I already don’t have to maintain two sets of tools. I would only have to do that if we switched because I would now have to have tools with metric measurements (which would cost me $1000s) for new construction and my old tools for working on existing stuff.
As for that article I don’t find many of their arguments to be very convincing especially the numbers they’re using to determine costs. The article they used to get the $6, 100,000 figure for the cost of not switching is from 1915 and even allowing for that is largely nonsense. They mention having to educate on the imperial system. The only education I got about the imperial system was during wood shop as an elective and maybe some in math but that was more to demonstrate fractions and using rulers and such, the focus wasn’t on the units themselves. We spent far more time learning metric during science class. The main article also mentions that converting to metric will save money but don’t explain how this is the case. Then go on to accuse companies that have not changed out their tooling to metric in order to avoid the cost, so it’s very inconsistent. The language they use is also very biased.
I mean, you’re just going to have to take my word on it about Australia saving 10% until I can dig up that proper article, but here’s another article that references American businesses saving money when they switched to metric.
Also, dude, you learned imperial in elementary school. You learned it so early it doesn’t feel like you did any learning, but you absolutely spent time on it. I still remember learning all about feet and inches and how to estimate sizes using your body parts (which is a little absurd, considering we were children).
Again that article doesn’t actually cite anything and is very opinionated and vague. Basically saying “trust me bro”. Even if those big businesses are saving I very much doubt those savings are going to pass on to the little guy. They breeze right past this part.
What kinds of costs were considered? They included out-of-pocket payments for physical changes in things: for example, modifying scales or buying new ones, altering gasoline pumps, adjusting or replacing machinery, repainting highway signs, rewriting plans and specifications. They also involved intangibles, such as having to learn new words and how to use them, having to work more slowly for a while in order to avoid mistakes, and having to do arithmetic in order to understand an item in the newspaper.
Every tradesman would have to buy all new tools for the metric standard. They’d have to account for mistakes when doing conversions between the new metric stuff when working with an existing construction or carry two sets of tools with them. A corporation might be able to absorb those costs easily enough but for an individual that’s going to take a much larger bite out of them.
I dunno what to tell you man, there’s a pile of good reasons everyone else has switched to metric, and you’re too hung up on climbing over the fence to get to the actual greener grass.
I already don’t have to maintain two sets of tools. I would only have to do that if we switched because I would now have to have tools with metric measurements (which would cost me $1000s) for new construction and my old tools for working on existing stuff.
As for that article I don’t find many of their arguments to be very convincing especially the numbers they’re using to determine costs. The article they used to get the $6, 100,000 figure for the cost of not switching is from 1915 and even allowing for that is largely nonsense. They mention having to educate on the imperial system. The only education I got about the imperial system was during wood shop as an elective and maybe some in math but that was more to demonstrate fractions and using rulers and such, the focus wasn’t on the units themselves. We spent far more time learning metric during science class. The main article also mentions that converting to metric will save money but don’t explain how this is the case. Then go on to accuse companies that have not changed out their tooling to metric in order to avoid the cost, so it’s very inconsistent. The language they use is also very biased.
I mean, you’re just going to have to take my word on it about Australia saving 10% until I can dig up that proper article, but here’s another article that references American businesses saving money when they switched to metric.
Also, dude, you learned imperial in elementary school. You learned it so early it doesn’t feel like you did any learning, but you absolutely spent time on it. I still remember learning all about feet and inches and how to estimate sizes using your body parts (which is a little absurd, considering we were children).
Again that article doesn’t actually cite anything and is very opinionated and vague. Basically saying “trust me bro”. Even if those big businesses are saving I very much doubt those savings are going to pass on to the little guy. They breeze right past this part.
Every tradesman would have to buy all new tools for the metric standard. They’d have to account for mistakes when doing conversions between the new metric stuff when working with an existing construction or carry two sets of tools with them. A corporation might be able to absorb those costs easily enough but for an individual that’s going to take a much larger bite out of them.
I dunno what to tell you man, there’s a pile of good reasons everyone else has switched to metric, and you’re too hung up on climbing over the fence to get to the actual greener grass.