TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:
I find it unfortunate that a lot of social and fiscal conservatives fall into category #4. At this point, they might as well believe the world is flat, because 99.9% of the respected scientific community says that climate is changing. You're not only ignoring science, you're ignoring history... The climate has been changing for thousands of years. That's what "climate change" means to me - and it hurts my ears to hear that it's all fiction.

VoiceofReason wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:
Businesses should be encouraged to turn off their advertising signs when the businesses are closed. This would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in to the atmosphere by millions of tons in a few weeks. Drive around any large city at two or three in the morning and notice how many advertising signs are lit up and the business is closed. Add to that the thousands you didn’t see then multiply it by New York, Chicago, Dallas, L.A. etc. etc. Turning these signs off would not cost anything. As a matter of fact it would save the business owner money.
(snip)

(snip)
What is wrong with this? I am not fishing for compliments I am just curious why absolutely no one replied. Is it hard to understand? Sometimes I don’t put my thoughts into words very well. Don’t worry about “hurting my feelings” you can’t. I would just like to know if those are stupid ideas, takes too long to read or what.
Flame away.

No flame coming your way, but I'll share an idea why this won't likely happen. Business are in business to make money. There are many facets to this, but in brief, they will increase revenue and decrease costs where it is sensible to do so. Advertising costs money, but it works. Advertising comes in many forms, including radio, print, television, web adds, and yes, even those large signs. They may feel that keeping their brand name in front of you all the time is worth it, and millions of dollars are spent on branding each year for that very reason.

My wife has a small business in Houston. Her lights on her sign are on all the time when it is dark outside. All it takes is for one person to pass by after hours and say, "Hey, I never knew that place was here" for it to pay off. If that person walks in and buys one big purchase, it could pay for the nocturnal nights for the full year.

As far as 'encouraging' goes...that sounds like a government agency coming and and taxing a behavior out of existence. It's a behavior that is a perceived value to the impacted business, but now some bureaucrat would suddenly decide that it's not in the business owner's best interest to realize that value. Increase the tax such that the value is diminished, and viola! we have a successful implementation! Well, successful for everyone but that small business person who is fighting tooth and nail to get every last customer in the door. Suddenly, a cost-effective advertising stream just became too expensive (and not because of market forces, but because of government intervention), and their revenue that comes in because of that advertising stream drops proportionally.

So this isn't about small businesses...it's about big industry, perhaps? Why draw the line, and where do you draw it? Why punish someone just because they suddenly make more $$ this year than they did last year? How could that drive the wrong result?

Just ask the struggling small business owners around the US that are forcing themselves to stay at 49 full time employees now. They may know just a few more people could make them more profitable, but they know when they bring in that 50th person, their tax burden rises dramatically enough that it costs more money to hire them than they could possibly benefit the company.