>Ma Be wrote: > >I wouldn't respond either. You would get my attention if you could show me > >how going metric would make me money. If I don't deal with fractions anyway > >and just muddle through FFU, so why would I care which method takes less > >time or is easier. I want to know what is easier on my wallet. Can you > >give me an example of that? > >... >John's point is very important indeed. Some people would just care about >"what's in it for me (meaning exactly the above)?" > >Well... Sometime ago when I was considering this very point in regards to >the construction industry I came with the following very rough estimate. > >If one considers *only* the time workers spend with calcs in the site, >this is what we can demonstrate. > >It's reasonable to assume that on average if one worker makes, say, 10 >calcs per hour of work (I'd say he does much more than this, but, just for >the sake of being conservative...) he would save at least 5 seconds per >operation, for a savings of 1 minute (rounding it up a little) per hour of >work. > >A construction worker is paid at $20 or so an hour (maybe even more!). So >this represents a savings of 33 cents per worker per hour. If the >building of a house involves some, say, 8 workers full time (7.5 h/day) >for about say 2 months (22 day/mo). That would be a savings of: > >..33 x 8 x 7.5 x 2 x 22 =~ 870 dollars! > >Now, if a contractor builds, say, 3 houses a month, there would be a >savings of: > >870 x 3 x 12 =~ 30 000 dollars a year!! Calculating with feet and inches in the construction industry is only going to get worse! Nominally 3/4" plywood now sold at Home Depot in Connecticut is actually 18mm thick. If a person is going to keep working in fractional inches, this is 23/32" (a little too fat), 45/64" (a little too thin), or 91/128". None of these fractions is easy to handle.
