Dear Phil and All, Here is an item that I included in this month's 'Metrication matters' (see: metricationmatters.com/newsletter ). It seems to be relevant to your question, but it doesn't shed much light or add more detail. ** >From my own experience metrication does not cost anything; it saves money. After the initial small expense for planning and training the rest of the metrication program is about counting the savings and the profits. However, despite all the positive experiences in every country in the world, this question has not been well researched. Here are some rhetorical questions adapted from notes from the United States Metric Association (USMA) mail list (see http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/listserv.htm ) that might help you to develop your own thoughts on metrication costs (The principle contributor was 'Euric'). * I would like to know is how much it has cost us for not being metric. * How many businesses have lost orders or contracts because they could not do the job in metric? * How many have made costly mistakes in converting a metric job to FFU? * How many have had to pay a premium for metric parts because they only bought enough for a specific job? * How many people have had to be terminated because they refused to work in metric? How much does it cost to find and employ their replacements? * How much does it cost to retrain school leavers in old measures when they have been taught the metric system at school? * How much has not going metric really cost us? Remember that metrication is a one time expense, but not going metric is an on going expense that goes on year after year (after year, after year, after year � if you require dramatic effect for a speech or debate � and who doesn't!). In addition these three stories about costs might be useful. 1 My experience with metrication in the building industry in Australia suggests that a well-planned and well-executed metrication program will increase gross profit by between 15 % and 20 % leading to a net profit increase between 10 % and 15 %. 2 In General Motors when they began their metrication program (in the 1970s) they created a group to monitor the costs so that they could claim them back later from the government. Then, when they discovered how much metrication was saving their company, they quietly disbanded the metrication costs accounting group. 3 The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) surveyed its members about metrication in 1980, after 15 years of British metrication. They concluded that the companies who were still using dual measuring methods were about 14�% worse off in gross profit and about 11 % worse off in terms of net profit when compared to fully metric CBI companies. The Confederation of British Industry was established in 1965 by combining the former Federation of British Industries (founded in 1916), British Employers� Confederation, and National Association of British Manufacturers. It is a confederation that acts as a pressure group promoting the interests of the UK's larger businesses. ** Cheers, Pat Naughtin ASM (NSAA), LCAMS (USMA)* PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia Phone 61 3 5241 2008 Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com and clicking on 'Newsletter'. * Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual � for writers, editors and printers', he is an Accredited Speaking Member (ASM) with the National Speakers Association of Australia, and a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association.
on 2004-12-15 01.30, Phil Chernack at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Robert, > I am very interested in where you get the $4 billion amount spent on > education. I knew there would be a significant savings but I didn't think > that much. If that is not an argument alone on what can be saved then I > don't know what is. These kinds of figures along with what industries will > save are the types of numbers we need to make our case. > > > Thanks, > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:44 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:31661] letter to Astronomy magazine > > I just sent this letter to the editor of Ohio State > Astronomy, a magazine for the general public. > > 2004 December 13 > Editor Ohio State Astronomy > > Dear Ms. Weber: > > It was good and quite helpful of you to reply Dec 1 to my > letter of November 22. In the matter of inch-pound units, > I have taken time to try to find words to move you to less > use of them. Words are not easy to find because you > express the view widely held by editors that, as you say, > "to communicate with a lay audience ... we generally kept > to common usage." > > May I say that "common usage" need not be the rule? > While inches are common, the general public (the lay > audience) has little problem with millimeters. Most > people want the US to change to metric use. How do I > know? > NIST here in Boulder held a 50-year festival > this summer. I worked the metric table all > day at which I asked "Do you want the US to > change to metric use?" Hundreds of people > said Yes. Only one person said No. > > Can it be that your readers need inches? I do not believe > it. Do you? > > Could it be that you keep to common usage by inertia? > Maybe with a push you might change. > > Maybe if you consider the damage inches do to society you > might give them up. The teaching of inch-pound units has > two bad features. > > 1. It sustains the split of society into two societies, > humanities and sciences. It used to be that we did not > have this split. The people who founded the USA knew > both of these subjects. Even now we have the "College of > Letters and Science" which includes the two. But teaching > inch-pound with its use of fractions makes many students > disconnect. They "learn" that science and technology are > not rational, are not to be understood. They go over to > humanities where reason prevails. The result is that US > students do badly in tests in comparison with students > outside the US. > > 2. Teaching inch-pound units (with fractions) costs the > US $4 billion each year in lost class time. Politicians > ignore this cost. They do not believe it. Few > constituents bring it to their attention. If editors > can ignore the damage, so can politicians. > > I hope you find some reason in this matter. Thanks for > your attention. > > Sincerely, > > Robert Bushnell PhD PE >
