As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The US Congress

1246745

Posts

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    It's really kind of crazy that as clapped out as our infrastructure is we don't have more Minnesota Bridge Collapse type disasters.

    BucketmanMoridin889
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    It's really kind of crazy that as clapped out as our infrastructure is we don't have more Minnesota Bridge Collapse type disasters.

    Luck and the fact a lot of that stuff was pretty overbuilt back in the day but those checks are coming due sooner rather than later.

    Styrofoam SammichDoodmannNobeardTicaldfjamCommander ZoomArdolSleepFencingsaxCaptain CarrotShadowfireoverride367shrykeGONG-00something a million times dumberLord_AsmodeusRedTideMorganVGennenalyse RuebenHappylilElfTofystedethGiantGeek2020KamarButtersStabbity StyleDavid WalgasDee KaeToxboogedybooMan in the MistsBucketmanMagellElldrennever dieMoridin889emp123
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 31
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    We actually have one of the most heavily utilized freight rail network in the world. I forget where to get the stats offhand, but long haul trucking is mostly just for time sensitive shipments, and the vast majority of long haul freight is currently on rails.

    moniker on
    DoodmannQuidMazzyxSleepAngelHedgiejmcdonaldLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse RuebenTofystedethGiantGeek2020StarZapperlazegamerElldrenMoridin889
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    We actually have one of the most heavily utilized freight rail network in the world. I forget where to get the stats offhand, but long haul trucking is mostly just for time sensitive shipments, and the vast majority of long haul freight is currently on rails.

    Lots of short haul trucks from the rail yards though, of course. But yeah - the US has shitty passenger rail use and great freight rail.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    monikerNetscapeKayne Red RobeLord_AsmodeusTofystedethStarZapperMan in the MistsBucketmanElldrenMoridin889
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    edited March 31
    Obnoxiously I have no finally found the actual details located here.

    e: correction, just the press release bullshit and not the real detailed thing

    Oghulk on
    moniker
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I think Styro is looking for more “where we’re going, we don’t need roads” type components and yeah we should definitely lead the way in reducing concrete and creating non-surface-contact transportation

    No its more just that like so much for smart roads of the future or whatever just seems odd when like our basic infrastructure across a lot of the country is in such a state of disrepair and under development. Dont get me wrong Im all for developing new technology but if budgets are priorities this one leaves me scratching my head a bit.

    It's general R&D funding, not exclusively smart roads or whatever. Again, details will detail it, but think DOE National Labs, not asphalt research. Infrastructure means so much more than just roads. Which this proposal demonstrates.

    IncenjucarkimeFencingsaxNetscapeLord_Asmodeus
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    The proposal isn't enough money and feels like a weird place to be starting from. Nothing to address the power sector (except a vague $100 billion to the electric grid over 8 years and an extension of the PTC) and ask Congress to pretty please pass an renewable portfolio standard on power producers, a thing that can't be done through reconciliation, instead of a carbon tax, which could be done through reconciliation.

    Styrofoam Sammichsomething a million times dumberSpoitGiantGeek2020ToxBucketman
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

    We are years behind in basic research investment. This type of investment in this bill feels right because it will help do things such as "build windmills" in the long term but also help us developed systems and items that we should have been developing years ago.

    Basically it is one of those things where investment in research by the government tends to go places where you can't make money but are very important and we have been not doing enough for decades. So in this case it is more of a why not both not why this and not that.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    IncenjucarArdolSleepFencingsaxoverride367monikershrykeLord_Asmodeusjimb213TofystedethadytumMan in the MistsElldrenMoridin889emp123
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

    We are years behind in basic research investment. This type of investment in this bill feels right because it will help do things such as "build windmills" in the long term but also help us developed systems and items that we should have been developing years ago.

    Basically it is one of those things where investment in research by the government tends to go places where you can't make money but are very important and we have been not doing enough for decades. So in this case it is more of a why not both not why this and not that.

    Sure, why not both. But in the context of a bill where one is in over the other, the other would be more beneficial in the immediate term toward actually addressing climate change. The longer we delay the more we actually need R&D into things like carbon capture tech, but right now renewable generation is already competitive with other sources -- we just need to spend the money and put it into operation. $180 billion would more than double the amount of wind energy in operation right now.

    Tofystedeth
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Is the plan to pass this thing in reconciliation 2?

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

    We are years behind in basic research investment. This type of investment in this bill feels right because it will help do things such as "build windmills" in the long term but also help us developed systems and items that we should have been developing years ago.

    Basically it is one of those things where investment in research by the government tends to go places where you can't make money but are very important and we have been not doing enough for decades. So in this case it is more of a why not both not why this and not that.

    Yeah. We'd all be a lot better off as a species and a planet if more spending like this was happening. We desperately need more investment in low-emissions infrastructure and one weird trick to reduce car crashes in rainy weather. Corporations don't have much reason to invest in saving lives or the ecology, and if they do it's because they can charge so much that it will cost lives anyway.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    Is the plan to pass this thing in reconciliation 2?

    I believe so

    kimemonikerGiantGeek202038thDoeToxBucketman
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

    We are years behind in basic research investment. This type of investment in this bill feels right because it will help do things such as "build windmills" in the long term but also help us developed systems and items that we should have been developing years ago.

    Basically it is one of those things where investment in research by the government tends to go places where you can't make money but are very important and we have been not doing enough for decades. So in this case it is more of a why not both not why this and not that.

    Let's split the difference.

    150 billion for research.

    30 billion to build one giant one that looms over Maralago like the monolith from 2001 space odyssey.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    SmrtnikDoodmannMazzyxArdolGilgaronShadowfireoverride367FoolOnTheHillshrykeForarAimLord_AsmodeusRedTideMvrckTofystedethGiantGeek2020KamarStabbity StyleboogedybooMan in the MistsBucketmanElldrennever dieemp123
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Is the plan to pass this thing in reconciliation 2?

    I believe so

    I think what I read is they are going to try and do it via the reconciliation process that allows for changes and edits to the previous budget so it doesn't eat all of their reconciliation options up.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    moniker
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    $2.2T. It's a start.

    Presumably it will also be a Federal Match, so State and Local funds (and maybe P3, although... I really hate those. Bonds are also Public Private Partnerships, you know) mean it should probably be ~20% more than the headline number.

    For me the exciting thing is expanding the idea of infrastructure beyond roads and bridges &c. Water and sewerage need money. So does broadband deployment and the electrical grid. There's no reason not to invest significant federal funds in it other than historically we haven't much.
    I've always thought we should be putting desalination plants throughout California. In terms of infrastructure spending that always seamed like a missed opportunity to correct a serious problem that the west coast has. Right now Cali has 11. They should have 80. Especially with global warming issues.

    Kayne Red Robe
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    $2.2T. It's a start.

    Presumably it will also be a Federal Match, so State and Local funds (and maybe P3, although... I really hate those. Bonds are also Public Private Partnerships, you know) mean it should probably be ~20% more than the headline number.

    For me the exciting thing is expanding the idea of infrastructure beyond roads and bridges &c. Water and sewerage need money. So does broadband deployment and the electrical grid. There's no reason not to invest significant federal funds in it other than historically we haven't much.
    I've always thought we should be putting desalination plants throughout California. In terms of infrastructure spending that always seamed like a missed opportunity to correct a serious problem that the west coast has. Right now Cali has 11. They should have 80. Especially with global warming issues.

    De-sal has its own problems and inefficiencies. Most of the water concerns on the West Coast are self imposed due to water rights issues and agricultural choices/trends.

    Also as always, abandon Phoenix.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    TicaldfjamFencingsaxmonikershrykeA Dabble Of TheloniusOremLKLord_AsmodeusSpoitCommander ZoomTofystedethAistanElldrenMoridin889
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    don't desalination plants use massive amounts of electricity?

    so, until you're not burning natural gas to make the electricity you're just making the water issues caused by global warming worse by causing more global warming...

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    uH3IcEi.png
  • GilgaronGilgaron Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    don't desalination plants use massive amounts of electricity?

    so, until you're not burning natural gas to make the electricity you're just making the water issues caused by global warming worse by causing more global warming...

    So you're saying I can't cool the room by leaving the door open to the fridge?

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Is the plan to pass this thing in reconciliation 2?

    I believe so

    I think what I read is they are going to try and do it via the reconciliation process that allows for changes and edits to the previous budget so it doesn't eat all of their reconciliation options up.

    Yeah, Schumer is in talks with the Parliamentarian about interpretation of an aspect of Reconciliation where they might get a third bite at the cherry.

  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    $2.2T. It's a start.

    Presumably it will also be a Federal Match, so State and Local funds (and maybe P3, although... I really hate those. Bonds are also Public Private Partnerships, you know) mean it should probably be ~20% more than the headline number.

    For me the exciting thing is expanding the idea of infrastructure beyond roads and bridges &c. Water and sewerage need money. So does broadband deployment and the electrical grid. There's no reason not to invest significant federal funds in it other than historically we haven't much.
    I've always thought we should be putting desalination plants throughout California. In terms of infrastructure spending that always seamed like a missed opportunity to correct a serious problem that the west coast has. Right now Cali has 11. They should have 80. Especially with global warming issues.

    De-sal has its own problems and inefficiencies. Most of the water concerns on the West Coast are self imposed due to water rights issues and agricultural choices/trends.

    Also as always, abandon Phoenix.

    California's water goes through 3 states before it gets there. So you have to rely on the federal government, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. And Nevada is always trying to take it all. And there is a chance where do to various administrations or even changes to snow fall (climate change) could reduce the water California receives to about 70%. And it's going to get worst.
    Aioua wrote: »
    don't desalination plants use massive amounts of electricity?

    so, until you're not burning natural gas to make the electricity you're just making the water issues caused by global warming worse by causing more global warming...
    I don't know a better solution for getting more water to California.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I guess I'm suggesting we can stop growing so much damn alfalfa first.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    SleepFencingsaxmonikerYamiB.DecatusArdolTofystedethAistanMan in the MistsBucketmanElldrenMoridin889
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Biden’s proposal invests $180 billion in research and development. That includes a major clean-energy push to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and boost climate-focused research.

    How about instead we just spend that on windmills?

    We are years behind in basic research investment. This type of investment in this bill feels right because it will help do things such as "build windmills" in the long term but also help us developed systems and items that we should have been developing years ago.

    Basically it is one of those things where investment in research by the government tends to go places where you can't make money but are very important and we have been not doing enough for decades. So in this case it is more of a why not both not why this and not that.

    Sure, why not both. But in the context of a bill where one is in over the other, the other would be more beneficial in the immediate term toward actually addressing climate change. The longer we delay the more we actually need R&D into things like carbon capture tech, but right now renewable generation is already competitive with other sources -- we just need to spend the money and put it into operation. $180 billion would more than double the amount of wind energy in operation right now.

    Like you said, wind and solar are now already economically competitive. So they're tapping normal private funds to get built at scale and don't need subsidies to push it. And Wall Street can chuck massively more than $100bn at them. I wouldn't exactly be opposed to doing it too, we can just make the money and it's a good use for it, but it's already on its way. Private money spent ~$57bn in 2018 alone. It's probably higher now than just inflation adjusted terms. Adding $1.8bn/yr would be a welcome addition, but it's not game changing like it would be on research and commercialization of new tech.

  • useruser Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    $2.2T. It's a start.

    Presumably it will also be a Federal Match, so State and Local funds (and maybe P3, although... I really hate those. Bonds are also Public Private Partnerships, you know) mean it should probably be ~20% more than the headline number.

    For me the exciting thing is expanding the idea of infrastructure beyond roads and bridges &c. Water and sewerage need money. So does broadband deployment and the electrical grid. There's no reason not to invest significant federal funds in it other than historically we haven't much.
    I've always thought we should be putting desalination plants throughout California. In terms of infrastructure spending that always seamed like a missed opportunity to correct a serious problem that the west coast has. Right now Cali has 11. They should have 80. Especially with global warming issues.

    De-sal has its own problems and inefficiencies. Most of the water concerns on the West Coast are self imposed due to water rights issues and agricultural choices/trends.

    Also as always, abandon Phoenix.

    California's water goes through 3 states before it gets there. So you have to rely on the federal government, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. And Nevada is always trying to take it all. And there is a chance where do to various administrations or even changes to snow fall (climate change) could reduce the water California receives to about 70%. And it's going to get worst.
    Aioua wrote: »
    don't desalination plants use massive amounts of electricity?

    so, until you're not burning natural gas to make the electricity you're just making the water issues caused by global warming worse by causing more global warming...
    I don't know a better solution for getting more water to California.

    This is only true for Southern California, and like even LA has most of its water coming from the Sierras.

    Doodmann
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I guess I'm suggesting we can stop growing so much damn alfalfa first.

    First first, though, let's cut meat production by 90% and relocate the remaining 10% to free range grazing off agriculturally unsuitable land

    DoodmannFencingsaxinitiatefailurekimeDecatusArchQuid
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'm hoping the research plans on looking into how many desalination plants we could get away with building, but doing so without causing other issues. Kind of seems like a big factor to any climate change approaches, would be finding ways to reduce how much water we draw from sources that are being severely stressed. Would also have the next bonuses of being additional clean drinking water and since you're pulling from the ocean, you could also have step in there to capture carbon from the ocean water being drawn. The other question is if it would even be feasible to use such things to push water to the interior, where we really do need to less the amount of water we use from natural reservoirs.

    Doodmann
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    uH3IcEi.png
    XaquinTicaldfjamPreacherStarZapperQuidElldrenMoridin889
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    MrMisterGiantGeek2020
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    monikerMan in the MistsBucketman
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Even more good is that the $400 billion in credits would be credits or direct payment grants, which is better and often more valued by producers.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    I mean this is seems to be the case whenever some industry says they have a shortage of workers.
    It's not so much that there's work being left undone, but that the bosses don't want to pay for the labor and are trying to drum up a labor surplus out of whole cloth.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    IncenjucarDoodmannmonikerPhoenix-DzagdrobLord_AsmodeusArdolCommander ZoomDarkPrimusTryCatcherTofystedethGiantGeek2020DisruptedCapitalist38thDoeStarZapperAistanQuidboogedybooLordSolarMachariusNobeardMan in the MistsBucketmanElldrenMoridin889emp123
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    I mean this is seems to be the case whenever some industry says they have a shortage of workers.
    It's not so much that there's work being left undone, but that the bosses don't want to pay for the labor and are trying to drum up a labor surplus out of whole cloth.

    Yeppers. This happened to nurses and is currently happening to STEM and will continue to happen any time there is a choke point that gives workers enough power to negotiate.

    override367Phoenix-DTynnanLord_AsmodeusAiouaReynoldsCommander ZoomTofystedethSmrtnikGiantGeek2020David WalgasStarZapperAistanQuidLordSolarMachariusMan in the MistsBucketmanElldrennever dieMoridin889
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    DoodmannBigJoeMStyrofoam SammichSleepCaedwyr
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    There's been a rise in demand for truckers, but it's almost all short haul. And rail is not competitive for short haul, nor can it be.

    However, our freight rail network could still be improved a lot. CREATE in the Chicago region is a decade behind schedule thanks almost exclusively to a lack of funding. Mostly due to axing earmarks and it overlapping a lot of different pots for grants rather than having one to push for (it's literally the first of its kind. 6 Class I railroads, a couple Class II's, plus Amtrak, plus Metra, plus IDOT, Chicago, Cook County, and regional MPO) But that alone impacts 25% of all rail traffic in the country. It's incredibly cheap and has massive returns on the dollar, but we don't make the investments because we didn't in the last and so don't have a funding mechanism setup for it.

    And I'm sure there's a bunch of other stuff like it. Which is why I'm so glad this is taking the blinders off of what constitutes infrastructure. Replacing every lead pipe is infrastructure, and worth every penny.

    DoodmannFencingsax
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    Manchin wants more money for infrastructure than this bill supplies.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikershrykeLord_AsmodeusSpoitMillBucketmanElldrenMoridin889
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    shrykeMrMisterLord_AsmodeusMillNetscapeElldren
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    Aye. Reconciliation is a fairly defined process. With 50 votes you can just chuck any rules aside and do whatever you want but at that point you aren't passing the bill through reconciliation.

    MrMistercckerberosElldrenMoridin889
Sign In or Register to comment.