fuel taxes

[john5746]

The government establishes law and order, arguably a civilized society for business and consumers to operate in. In that way, the government serves all of us - not just the rich dude that owns the business. What benefit are you speaking of that he has received from our government, that I have not received as well? I believe the laws effect all of us. You're free to put a second mortgage on your home and risk all of your assets like so many other successful rich people did before they got rich. There's nothing stopping you...but you.

 

I don't agree with this idea of weighted benefit. Joe Blow enjoys more success than me, so he is "benefiting" from the government more than me. No, no..you're leaving a step out...Joe blow risked and did what I'm not willing to do to enjoy more success than me. He earned it. I didn't. I chose security - an 8 to 5 job, guaranteed paycheck. He didn't. He took a chance and gave up security. ...

 

I will just have to agree to disagree. I see your point, but if I and Bill Gates lived without the American Government(American People), we would both see a reduction in our standard of living, but he would see a much, much larger reduction. That is why I say he benefits more. Yes, he earned it through hard work, smarts, risk taking and some luck. But, he would not have had the opportunity to begin with if not for the American people. So, my point is valid as well. So the wealthy can cry if they want, but many agree with me.

 

 

Yes, the tax and spend concept is a democrat idea.

 

You said behaviour modification through taxes. Well, the republicans modify alot of behaviour, by "promising" not to raise taxes, while we run up deficits and fight costly wars. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, so the middle class will need to pay it in future years.

 

Spend on credit it does feel better.

 

Taxes are a punishment. Economics is a domino effect. When you play around with hiking taxes here and there you always end up treading over the innocent. I personally find it incredibly offensive and downright weird that democrats - renowned for their support of the little guy - don't care about that. Democrats have become anti-rich, not pro-working class. There's a huge difference.

 

Hopefully you've read tomgwyther's post by now. Nothing speaks like experience...

 

Taxes pay for the soldiers in Iraq, the policeman and roads. Is this a punishment vs paying the factory worker who made the xbox?

[Ndi]

2. Public transport is only an answer when the majority of people work in a localised area.

[...]

3. The idea of car pooling is a furphy.

 

Both valid points, but even though carpooling is smoke, public transportation does have a valid point, that is, it can take the load off the road and gas when loads of people move from point A to B, which DOES happen. While not a solution in itself, it does lighten the load.

 

IMO, gas taxes are idiotic as long as a valid alternative isn't here. Leave it be, people will adapt when things run out, as we adapted to other factors. Nobody drives hydrogen because there are decades of gas left. What's the point? I mean, if it's the last bread on Earth, why eat it half-way? Preserve what? We'll have to eat something else anyway so why not finish it?

 

Why raise taxes artificially to make people move/draw money/whatever when you can just wait it out a few years more? Oil will run low, prices will rise, people will start adapting cars and/or abandon them for other means of transportation.

 

This tax along with others long left the realm of a way of drawing money to feed police and army. It's a control tool to try to level people out as much as possible. Why not switch to communism and get it over with?

 

Taxes I understand. Selective taxes for other purposes than building houses and providing services to the citizen I don't. Maybe politics work differently where you are but around here I can't help feeling like I borrowed money to a friend to get me a bike and he claims he no longer has it because it spent it in the lolly I got for my birthday.

 

If it were up to me all politicians should have minimum wage with no possibility of other finances and a strict check. Politics is for those who aim to do good, not for getting rich. A generous pension should await them upon retirement as a thank you. Live like us, understand, act. Then you get paid. How does a million-dollar-a-year-salary help anyone understand what gas price is and what "need to drive to work" means?

 

Sorry about ranting.

[Royston]

The problem is you can't treat an ecological problem purely through economics. It would be the equivalent of putting taxes on packaging and increasing tax on waste removal and using revenue for new land fill sites and research into biodegradebal packaging.

 

Or you could encourage everybody to do their bit, and use current technology where you can i.e recycling, reduce the amount of packaging on products, biodegradebal packaging where it's possible, and think of ways of using your waste for other means...rather than just throwing it in the bin.

 

Simply shifting revenue doesn't work due to the knock on effect in other areas, so it's up to everyone to use 'their' energy, and make a few sacrifices (doing their bit) to reduce the use of carbon based energy. Creating revenue by encouraging people to take these measures will also help, as long as that revenue is put into ways of reducing the use of fossil fuels e.g alternative eco-friendly fuels.

 

I'm quite hot on this subject, as most of my working life I've heard comments such as...'you wouldn't catch me riding a bike to work'...'no-one else is making an effort, why should I' and 'I can't stand buses.' Pathetic really, when you think of the consequences.

[JohnB]

There is another option. Telecommuting.

 

I don't know the figures for any other city but in Brisbane public transport accounts for only 15% of the commuting public. Mainly for the reasons I outlined above.

 

As a purely intellectual exercise a few years ago I worked out some figures. What if the city of Brisbane had taken the money spent on busways and bypasses and instead gave that money in the form of grants to private enterprise?

 

A single one off, tax free payment of $10,000 to any company for every employee that they convert to telecommuting 3 or more days per week.

 

Given that 85% of commuters travel by car and 82% of those are single occupant vehicles, if an equivalent amount had been spent then a staggering 50,000 car per day would be taken off the road. Less smog, less road damage, less congestion and less hassle and road rage.

 

To take my company for example, we have;

1 Receptionist.

1 Managing Director/Salesman.

1 Manager.

2 Salesmen.

4 Exhibitor Services.

2 Computer Aided Designers.

2 Event Managers.

 

The receptionist and manager need to be physically present.

The MD only needs to be present when seeing a client at our premises.

The two Salemen go out to see clients and only need our office as a base of operations.

The 4 from Exhibitor Services get their client list via email and call the exhibitors by phone. They then enter the information into a database. They might as well be in Timbucktoo for all the difference it would make.

The 2 designers could easily work from home 3 days per week.

The 2 Event Managers go out to see clients or enter data into their computers. They do not need to be physically present in the office most of the time.

 

Look around your own workplace and ask "How many of these people need to physically be here for them to do their job?" Obviously there would be weekly meetings etc, but how many could work from home 3 or more days per week?

 

Anyone who works mostly via telephone and email or leaves the building to conduct their business could do their job from just about anywhere.

 

Some might argue against the idea of giving the money to companies but look at it this way. When a gov spends $500 million to build a Freeway are they spending the cash to build a freeway or to help solve a traffic problem? No matter which way you cut it the second reason is the answer.

 

So, if you're going to spend the cash to solve the traffic problem then there are two and only two things you can do. Make more roads or reduce the number of cars. The above idea directly reduces the number of cars without penalising anybody. And so far it's the only idea I've ever seen that does that.

 

You're not forcing anybody to do anything, but you are offering an incentive to those who wish to try something different. And hey, you were going to spend the money anyway.

[1veedo]

The problem isn't with cars but with how we've laid out our country.

I don't know the figures for any other city but in Brisbane public transport accounts for only 15% of the commuting public. Mainly for the reasons I outlined above.

I dont know what it is but English speaking countries have very poor public transportation: America, Britain, and Australia. Other countries have excellent public transportation that is used by the vast majority of people. I'm not sure what it's like in any other country, but I assume the reason is similar to what's happened in the US. Everyone lives outside of cities in suburbs.

 

The suburbs are essentially the worst missallocation of resources on the history of this planet. Engineers have been saying for over forty years that we're simply not going to be able to continue to afford it. If you want a good investment plan, invest in city residential property. In twenty years, property value for the suburbs is going to drop dramatically and increase in the cities.

 

If everyone lived closer to the city, public transportation would work a lot better.

 

What a lot of people don't understand is that we chose to be dependent on foreign oil. Everyone talks about reducing dependency but the simple fact is that nobody actually wants to. What we really want to do is to continue living the way we are but magically find other sources of energy.

 

It's not going to happen. We, as a nation, have a choice. Do we continue to live like we currently are, or do we reduce our dependence on foreign oil? The obvious answer is that we're going to continue to live the way we are now.

 

The only reason gas taxes in the US are so low is because they have to be. If we had to pay $8 per gallon, our entire country would fall. In better countries, like Germany, they can afford to pay higher taxes because people dont drive like they do around here.

 

Raising taxes in the US would be disastrous. If it were possible, the government would have already done it.

[Ndi]

Public transportation, as well as suburban lifestyle could be saved with building relocation. You can build an outer ring outside of the town that connects all living areas and those could have connections with a commercial, inner ring.

 

That way one could drive in circles (so to speak) to a large parking lot where they embark for the center. Once there, a small system of transportation could ferry citizens from point to point as needed, like an array of buses, mini-taxis and such. Those could be regulated to be clean (electric, bio, compressed air, etc).

 

While all the cars are still on the road, they drive on a huge circle outside the town instead of hitting lights and concentrating.

 

Only problem is the city is no longer a city, it's an industrial center with houses around it. When entertainment/better housing starts to develop on -say- east, then the center of gravity also shifts and the city relocates with a new center.

 

Out capital was build like that, an inner ring with all the hotels, administration, etc, and the outer housing area. The infrastructure was designed a long time ago, and it was for 200.000 cars. As the city grew (estimated 1.2 million cars on the road, 2 million in a few years), even the "outer" ring is crowded and is now the "inner" ring. A new outer ring was established, but unfortunately wherever you go you need to get to the inner ring if you go from one side to the other and the traffic is murder.

 

But in theory and with control it could work.

 

Assuming city organizing is an acceptable answer to gas prices. Which it's not, unless the tax is used to tone down the traffic.

 

I know that US is in an awkward position with the oil, but IMO price jumps (taxes or not) are inevitable. I also believe nothing will change until prices actually rise. I've never been there, but I do have friends over, but I understand that US has roughly the same problem as Australia and (partially) as we do: distance, Mainly due to large area cities. In UK (last time I've been there) the problems were more in the general area of infrastructure, rather than car floods (minus London). I have no idea how you're gonna fix London, sorry. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Pangloss]

The suburbs are essentially the worst missallocation of resources on the history of this planet. Engineers have been saying for over forty years that we're simply not going to be able to continue to afford it. If you want a good investment plan, invest in city residential property. In twenty years, property value for the suburbs is going to drop dramatically and increase in the cities.

 

I disagree with your conclusions, although I certainly agree that being spread out is why we have poor public transportation. Where we disagree is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. The funny thing about what "engineers" (read: "environmentalists") have been saying there is that they've yet to become correct.

 

Suburban and rural property values generally rise, btw, not fall. They just rise faster (for the most part) in urban areas.

 

Suburban growth is due to having fast highways an cheap gas. It's based on market conditions that simply haven't changed -- even now gas prices are just a minor portion of a typical household budget. Trade in the SUV for a sedan and you've re-balanced the equation in the suburbs' favor again.

 

So this is mainly a perception problem rather than a reality. But I do agree that we can and should do better in the area of inexpensive public transportation, even if we have to do so at a "loss" and under government subsidy. Getting around cheaply and easily is a good thing, and it benefits even those of us who want to drive BMWs and SUVs on uncrowded roads.

[JohnB]

That way one could drive in circles (so to speak) to a large parking lot where they embark for the center. Once there, a small system of transportation could ferry citizens from point to point as needed, like an array of buses, mini-taxis and such. Those could be regulated to be clean (electric, bio, compressed air, etc).

This is only of use if people are actually going to the centre. (See below.)

 

Another factor (and again I know this applies to Brisbane but it may be relevent to your city) is that cities were designed before cars and large trucking concerns.

 

They grew from towns which were nothing more than centralised places for trade. That's where the ships come in, that's where the rail depot is. Roads were designed to allow people to travel to the places of goods distribution. Because the people came for the goods, services were located there too. All roads led to the centre.

 

Now however, we have shopping complexes and service centres all over the place and people don't have to travel to the city centre. But the roads are still on the old pattern. In Brisbane some 76% of all commuters travelling to the city centre aren't going there, they are going to another suburb. But because of the 100 year old road layout they have to into the city before they can go out and continue to their destination.

 

Think about it. How many long term parking spaces are available in your city? 10,000? How many cars are on the roads each day? 100,000? The figures say they ain't going to the city except to go somewhere else.

 

I live about 6 miles from the city centre. I have to travel to within 1 mile of the city centre before I can get on a road that takes me out to where I work. Lunacy.

 

We should also remember there are geographical considerations that effect Public Transport and "Ring roads". While buses can go anywhere, trains are limited to a (IIRC) 1:50 gradient and really big radius curves, so a hilly area can't use trains. (There was talk of a ring road west of my place for a while. Then someone realised that the road would actually be a series of bridges joining the hilltops. The hills go straight up and straight down about 400 feet at a time and they are solid living granite. Very expensive to build, but great views, Billion dollar views, you might say. )

 

Addendum. It is pointless trying to compare Europe to the USA or Australia. Size and population come into effect. As shown below.

Germany; Area-357,021 sq km, Population-82,422,299 (July 2006 est.)

France; Area-547,030 sq km, Population-60,876,136 (July 2006 est.)

Queensland; Area-1,730,648 sq km, Population-3,800,000.

Victoria; Area-227,600 sq km, Population-4,644,950. (2001)

 

There is no way in hell we can afford the sort of transportation systems they have.

[CPL.Luke]

There is another option already in place in the US. (albeit inefectively)

 

every car company that sells cars on the US market has to have the fuel economies of every car it sells average to 21. mpg. if this doesn't happen the car company gets heavily fined. This provides a motivator for the car companies to produce cars with a higher fuel economy, and it also increases the price of gas guzzlers as they lower the company's average fuel economy.

 

Unfortunatly there are a number of loop holes in this law such as allowing a company to report the fuel economy of an SUV that is capable of running on ethanol as being 5mpg higher than it really is even though the car will never run on ethanol.

[Ndi]

This is only of use if people are actually going to the centre. (See below.)

 

Indeed. If they don't then the issue is not number of people, but road design.

 

Another factor (and again I know this applies to Brisbane but it may be relevent to your city) is that cities were designed before cars and large trucking concerns.

 

Addendum. It is pointless trying to compare Europe to the USA or Australia. Size and population come into effect. As shown below.

Germany; Area-357,021 sq km, Population-82,422,299 (July 2006 est.)

France; Area-547,030 sq km, Population-60,876,136 (July 2006 est.)

Queensland; Area-1,730,648 sq km, Population-3,800,000.

Victoria; Area-227,600 sq km, Population-4,644,950. (2001)

 

Don't compare such areas, we never took into account the possibility that US will ever have German road infrastructure. We were speaking about localized concentrations, such as cities. Inter-city traffic is simple, as long as you build a wide enough, regulated enough highway.

 

There is another option

 

This is another option to what? Forcing an average MPG only makes companies issue models. This is an issue for all people who drive, regardless, like taxes and limited resources, pollution. A person who wants to drive cheaper will buy a smaller, more efficient engine anyway, so what's the point? Forcing an SUV manufacturer to design and build city cars will only make for immense costs and lousy cars. How does forcing Porsche to issue a 1.3 liter diesel 911 help?

 

Unless you CAN'T buy an efficient car in the US (which is not the case - imports sell quite well), forcing small engines only helps bad management and marketing of car companies move with the already there market.

 

Large engine, huge guzzlers are already way more expensive than a small car, so people who afford and like SUVs will buy SUVs. Making gas more expensive can tone buyers down, but I fail to see how forcing US companies to also build smaller engines helps. It's not like there aren't any.

 

If you really want to trash SUVs, tax engine capacity, emissions, weight (road preservation) - or better yet - help those who buy smaller or cleaner cars as a push-pull system.

[CPL.Luke]

did you not see the part where a car company is now going to sell a big gas guzzeler for more money? if the company can only sell so many or they get fined, then they are going to push up the price of the gas guzzler and produce fewer of them, thus forcing the market into more gas efficient vehicles, and opening a larger market for gas efficient SUVs.

 

its not about forcing the car companies to issue more efficient vehicles its about making them sell more efficient vehicles.

 

just think if you were to average the gas mileages of every car being sold in the US over the course of a year and you got say 18 mpg, that means that on average people who drive cars in the US burn a gallon of gas every 18 miles, now if you put a law into place mandating that that average is 21 mpg, then you have effectively cut gas consumption by new car buyers by ~15% thats a good plan.

[Ndi]

I fail to see it as a good idea.

 

Like I said before, forcing an SUV to a slightly higher price is not the way. People who can afford to buy AND KEEP an SUV will still do so. Additionally, second hand market will be boosted to compensate for those who can't buy an SUV any more.

 

At least taxation brought more money to the government. At least Euro standards forced cleaner cars into roads or no sale at all. Pushing market by 5% is not a solution. Nor do I see it a an option. Lower consumption and lower emissions are not the same. When in doubt, cast your eye towards people who have cars that are cleaner and more efficient (like Europe) and learn from their mistakes.

 

Forcing Porsche to have the same emissions as a 1.1l 5l/100Km car boosted engine technology because they had no place to go. Those who can buy Porsche or Mercedes can afford the gas if it grows to 10E/liter. It's not those who need to be toned down, it's the cheap car with the small engine that would do anything to be efficient and cheap in order to sell and maintaining those standards.

 

They risked having a motorized panic situation as some large manufacturer couldn't adapt. And they won. In 13 years they went well below half of what was smoked out, added new gases to regulations and the line of progression allows manufacturers to predict change and pre-design card for the next 10 years. Falling behind on standards slowly raises your taxes. After a number of years you either keep it on top notch shape and get a license for a classic car or you pay the value of the car every few months. It's how you make factories produce a car that has 4 seats, power steering, power braking, air conditioning, eat 5l/100 km (45 MPG) in town traffic and be twice as clean as before. For some 5000E (AC version is 6000. You also get additional lighting, central locking, high-load suspension, electric trunk, and so on for another 500E). It wasn't done by introducing less smokers.

 

And that's not all. If you want to sell to Europe (and you do), you need to adhere to the strictest of standards, they are *not* going to import lower quality. That forced other large manufacturers, like Asia area, to do their R&D. Toyota makes 106HP gasoline engines with 34 MPG city. The diesel gets 56 MPG. That's 1200 Km/full tank (13 gallons). Looking at Chevy, that's SF. The best they can throw at me is the Aveo (which is Daewoo Kalos renamed). The Spark is Daewoo Matiz renamed which, as a coincidence, was the 5000E car mentioned above, which, oddly, is not listed as an option for US.

 

This still my point of view and by no means the answer or the right way. I just think that the proportion limiting is like people were stepping on your foot and instead of making everyone wear boots then snickers then sandals, you allow people to wear golf shoes and stomp on your foot if they promise to also step on your foot with a sports shoe later on.

 

You don't help your health if you smoke a light cigarette each day. You help if you switch continuously (assuming you can't quit).

[1veedo]

Don't compare such areas, we never took into account the possibility that US will ever have German road infrastructure. We were speaking about localized concentrations, such as cities. Inter-city traffic is simple, as long as you build a wide enough, regulated enough highway.

I actually see what he's saying. Public transportation works a lot better in places like Germany cause there's a larger population density. Around larger cities in the US, and here I may just be mistaken, we do actually have relatively good public transportation. Maybe it could be better but if you go to a place like New York, you can get around with out a car.

 

I was talking about having mass public transportation like they do across Europe. In America I guess we have that train that goes across the East coast, but this is nothing compared to a train you could get on in Europe. If you want to catch it where I live, you need to be at the train station around 1 in the morning. With a larger population density, they might be able to afford running a second one around noon.

[CPL.Luke]

ndi lower gas consumption translates almost directly to lower emissions (where do you think the emmissions come from?)

 

the policy of making gas guzzlers more expensive and more efficient cars less expensive dramatically influences the overall market share of each segment, eventually the free market adapts and produces even better cars for the fuel efficient market (if 1 car company sells a 2 door 80 hp car for $15000 and another a 4 door 130 hp car for 15000 which one are you going to buy?)

 

because thats the way the american market works, no matter how expensive the gas gets (barring 4-10 dollar per gallon prices) doesn't effect what an american see's when they are buying a car. and rightfully so as the cost of buying a more efficient car in today's market cannot outweigh the cost of gas.

 

whereas if you punish the automakers for selling 400,000 suv's and only 300,000 fuel efficient vehicles, then they are going to pass the expense onto their customer's particularly the SUV buyers as they are the source of the trouble, this does move the market.

 

 

and Ndi as has been stated before the european model for reducing gas consumption would literally strangle the american economy as it punishes those who are least able topay for gas in a country where gas consumption is a necessity. It is impossible for the average american to utilize public transportation and it is impossible for them to live close to their jobs. Its just the way the population is distributed.

 

also the secondhand market only goes back about 10 years or so (most cars don't survive in a condition most people would want beyond this time), so if you introduce regulations to increase the average gas mileage now, 10 years from now all of the cars on the road will be on that standard.

[ParanoiA]

I will just have to agree to disagree. I see your point, but if I and Bill Gates lived without the American Government(American People), we would both see a reduction in our standard of living, but he would see a much, much larger reduction. That is why I say he benefits more. Yes, he earned it through hard work, smarts, risk taking and some luck. But, he would not have had the opportunity to begin with if not for the American people. So, my point is valid as well. So the wealthy can cry if they want, but many agree with me.

 

Of course many agree with you, no doubt. That's usually when I start questioning something. Once the herd starts pluralizing, it's time to look deeper.

 

I agree that we'll just have to disagree in agreement. This is one of those fundamental things that drives subsequent logic and conclusions.

 

You said behaviour modification through taxes. Well, the republicans modify alot of behaviour, by "promising" not to raise taxes, while we run up deficits and fight costly wars. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, so the middle class will need to pay it in future years.

 

I would agree with that assessment, except that this behavior modification has to do with economic stimulation in general, not a focused effort to thwart some particular market.

 

Huge tax breaks to the wealthy is good. Wealthy people employ people. Wealthy people move alot more money than I do. Give me a tax break and I go buy an xbox. This pays the salary of some chinese kid for a day maybe. Give a wealthy person a tax break and he buys a yacht. That pays the salary for a shop full of yacht builders for a week or more? Yacht builders that pay taxes....

 

Wealthy people impact the economy more than I do. They impact the economy more healthy as well. Wealthy people are good at managing money - that's how they got wealthy. So, if I'm looking at stimulating the economy, trying to get folks to invest, build, buy, - then I need a smart, healthy stimulation.

 

Giving the poor and middle class huge tax breaks just results in a surge of buying goodies and gadgets. That's cool for a few months, but then you're right back where you started. However, if you give these huge tax breaks to the wealthy, they will buy goodies and gadgets, but they'll also invest in their businesses and other capitalist ventures - which creates long lasting economic growth. Not just a one sided sweep of purchasing.

 

Tax breaks to the rich just sounds bad. Try to think deeper than the sound bite. You're being played by those who stand to benefit by exploiting class envy. They're banking you won't think this through, but rather just take it at face value.

 

 

Taxes pay for the soldiers in Iraq, the policeman and roads. Is this a punishment vs paying the factory worker who made the xbox?

 

Yes. Because paying the factory worker was a voluntary decision. It was not based on how much I've "benefitted" from the american government. Taxes are forced. I'm not saying they aren't necessary, but when they aren't fairly extracted, they are a punishment. The rich are punished for being successful. They pay a higher percentage, which I believe is wrong. Equal percentages still result in exponential amounts of taxes compared to me - which is perfectly fair. This is compensation for the proportion of benefit you eluded to in your first quote above, in my opinion.

[insane_alien]

The public transport here in scotland is a right mess. i use it only out of necessity. every morning i get either the 8am or 9am train to glasgow from my local station and the trains are always packed. now, the trains that run on this route come in two varieties(other than old and crappy and new and shiny) 3 carriges and 6 carriges. both the trains i need to get are the 3 carriage ones. i don't know why can't the shove another 3 carriages on and then the train into glasgow might be plesant. plesant meaning not crammed in like sardines (literaly). coming home about 2 pm there seems to be an abundance of 6 carriage trains on the line though.

[1veedo]

This pays the salary of some chinese kid for a day maybe.

This isn't me trying to nitpick your post but the average worker in China makes a little less then $2 a day (I think it's like 1.98). That means for $400 you can pay their salary for more than 200 days.

[ParanoiA]

This isn't me trying to nitpick your post but the average worker in China makes a little less then $2 a day (I think it's like 1.98). That means for $400 you can pay their salary for more than 200 days.

 

Yeah, that was a stupid statement on my part. I even knew it at the time but I had all this crap in my head I was trying to get out and forgot to go back and re-word it. My apologies, because that's rather insulting to poor chinese workers.

[JohnB]

Thanks 1veedo. I guess I should have used city sizes and populations, but you got the point.

 

Ndi, for a simple comparison;

Brisbane: Area-4,673.2 sq kms, Population- 1,777,667.

Berlin : Area-883 sq kms, Population- 3,388,477

 

The population and population density simply isn't there to pay for the infrastructure.

[CPL.Luke]

except under the current exchange rate $2 an hour translates to 8 yen an hour, and from personal experience with people who live and or work in china a yen buys over there what a dollar buys over here. (more or less)