| Revision as of 03:15, 21 March 2013 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Talk:Recycling/Archive 2.← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:12, 31 March 2013 edit undo138.210.47.193 (talk) →Cost Benefit AnalysisNext edit → | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| The article states "recycling materials has been proven to be beneficial to the economy as it can create jobs for people in the US." Creating jobs alone is not enough to prove that it is beneficial to the economy. Your local Walmart could hire 50 more employees (creating jobs) but hiring those 50 people would require them to increase prices. That is not beneficial to the economy. Similarly, the fact that recycling "creates jobs" does not alone mean that it is beneficial to the economy when those jobs could be increasing the cost of goods. I recommended editing or deleting it. ] (]) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | The article states "recycling materials has been proven to be beneficial to the economy as it can create jobs for people in the US." Creating jobs alone is not enough to prove that it is beneficial to the economy. Your local Walmart could hire 50 more employees (creating jobs) but hiring those 50 people would require them to increase prices. That is not beneficial to the economy. Similarly, the fact that recycling "creates jobs" does not alone mean that it is beneficial to the economy when those jobs could be increasing the cost of goods. I recommended editing or deleting it. ] (]) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Jobs are only created when the activity is profitable. Your Walmart analogy makes no sense. And again, the jobs would only be created if the jobs were profitable, meaning the cost of the goods would definitely not rise, and in many cases would fall. ] (]) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | :Jobs are only created when the activity is profitable. Your Walmart analogy makes no sense. And again, the jobs would only be created if the jobs were profitable, meaning the cost of the goods would definitely not rise, and in many cases would fall. ] (]) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| I believe Dskira is implying in the analogy that the government has required Walmart to hire the extra employees without need. As a matter of fact this would not necessarily be bad for the economy, but the mathematical models of economics assume that it would be. Whether this is a fair comparison with public recycling programs given the possible longterm economic benefits of the recycling itself is another question. | |||
Revision as of 05:12, 31 March 2013
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Recycling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of June 11, 2006. | ||||||||||||
|
Help our planet. |
 | Software: Computing | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from Criticism of recycling was copied or moved into Recycling with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The 'recycling bin' image?
The image on the right certainly doesn't look like a bin at park in northern California. Would anybody replace the image with the correct one, or remove it from the article?
Surcharges
In the supply section of the article 2nd paragraph
- (Container deposit legislation involves offering a refund for the return of certain containers, typically glass, plastic, and metal. When a product in such a container is purchased, a small surcharge is added to the price. This surcharge can be reclaimed by the consumer if the container is returned to a collection point. These programs have been very successful, often resulting in an 80 percent recycling rate. Despite such good results, the shift in collection costs from local government to industry and consumers has created strong opposition to the creation of such programs in some areas.)
the last line states that
- 1. there is a shift in collection costs
- 2. the industry and consumers are now paying for the collection costs.
I believe this is just a misunderstanding of the concept that the money you receive when returning the packaging is actually additional money that you spent when purchasing the item. this forces the consumer to return the packaging if they do not want to be the one paying for the disposal of the item.
02:03, 16 January 2012 206.248.172.126 (Talk)
Images
The "Costs" sub-section of this article details the criticism that large-scale recycling programs are too cost-inefficient to be ultimately beneficial to society. This information was, when I came across it, accompanied by a picture of a man dumpster diving. I removed that image, commenting that I didn't see the relevance, and it was quickly replaced by a picture of a Vietnamese scrap collector on a boat. This struck me as equally inappropriate, and taking a step back, I realised that images like this have been scattered apparently at random across the entire article.
The first four pictures are fine, but then there's a photo of a sign in India, devoid of context, alongside the section on industrial waste. In the section about the international trade in recyclates, there's a picture of a bunch of computers in a parking lot. Maybe the computers are about to be shipped to China, but again, no context, so I don't know. Two photos of recycling logos on packaging - might make sense higher up, with the bit about product labeling in "Government-mandated demand", but not in the introduction to "Criticisms and responses". Next is the aforementioned Vietnamese scrap collector, then people collecting recyclables from a mountain of garbage in Brazil; neither are relevant to the "Costs" section. Nor are they relevant to "Working conditions", because that's about workers in industrial recycling facilities, not freelance collectors. Christmas trees gathered for recycling? The section it accompanies does talk about trees, but in a completely different context. And finally, brilliantly complementing the information about the possible income loss and social costs of recycling, we have a picture of sorted waste containers in the Czech Republic.
In short, this article has too many irrelevant images. I propose they be pruned with extreme prejudice. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Remove Opinions
I was quickly reading the section on cost-benefit analysis and ran across the following line: "Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies to internalize externalities, businesses will ignore them despite the costs imposed on society." This sounds more like an opinion than a fact, especially as more and more businesses are choosing to go green on their own accord without being forced to. I suggest either removing it, or rewording it and providing a link to some study verifying that businesses are unwilling to recycle unless forced to with taxes or subsidies. David Mitchell (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Cost Benefit Analysis
The article states "recycling materials has been proven to be beneficial to the economy as it can create jobs for people in the US." Creating jobs alone is not enough to prove that it is beneficial to the economy. Your local Walmart could hire 50 more employees (creating jobs) but hiring those 50 people would require them to increase prices. That is not beneficial to the economy. Similarly, the fact that recycling "creates jobs" does not alone mean that it is beneficial to the economy when those jobs could be increasing the cost of goods. I recommended editing or deleting it. Dskirsa (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jobs are only created when the activity is profitable. Your Walmart analogy makes no sense. And again, the jobs would only be created if the jobs were profitable, meaning the cost of the goods would definitely not rise, and in many cases would fall. Furious Style (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Dskira is implying in the analogy that the government has required Walmart to hire the extra employees without need. As a matter of fact this would not necessarily be bad for the economy, but the mathematical models of economics assume that it would be. Whether this is a fair comparison with public recycling programs given the possible longterm economic benefits of the recycling itself is another question.
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Top-importance Environment articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles