http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3222683Oh my.
What curious twists-and-turns bonfires take on Skins's island:
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 02:31 PM
Original message
A Famous Guy Said Something Once; or Fuel Cost For Truckers
I can't remember who said it, maybe Fermi or someone, but it goes something like this; 'any reasonably intelligent man should be able to make a pretty good estimate of anything. So I was wondering about the effect of the increase of fuel cost for truckers.
I know that big trucks get about 5 miles per gallon, I have an idea about how big a truck is, I can apply what seem to me to be reasonable guesses about the other factors that will allow me to understand a little bit about how this should work out.
Let's say a guy is hauling a load ot televisions from a coast port to some place 2,000 miles inland, what happens if the increase in fuel cost is applied to the truck as it would be for a private operator, or if it is applied to the item being hauled as it would be in a company fleet operation.
Lets make the trailer 8 feet wide, 8 feet tall, and 40 feet long and lets make our televisions medium size so they fit in boxes that are 4'x2'x2. At those sizes 160 televisions will fit in the trailer.
Two thousand miles at five miles per gallon comes to 400 gallons of fuel. At an average speed of 55 miles per hour it will take 36 and a third hours to haul the load. Let's see what happened when the price went from $3.00 per gallon at the beginning of the year to its current $4.35.
In January the cost in fuel to move those televisions was $1,200, which was $7.50 per television. That increased to $1,740 now, which means that it now cost $540 more to drive the truck 2000 miles. The new cost is $10.88 per television. So if its a company truck the price of the television goes up by $3.38. But consider how it works out from the driver's point of view if it is his truck and he is paying for the fuel, that increase in fuel cost of $540 divided by his 36.3 hours of labor means his effective rate of pay has been reduced by $14.88 per hour. How many self employed working men do you know who can long survive a decrease in pay of almost fifteen dollars per hour?
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. why limit it to working men?
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because unemployed men can't, by definition, drive trucks for a living
And my use of the word "men" is unisex.
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. no,your use of the word men did not include women. why couldn't you just say working women and men? one cannot make assumptions about inclusion, you know.
The mountain man primitive must've been unnerved:
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That is your way of using the word, not mine. (edited)
On eidt. Why are you being a dickwad here? I'm trying to make a point about the effect of increased fuel cost on independent truckers and you're dragging this off into bullshit land where every word is a slight against good honest women. Quit trying to change the subject and quit trying to put your thoughts into my words.
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. DUers will argue about anything
Don't sweat it. Your use of the word "men" is understood.
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-29-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. oh my, trying to insult me because I questioned your use of the word "men"
why so defensive and obnoxious?
I understood your point perfectly, just wondered why it was limited. as I said, I don't make assumptions about inclusion, because, all too often, inclusion is NOT meant.
The above's the whole bonfire; no primitive's gotten around yet to having a civilized discourse with the mountain man primitive and the content of his original post.
