J.C.MacSwell

He did want to be King...so maybe a Royal Flush would be appropriate.

That's generally an advantage in a well designed heat store. It will absorb or release it's heat more readily and more efficiently (less air/fluid flow and time required all other things being equal). It depends on what you want to do. Steel certainly isn't a good insulator if that's what you're getting at. My statement is that easy. It's just a statement of fact. You may not want to replace rocks or concrete with steel, for a number of reasons, but the statement stands. It's just a fact to be considered. You can store more heat capacity at a given temperature within a given volume with steel than concrete, and store more heat capacity with concrete in a given mass. It's not rocket surgery. I think you meant volume there, correct?

Steel is a lot more dense than rocks, so the heat capacity is greater despite the lower specific heat.

Hi Mon Die Would you have a link to that?

Susan Collins, again, did the right thing...

You mean of course in a civil and peaceful manner (wink wink) We do need to fight for our rights as we choose to perceive them. Meant to edit, not quote myself...(or maybe the new interface is at fault...yeah that's it...)

It's important, no doubt, for the reason you state. That doesn't change the fact that there are more important matters currently, especially given the fact that the outcome likely wouldn't change if they dragged it out.

Well. At least it's over. Bad as he may be, there are more important matters for lawmakers to focus on than Tump

I gotta agree...it can be tough out there in no man's land.

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” Robert Burns, Scottish poet and socialist 1786

Must be rather nice to see that the Dems never do that type of towing the party line...

He's the favourite. God knows they need him. Seems many in the polls do also.

If you can provide jobs offers for everyone at higher wages, what is the need for minimum wage? Why aren't you doing it already? Why wait for the minimum wage to go up to $15? Spend the money...it's really only paper/not even paper...if it's so easy why haven't all the Democrat Governors already done it? Are they evil? Or do they realize limitations you prefer to ignore?

Then do that. Offer more and the need for a minimum wage disappears. If it can be done effectively by all means do it (okay...not all means...) But this is both an economic limitation and political one. And lawmakers (when unimpeded by lobbyists) can be good at setting the ground rules...but rarely good at carrying it out.

LOL. I biked in same with gloves and got cold hands. I hope you guys get Universal healthcare.

Fair. Just keep in mind that the "deplorables" in rural and/or economically depressed areas may see more harm than good. That could be a higher price to pay for having their freedoms restricted than what others see in the equivalent good in other areas. You're telling them, some of them, that they have no value to add without overall detriment, when you place yourself between them and their employer.

Agree. One of us seems like Bernie Sanders on steroids. The other is arguing for appropriate increases and a reasonably set UBI, as a better tool for decreasing poverty and maintaining more individual freedoms and free enterprise, while recognizing that free enterprise can't always exist where there is unfettered capitalism supported by both the Democrats and GOP, when lobbyists maintain undue influence. Thanks again. I looked at the date and it said 2021, but suspect you are correct. Note that I've recently been citing from those arguing for $15 federal minimum wage. Not that I agree with them. But they do seem well intended.

From https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/few-rewards/ "As the minimum wage has stayed stuck at $7.25 an hour for seven years, wages have stagnated. Today, 41.7 million workers earn under $12 an hour and 58.3 million workers earn under $15 an hour—wages that are too low for families to thrive." So which is correct? I would also if I thought it would work well for everyone. I mean, why not? Sure, it's never been done before...anywhere...but why not step on the gas? The economic engine might be in for a rough ride at times, like soon (with or without any increase in minimum wage), but nothing quite like stepping on the gas when engines stumble. If the bus drivers can't maintain 250 in a 100km/hr zone they shouldn't be driving...people need to be put on planes. (electric ones of course)

Thanks. I'll relook at the numbers.

Yes. Yet despite that approximately 40 million make less than 12/hr. You can't hand wave that away like a modern day Mary Antoinette. (The peasants can't find $12/hr jobs....then let them have $15/hr jobs.) Like Mary, your good intentions are flawed. Agree. The question is how much higher (and could UBI play a more effective role in reducing the need, especially in regions that would be negatively affected?) Nonsense. The highest federal minimum wage in terms of 2020 USD was in 1968. It was $1.60 or under $12 in terms of 2020 dollars. Right. Kill all the jobs that "the marketplace" won't support $15/hr, and disallow workers that can't produce at $15 from having jobs. Force them to work under the table. Force them into welfare. Maybe they get their living that way. Agree. But "appropriate" needs to be sustainable. 40 million making less than $12/hr indicates that $15 minimum wage isn't currently sustainable. Claims that it could or should be $25/hr doesn't change that. No economy is bulletproof, especially when you are willing to throw away a significant part of it because you insist they should do better, because you feel that job creating part of the economy, owes people more or simply don't deserve to survive, despite the fact that government can't do better at creating jobs, Again, compare with the affect of a reasonably set UBI on those parts of the economy, and on economically depressed regions, where people can go to work without the UBI being immediately clawed back.

Here as in on Earth...sorry if my context wasn't clear.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you or the few on the space station Dim...I meant the other 7.8 billion of us.😀

The key question is how often... vs how often are the companies with established market shares ready to mop up any lubrication of the economy by simply taking more of the available revenue without creating the jobs you have artificially put a high wage floor on...what incentives and disincentives are you putting in place? According to the Economic Policy Institute who created your persuasive presentation there are approximately 40 million Americans that would have there pay lifted by a change to $15 minimum wage. https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2024-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/ Given that many make considerably less...why hasn't anybody taken advantage of that and offered many of them more? I know why many don't and prefer to suppress wages in their industry or area. Why has no one else? Are they waiting to come forward when the minimum wage reaches $15?

You are Dim...just not readily understandable. (not claiming I am)

+1 for that. We are here. I hope you can stay positive, and learn some science and how to scientifically support what you are trying to say.