Metric system in the usa

[snberk103]

Lord, lol!

Feel sorry for you, bud. XD

One more Canadianism.... The Globe and Mail today was reporting on the Bin Laden raid. Apparently his balcony had a wall 2.2 metres high, just enough to conceal a man 6 ft 4 inch. You can't make this stuff up. Most Canadians just make the conversion and move on.

 

[kalsta]

Can you cite reliable figures for the cost advantage versus the cost to switch?

Nope. Ask me what the cost advantage of wearing my Adidas runners over a pair of wooden clogs is when I go out. I couldn't tell you. But I can appreciate the obvious benefits of the metric system in theory and in practice without making it all about short-term financial gain, and I think you could too if you took the time to look at it objectively. I am just thankful my country made the difficult decision back in the 70s when my biggest challenge was learning to wee in the potty.

As another commenter said, you owe your kids better.

 

[CalBoy]

Nope. Ask me what the cost advantage of wearing my Adidas runners over a pair of wooden clogs is when I go out. I couldn't tell you. But I can appreciate the obvious benefits of the metric system in theory and in practice without making it all about short-term financial gain, and I think you could too if you took the time to look at it objectively. I am just thankful my country made the difficult decision back in the 70s when my biggest challenge was learning to wee in the potty.

So then you can't speak to whether or not it would actually be cost effective for the country to switch.

As another commenter said, you owe your kids better.

I'm not convinced that my kids are any worse off. I grew up speaking two languages (hearing three) and using different types of measurements. I have confidence in my future children to be able to handle it like generations of Americans have before.

 

[kalsta]

I'm not convinced that my kids are any worse off. I grew up speaking two languages (hearing three) and using different types of measurements. I have confidence in my future children to be able to handle it like generations of Americans have before.

A child's mind is amazingly attuned to learning language. Given the fascinating cultural and linguistic diversity in the world, I am envious. I would love to have learnt more than one language as a kid. It's so much harder to learn as an adult.

But I am not at all envious of you having to learn two systems of measurement. That kind of cultural diversity I can do without! Sure, your kids will be able to handle it, but why should they have to? Because your generation was too stuck in its ways to embrace positive change?

 

[snberk103]

So then you can't speak to whether or not it would actually be cost effective for the country to switch.

....

Switching to metric is short-term pain for long-term gain. Older people will need have both measures used for a few years. Some Engineers etc will need to hit the books again (but let's face it - if they can learn the formula's once, they can look up the "translation". It's not like they forget how the principles work).

The long-term advantages are:
1) Less freaking-out of kids who are weak in math. "If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, what is the length of the each section to the nearest 1/64 inch?" as opposed to "If you have a stick that 1233 mm long....." - and no, I didn't check to see if they are the same -
2) Same idea as above.... "If you have a tank filled with 450 cubic yards of water, and it is flowing out at a rate of 3 gallons a minute, how long does it take to empty?" as opposed to the metric system where 1000 litres of water is 1 cubic meter which is 1 tonne (approximately - since altitudes and temperatures affect the density of water).... but it's close enough for horseshoes....
3) Manufacturing. As the last industrialized country in the world still non-metric, do people really believe that there isn't a cost when a US factory has to retool to provide a product for export? Or understand that the cost of goods being imported from off-shore includes the cost of retooling for an non-metric customer? Do people not think that some small factories in the US have lost contracts to off-shore customers because they couldn't afford to switch to a metric size? And that some US factories have probably been forced to retool anyway when the sole supplier of a component wouldn't make a special run of non-metric fasteners?

Just asking. The days when the USA was top of the heap in manufacturing are past. The USA is now competing head to head with the rest of the world that has left behind bolts that are 3/16 diameter and 1 7/8 long and 12tpi.

 

[Tomorrow]

"If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, what is the length of the each section to the nearest 1/64 inch?" as opposed to "If you have a stick that 1233 mm long....." - and no, I didn't check to see if they are the same -

I'd use a calculator in either example, so it's a moot point.

2) Same idea as above.... "If you have a tank filled with 450 cubic yards of water, and it is flowing out at a rate of 3 gallons a minute, how long does it take to empty?" as opposed to the metric system where 1000 litres of water is 1 cubic meter which is 1 tonne (approximately - since altitudes and temperatures affect the density of water).... but it's close enough for horseshoes....

I've never seen a tank meant for holding liquid that wasn't rated in gallons - and I'm talking about up to 5 million gallons. But still, I'd be using a calculator in either event. But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.

 

[InsanelyApple]

2) Same idea as above.... "If you have a tank filled with 450 cubic yards of water, and it is flowing out at a rate of 3 gallons a minute, how long does it take to empty?"

But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.

Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric. Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too.

 

[rdowns]

You metric people ought to hook up with the military time people.

 

[McGiord]

You metric people ought to hook up with the military time people.

It is the international system, and it does adopt the metric units, and yes the military time is less confusing also.

 

[dukebound85]

It is the international system, and it does adopt the metric units, and yes the military time is less confusing also.

Not if you are not use to it

I can register 7pm alot faster than 1900

 

[snberk103]

"If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, ...

-I'd use a calculator in either example, so it's a moot point.

So what is a third of 13/16th of an inch?

I've never seen a tank meant for holding liquid that wasn't rated in gallons - and I'm talking about up to 5 million gallons. But still, I'd be using a calculator in either event. But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.

See attached image.... more flow stuff than storage stuff, but it makes the head boggle. And yes, of course you'd use a calculator to be sure - but if you could approximate it in your head, at least you'd have a sense of whether you were correct or not.

Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric.

'scuze moi!

Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too.

This may be a reason why American kids are falling behind in global math competencies. It would be interesting to track which countries surged on math competencies, and when they switched to metric.

So, as a citizen of a country that competes with the USA in manufacturing.... please keep on being the only industrialized country that hasn't switched. Or at least has only partially switched since many exporting companies have switched.

 

[CalBoy]

So what is a third of 13/16th of an inch?

Easy. 13/48ths of an inch.

A child's mind is amazingly attuned to learning language. Given the fascinating cultural and linguistic diversity in the world, I am envious. I would love to have learnt more than one language as a kid. It's so much harder to learn as an adult.

But I am not at all envious of you having to learn two systems of measurement. That kind of cultural diversity I can do without! Sure, your kids will be able to handle it, but why should they have to? Because your generation was too stuck in its ways to embrace positive change?

I really don't see much functional difference between a language and a system of measures. Both express specificity using prearranged syntax and values.

The one point you may have is that most households don't teach both to their kids because most households only use one or the other.

Even beyond that, if we were to adopt the metric system 100% starting tomorrow, the transition would have to last for decades not only to encompass those who are too old to be educated, but also to deal with the infrastructure changes that would have to take place. At the very earliest it would be my grandchildren who would see a fully metricized US.

The long-term advantages are:
1) Less freaking-out of kids who are weak in math. "If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, what is the length of the each section to the nearest 1/64 inch?" as opposed to "If you have a stick that 1233 mm long....." - and no, I didn't check to see if they are the same -

2) Same idea as above.... "If you have a tank filled with 450 cubic yards of water, and it is flowing out at a rate of 3 gallons a minute, how long does it take to empty?" as opposed to the metric system where 1000 litres of water is 1 cubic meter which is 1 tonne (approximately - since altitudes and temperatures affect the density of water).... but it's close enough for horseshoes....

This isn't an economic gain. It's a purely convenience gain for kids who probably should do some "difficult" math so they can get a strong grasp of the basics. They can use calculators and apps when they need to use their skills for larger applications.

3) Manufacturing. As the last industrialized country in the world still non-metric, do people really believe that there isn't a cost when a US factory has to retool to provide a product for export? Or understand that the cost of goods being imported from off-shore includes the cost of retooling for an non-metric customer? Do people not think that some small factories in the US have lost contracts to off-shore customers because they couldn't afford to switch to a metric size? And that some US factories have probably been forced to retool anyway when the sole supplier of a component wouldn't make a special run of non-metric fasteners?

And I don't dispute this element of the argument. Many manufacturers have already done this (why just yesterday I purchased cereal and chips in metric quantities), and they should keep switching to improve their bottom line.

 

[Ca$hflow]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Actually 3 bags containing 4 liters.

 

[flopticalcube]

You metric people ought to hook up with the military time people.

Odd you should say that as the US military is an early adopter of things metric, at least by US standards. (there's a pun in there)

 

[SuperCachetes]

Can you cite reliable figures for the cost advantage versus the cost to switch?

Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html

 

[xUKHCx]

The only imperial we use legally are on the roads, Miles and by motorway exits are in yards!!!


Basically they need to switch the road system to Km's instead of stupid Miles.

It is happening, these signs are metric rather than imperial.

So when have the odd situation of having both metric and imperial on the motorways. For those not from the UK these are location markers so you can tell the emergency services your location.

While they aren't really for general public use it does help people get used to how far a kilometer is and will ultimately add the transition.

 

[iStudentUK]

It is happening, these signs are metric rather than imperial.

While they aren't really for general public use it does help people get used to how far a kilometer is and will ultimately add the transition.

That is interesting, never knew that. I don't think the problem with converting road signs is so much money, but logistics. If they are all changed very quickly that needs a huge workforce, if it is staged over time it could be confusing. I'd like to see it happen in the next few years, the imperial system needs to die out.

 

[kalsta]

Easy. 13/48ths of an inch.

Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.

I really don't see much functional difference between a language and a system of measures. Both express specificity using prearranged syntax and values.

Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language — and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)

How many people are so nostalgic about the imperial system? With language, one communicates deep philosophical thoughts, writes beautiful poetry, tells a woman of his undying love. With a system of measurement, one… well, measures stuff. Most of the world has seen the benefits of a better system and they've moved on without regret. What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now… Is it because the French invented it?

Even beyond that, if we were to adopt the metric system 100% starting tomorrow, the transition would have to last for decades not only to encompass those who are too old to be educated, but also to deal with the infrastructure changes that would have to take place. At the very earliest it would be my grandchildren who would see a fully metricized US.

You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience… I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.

Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.

 

[kalsta]

"If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, what is the length of the each section to the nearest 1/64 inch?" as opposed to "If you have a stick that 1233 mm long....." - and no, I didn't check to see if they are the same

I'd use a calculator in either example, so it's a moot point.

Out of interest, how would you enter (3' 7 13/16") / 3 into a standard calculator? That would be a nightmare I would think, and quite prone to errors. 1233 / 3 is pretty easy!

 

[Tomorrow]

Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions?

About as meaningful as the need to figure out one third of 13/16.

Out of interest, how would you enter (3' 7 13/16") / 3 into a standard calculator?

Keystroke for keystroke, just the way you did it, except substitute the fraction symbol for the apostrophe and quote symbols you used for feet and inches. I own several calculators, and they'll all do this.

 

[snberk103]

About as meaningful as the need to figure out one third of 13/16.

How about a quarter of 3" 13/16? Which I regularly need to do when cutting photo matts? Yes - I would round the 13/16 down to 12/16, no wait that's really 3/4. Except that for my equipment it's better to round up. And rounding it to 14/16 is not really better. And 16/16 introduces too big an error. Now I suggest to photographers they buy European made matt cutters - for the measurement scale.

Keystroke for keystroke, just the way you did it, except substitute the fraction symbol for the apostrophe and quote symbols you used for feet and inches. I own several calculators, and they'll all do this.

So you'd enter " 3/ 7 13/16// " Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny here.

We own a couple of basic calculators, and of course there's Google's search bar calculator. Google is actually pretty good, but I think I would need to decimalize the fraction first....

Now I am trying to be funny. When I typed "(3ft 7in)/3" into Google to see what happens, I got "(3 ft 7 in) / 3 = 36.4066667 centimeters". Even Google is metric! I tried it with the fractional inch too, but Google wouldn't calculate that. Apparently Google also doesn't like fractions of an inch.

 

[dukebound85]

Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html

quoting links from my school eh? lol

 

[CalBoy]

Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html

All of that is about the private sector switching to save money on their bottom line, something which I already mentioned should happen (and will without intervention).

The question is if the government mandated the metric system for EVERYTHING, from speed limits on the roads to the measurements on a box of Betty Crocker brownies. Many of these things won't actually lead to any increased economic efficiency because certain products can only be produced locally (say weather reports) and consumed locally. The cost of these industries switching would be quite expensive with no real economic gain because the products and services can't be exported or imported.

Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.

No the wink was just to say that 1) I would use a calculator, and 2) even if I couldn't, multiplying fractions is not hard at all.

Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language — and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)

This is off topic, but language is but one part of culture. Customs, celebrations, and even measures, are all marks of a culture. In the process of colonization and free trade, we've actively destroyed many languages, customs, celebrations, and measures. I think we typically don't consider the loss of a measurement system to be too catastrophic because of the many conveniences that can be had from uniformity. But the same is true for language as well. I think the real reason we tend to gloss over measures is because they are typically easier to learn than a new language. Anthropologically speaking, however, they are very valuable in exploring a culture.

What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now… Is it because the French invented it?

Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. Still others had theirs done at the point of a gun.

In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person. Then there's also the issue that to most it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?

You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience… I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.

Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.

The issue goes beyond just the prescribed time period to shift, however. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of infrastructure concerns. Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population. The only other countries that were on this scale were India and China when they transitioned, and both had much less infrastructure and an already illiterate population that could be trained from the ground up.

Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.

 

[kalsta]

You're not stepping out onto the moon this time.

Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add… Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.

Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. … Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person.

Hang on… You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them?

Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population.

Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.

 

[snberk103]

.... Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. ...

In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. ... why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?
...
Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.

This, I believe, captures the situation really well. Inertia, coupled with a fairly de-centralized government (at least as far as this issue is concerned). And a population that is fairly resistant to change, in many areas.

Another example is the move to a $1 coin. How many times and for how long has the US been trying to introduce this coin? Every study done shows it will save taxpayers money. Still no-go. In Canada we had no choice. The $1 coin was introduced, then the banks were told to hand out only the coins, and to start sending back to Ottawa any $1 bills that their customers were depositing. Within a few years we were a $1 bill free country. Then they removed the $2 bills. These bills are still legal, there just isn't any of them circulating. And if a bank gets one, they don't put it back into circulation. Done.