Also, I do see "PAR" CFLs that appear to me not up to working OK in the "heat hellholes" they appear to be made for. I see ones either lacking a written statement that they are OK there, or having being OK there qualified by a specific ambient temperature limit that sounds to me easy to exceed in "heat hellhole" recessed ceilingt fixtures.
If the fixtures are open at the bottom, CFLs can still easily overheat in them. Hot air likes to move upward. In an open-at-the-bottom recessed ceiling fixture, the hot air won't move much - so the lightbulb in such a fixture easily bakes up the temperature of the air in the fixture.
As for heat confinement speeding up warmup: My experience is that this does not increase rate of warmup, so much as increasing how much the warmup progresses (such as past optimum temperature). Do please keep in mind that "PAR" CFLs tend to be ones with outer bulbs, and those tend to start dimmer and need more warmup time than CFLs without outer bulbs.
Lower expenses, thanks to Canada's health care system. Toyota made that quite clear a few years ago when it announced its decision to locate a new plant in Canada instead of the southern US. Even though the Canadian location mean a unionized workforce and thus higher wages, it was _still_ cheaper for Toyota, due to the huge savings in health insurance costs.
When you've got a major multinational corporation explaining that financial reality to you, shouldn't you pay attention? Hey guys, don't knock universal health care if it provides your country with a competitive advantage. Which it does.
I thought I had stated they are 15 watt units After an hour of use they are not uncomfortable to remove, but the socket end is getting uncomfortable to hold.
The highest temperature I can register with my I/R temperature guage is 117F after an hour of on-time. It stabilizes there.
That's where Toyota didn't do their homework. There's no law that says an employer has to provide health-care coverage.
Not yet, anyway. Unless things change, many employers (those with more than "x" employees) will have to provide a government-sanctioned health insurance plan.
If Toyota didn't offer health care they'd be UAW long ago. Toyota has stayed close to UAW wages and benefits. Toyota hasn't failed by going to Canada. The U.S. has failed. Looks like U.S. business can't even compete using a non-union work force. Because every other industrialized country subsidizes health care for all workers. Why should a business build here when it's cheaper to build in a country where union costs are less than non-union costs here?
There are places in this country were unions are an anathema. Union organizers face the same problems as a black Catholic priest (i.e., death).
In my view, many businesses move offshore because of taxes. The U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax base (some 30+%) of any country on the planet. The U.S. actually ENCOURAGES corporations to move offshore with these confiscatory rates.
What the U.S. should do, again in my view, is to eliminate the corporate tax altogether. The corporation could pass the profits to the stockholders and the government could tax these individuals. Or, instead of passing the profits downstream, the corporation could use their profits to expand their business, providing jobs and other economic gains.
That might be a good idea, but it's not so clear cut. There's a wide discrepancy in U.S. corp effective tax rates.
formatting link
Be a big fight about it and you know who will win - the lobbyists. Many who happen to be former congress ctitters. That's what's wrong here - no leadership, just partisan politics and bought politicians.
I read a couple articles about that plant going to Canada. Favorable corp taxes was mentioned, and health care. Other things too, like educated workforce and location. And about $120 million from Ontario and the feds to sweeten the deal. But according to the article below, it was education and health care, and taxes weren't mentioned. I don't know the tax implications. And I understand Toyota built plants in Mississippi and Texas. Might be strategic reasons for that Canadian plant that have nothing to do with taxes or health care. Looks like Canadians have a low opinion of how our southern states provide education. BTW, this is old news. That plant started production in 2008.
"The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.
Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.
He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.
"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.
In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.
"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.
Thanks for the link - it reinforces my observation. The ultimate paragraph says it all:
"Companies in those industries where profit-shifting abroad is easier are also more likely to invest in work forces abroad - which is yet another reason why it may be especially timely for Congress to take up a corporate tax overhaul."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.