINGLE PRODUCT/ASSET that the owner/landlard rents out. When a product is rented, they are renting the product as a whole, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom, the roof, or the nails. It's a single complete product that is rented, used, over and over. At some point all costs are recouped.. and they continue renting at the market rate a a resuable product, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom. In the case of a landord, that produce is a house, or an apartment. Look at it from a different perspective. A house was bought 50 years ago for $20k. today that can sell for $200k. Is that new increased price charging for a fucking bathroom? NO, it's being sold a a single complete product or rather asset, based off market value. There is not fee because there is a basic bathroom in it. It's part of the single product being resold.Does a bathroom make a place more expensive, less expensive, or does it have no effect on the price?
Does the presence of a functional bathroom raise the market price of a housing asset, lower the market price of a housing asset, or have no effect on the market price of a housing asset?it's part of of a structure requirement of the house, just like the roof, or the rafters.. it's and "ingredient" for the final product. You might as well be arguing that landlords charge a fee that is baked into the rent for every nail in the house., but that would be a funtimanelly flawed belief, becaue they are not renting a nail. they are renting a complete product. The builder charges that to the first purchaser.. after that, it's a single product/asset, to either be sold again, or rented. You keep going back to construction costs. those cost are paid by the purchaser when they purchase that newly created SINGLE PRODUCT/ASSET that the owner/landlard rents out. When a product is rented, they are renting the product as a whole, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom, the roof, or the nails. It's a single complete product that is rented, used, over and over. At some point all costs are recouped.. and they continue renting at the market rate a a resuable product, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom. In the case of a landord, that produce is a house, or an apartment. Look at it from a different perspective. A house was bought 50 years ago for $20k. today that can sell for $200k. Is that new increased price charging for a fucking bathroom? NO, it's being sold a a single complete product or rather asset, based off market value. There is not fee because there is a basic bathroom in it. It's part of the single product being resold.
You are trying to argue as if residential housing is a consumable. Like a cookie, that is consumed when purchased, and the final price includes the cost of ingrediences. A house is not a consumable. Do you argue that a wendy's hamburger has an added fee for the flour in the bun? NO. Because wendy's doesn't purchase that flour, they purchase a single complete produce, the bun, in which they use to make a hamburger..Does their price point include the cost of that bun, yes, but ONLY ONCE, as the product is consumed.. It's not rented out over and over. When the builder, constructs the house into a single product, in which he charges ONCE for the materials and costs that go into making that single product. The purhcaser, if they sell it or rent it, is now selling, or renting a single product/asset, that unlike most things, increase in value as time goes on.. It's a single asset.. not multiple assests combined in one..
Lets take a computer. If you buy a dell for example, the price you pay, is for the manufacturing costs which include each componant, and that is how dell calculates the price. Once you purchase that complete product, the comptuer, it is now a single product, or a single asset. So if you decide down the road to sell that dell computer, or rent it, you determine the cost on the market value of that single asset/product, not the internal componants. Because it is now a single asset/product and the value of that asset/product has nothing to do with the manufacturing costs. The hopes is you can sell it for a profit, but unlike a house, computer generally depreciates. So you are are going to sell it for less.. Or do you add a "fee" baked into that final selling price of that used product/asset, because the dell computer has a processor? NO, you don't. It's all based on market value and has nothing to do with construction costs after the original sale.
A house is the same thing.. Once the final constructed product was sold, it became a single physical asset, the value is no longer based on it's construction costs.. from that day forward it is fully based on market value. I dare you to go to a USED car lot, and ask the salesman if they add a fee into the final price for the motor in the car.. or go to a rental company and ask them if they add a fee into the rent for a bathroom.. you will be laughed out the fucking door.
You keep wanting to argue that the renter is paying for the original construction, that is false. They are paying to use a singe physcal asset, and when they are done renting it, someone else is going to rent that same asset.
it's part of of a structure requirement of the house, just like the roof, or the rafters.. it's and "ingredient" for the final product. You might as well be arguing that landlords charge a fee that is baked into the rent for every nail in the house., but that would be a funtimanelly flawed belief, becaue they are not renting a nail. they are renting a complete product. The builder charges that to the first purchaser.. after that, it's a single product/asset, to either be sold again, or rented. You keep going back to construction costs. those cost are paid by the purchaser when they purchase that newly created SINGLE PRODUCT/ASSET that the owner/landlard rents out. When a product is rented, they are renting the product as a whole, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom, the roof, or the nails. It's a single complete product that is rented, used, over and over. At some point all costs are recouped.. and they continue renting at the market rate a a resuable product, they are not adding a fee for a bathroom. In the case of a landord, that produce is a house, or an apartment. Look at it from a different perspective. A house was bought 50 years ago for $20k. today that can sell for $200k. Is that new increased price charging for a fucking bathroom? NO, it's being sold a a single complete product or rather asset, based off market value. There is not fee because there is a basic bathroom in it. It's part of the single product being resold.
You are trying to argue as if residential housing is a consumable. Like a cookie, that is consumed when purchased, and the final price includes the cost of ingrediences. A house is not a consumable. Do you argue that a wendy's hamburger has an added fee for the flour in the bun? NO. Because wendy's doesn't purchase that flour, they purchase a single complete produce, the bun, in which they use to make a hamburger..Does their price point include the cost of that bun, yes, but ONLY ONCE, as the product is consumed.. It's not rented out over and over. When the builder, constructs the house into a single product, in which he charges ONCE for the materials and costs that go into making that single product. The purhcaser, if they sell it or rent it, is now selling, or renting a single product/asset, that unlike most things, increase in value as time goes on.. It's a single asset.. not multiple assests combined in one..
Lets take a computer. If you buy a dell for example, the price you pay, is for the manufacturing costs which include each componant, and that is how dell calculates the price. Once you purchase that complete product, the comptuer, it is now a single product, or a single asset. So if you decide down the road to sell that dell computer, or rent it, you determine the cost on the market value of that single asset/product, not the internal componants. Because it is now a single asset/product and the value of that asset/product has nothing to do with the manufacturing costs. The hopes is you can sell it for a profit, but unlike a house, computer generally depreciates. So you are are going to sell it for less.. Or do you add a "fee" baked into that final selling price of that used product/asset, because the dell computer has a processor? NO, you don't. It's all based on market value and has nothing to do with construction costs after the original sale.
A house is the same thing.. Once the final constructed product was sold, it became a single physical asset, the value is no longer based on it's construction costs.. from that day forward it is fully based on market value. I dare you to go to a USED car lot, and ask the salesman if they add a fee into the final price for the motor in the car.. or go to a rental company and ask them if they add a fee into the rent for a bathroom.. you will be laughed out the fucking door.
You keep wanting to argue that the renter is paying for the original construction, that is false. They are paying to use a singe physcal asset, and when they are done renting it, someone else is going to rent that same asset.
If by very weird, you mean Brooks is full of shit, then sure. The restaurant was identified, and the lunch entree itself is around $18. So with his lunch, Brooks ordered about $60 of whisky. Nobody knows what he drank or how much, so it's impossible to judge how high the booze markup was. IF he's drinking a standard 12 year old scotch, then that's about THREE shots for lunch? LOLOK, David Brooks's claim is a very weird story, that probably says more about his drinking than anything to do with the economy.
But I have say I recently ventured into Burger King for the first time in years as I had a sudden desire to fall off the healthy-eating wagon. Only, not having been in a burger joint for ages, when I got to the counter I was horrified at the prices and turned around and left again. The cost-of-living diet.
Guys, let's stop trying to make a funtimanelly sound argument.Isn't there some law of the internet where the first guy to respond with a wall of text automatically loses the argument?
RE: Bathrooms - I have to imagine a unit with a bathroom built in would command a higher price than a unit with a communal bathroom.
true, but it can help when you hit your head. It is far better to not mix traffic.