Are gas prices fueling your pain?

jac0bsdad · May 2008

You make a very good point about shifting the tax burden... Of course, here in Tennessee, we don't have a state income tax and I believe our fuel tax is 39.8 cents for every dollar, and if I am not mistaken that is federal and state combined. To an extent I agree with you about the usage of oil being a choice, however, in the more rural areas that I am located in, Southeast USA, we don't have a highly developed mass transit system, like a NY or CA... So, people have to use cars, etc.. However, I agree that oil usage is not a right.. You also need to remember that Europe doesn't have a lot of super highways the way we do here in the USA, the driving is different, roads are different, etc... I respectfully disagree with you about trucks causing more accidents... Many times it is regular four wheeler car, truck, or suv driver that is the cause for an accident with a tractor truck... Those big trucks require more room for maneuverability, stopping, turning, etc... other drivers should provide more consideration to them and others driving in general... of course, those are my opinions but it doesn't mean i am completely right, either.. lol.. I am in complete agreement with you about using train/truck services in a combined effort where those can be utilized in the most efficient manner possible..

vchiu · May 2008

>a highly developed mass transit system, like a NY or CA...

my view is that mass transit is close to non-existant in CA (a few light rail lines, nothing more)

NY is bit better but still not enough when it comes to irrigate surrounding areas. The Boston-Washington rail corridor is simply a joke in terms of average speed and can't replace a 200mph HST.

>I respectfully disagree with you about trucks causing more accidents

I did not want to say trucks cause more accident as I don't have any data to support this. I mean that fewer trucks on the road will proportionally cause fewer accidents, which is true for any other kind of vehicle all other things being equal.

lemko · May 2008

I'm more focused on low-income folks who have no choice but to drive to their jobs as my co-workers on my second job. The work we do is at various locations near and far and they can't rely on public transportation to get to many of them, (although they'll try, bless 'em).

Let's say a guy or works at a Wal~Mart in a rural area 20 miles away. He has an old hoopty that makes roughly 20 MPG. Forget about him buying a fuel-efficient car, this is an old Plymouth Satellite he inherited from his deceased grandmother. He can't afford a new car or a reliable used one. He needs one gallon of gas to get to work and one to get home. Gas is $4.00 for regular. He works forty hours a week, (not likely for Wal~Mart, but we'll say he does for simplicity). He needs a dollar an hour raise just to cover the cost of gas.

tpe · May 2008

I agree with your position 100%. I was advocating higher fuel taxes years ago when gas was under $2/gallon. I also said it should be revenue neutral. It was then and still is a very unpopular opinion that has ZERO chance of being adopted in this country.

Back then the major arguments were that the government is incapable of a revenue neutral tax, it would disproportionately hurt the poor and the government should not meddle with the free market.

I personally don't see anything all that difficult about creating a revenue neutral tax and, like you, I would offset the higher fuel taxes with lower income taxes.

As far as hurting the poor I suspect this is an argument primarily coming from conservatives who are currently driving large trucks/SUVs and typically don't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about the plight of the poor. Regardless, mitigating the impact on the poor is doable with tax rebates funded by these higher fuel taxes.

The argument about not interfering with the free market has some validity. However I suspect some of those people making that case back then are now calling for government intervention to lower gas prices. Kind of inconsistent if you ask me. The problem with the free market approach is that these high fuel prices have come upon us very rapidly. $4/gallon gas probably does make alternatives cheaper but these alternatives can't just be pulled off the shelf, they take time to develop. That's the stage we're in right now and the transition will be more disruptive than it would have been had it been managed.

There was an article on cnnfn.com this morning advocating the expansion of nuclear energy in this country. I support that idea. The author of this article made the following statement regarding why we're in our current situation. "We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making". I agree but in a democracy that's what you're destined to get. No one's going to stay in office making policitically unpopular, longsighted decisions. Look at our current Presidential candidates. One wants to suspend the federal fuel tax and the others want to impose windfall profit taxes on the oil companies. An intelligent person will realize neither of these ideas represents a solution however they might sound appealing to the masses, which is all that really matters.

bpizzuti · May 2008

I also support the idea of intermodal interconnection hubs with key roads, ports, airports linked together.

Kind of on that subject, this is something I've always found interesting. I'm within spitting distance of NYC basically. NYC (Manhattan) has two train stations, Grand Central and Penn Station. Has subways. Has major airports (JFK and LaGuardia). The train stations are NOT connected to each other by subway. The airports are NOT connected to the train stations by subway. The airports are not connected to each other by train or subway even, last I knew! To get from any one of these to any other, one must drive! Well, or I suppose there's shuttle service to the airports, but then that's just someone ELSE driving.

Most of our major transportation nodes only self-connect...you can take another train from a train station, to another train station. You can go by air from one airport to another. To move between transport modes, usually one has to drive. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that you can get on the subway from Grand Central Station, but that's only because the subway station happens to be next door.

I find myself wondering how many other areas of the country are like that.

bpizzuti · May 2008

Those who are wealthy think it's funny. Or say "Let them eat cake."

You know, that DOES seem to be the general tone of the reaction the "haves" have when the "have nots" start complaining that they have to choose between food and gas. When put into the French Revolution context, it could make for some really scary scenarios...

dieselone · May 2008

Also, for those that indicate you will keep your SUV no matter what, that is fine with this southern boy... If you are willing to pay the associated costs, no problem here. I do know a comptroller that works for Edd Kirby Chevrolet in Dalton, GA

With my Suburban most of the costs have already been paid for. The vehicle itself. It's primary purpose is to tow our boat and camper. I'd love to have a car to drive around during the week. I don't particularly like driving and SUV. But, even at $4 a gallon I would not be money ahead by buying a decent small car for around town. I just don't drive enough. Like I've mentioned previously, I spend about $400/mo on gas. Most weekends during boating season we tow the boat 60 miles each way to our seasonal campsite on the lake. That is probably 1/2 of the $400/mo that I still will drive the Suburban because I need (OK want) to tow or need the room.

Even if i only spend $10k (I'm not going to drive around in a beater) on a used small car, if I financed it that still be $300/mo for 36mos plus insurance and maintenance. A small car most likely won't avg more than double the Suburban around town. Spending $350/mo to save around $100/mo doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Now I have been throwing around buying something that I'd like to drive (Say MiniCooper S) that would be something I'd want and still save gas. That's something I may do, but it sure won't get me ahead economically. Gas will have to go up quite a bit more.

tpe · May 2008

Hmm, I don't know, how about a 70% tax on incomes over $2 million. Yes that would do it. Before Regan, that's what we had in the country. It could happen again very fast.

Before Reagan the highest tax rate was 70% on individuals making over $108k and families making over $161k. I don't remember economic conditions being all that great then. Anyway the highest tax rate is a somewhat meaningless figure. What matters is the percentage of your gross income you actually pay. In 1980 the top 1% of all wage earners paid 29% of their adjusted gross income.

trispec · May 2008

Yep, we hated the french as enemies of the British, until they came to our aid in the revolutionary war. And we hated the french for stupidly allowing the Germans into their country, until we shipped over there to fighti and die on their soil. Today we hate the French because they treat our rich tourist's poorly? I fart in the direction our rich tourist ambassadors!

But wow what a nice life style the French people have raising their children under a years their FULLY paid maternity/parternity leave and six week paid vacations in the south of France and a rural country side farmer's culture that would make any farmer in the United States of America, cry tears of such emotion as to question the how could we ever dislike these beautiful French peoples.

The French people are our best brothers. They have and still face the same problems we face. But their culture appears to choose much more wisely because they have excluded the wealthy classes from power, they have put the capitalists in the place and they don't let robber baron's ever exist in the first place.

They have largely solved their energy issue permanently. More nuclear power plants than any nation on earth. They don't even have a car culture to worry about. They have trolleys and trains and a little company call Air Bus to solve most of their transportations needs.

If we get started today, in thirty of forty years we could be like Frances, only bigger and better. We might even add a few million wind mills to the energy mix. Come on folks, this is really doable.

And we are the perfect folks to beat our gun barrels into wind mill blades. Lets also give the rest of the world it's own Statue of Liberty. Like the French idealized us once long long ago, they and the rest of the world could idealize us again.

gagrice · May 2008

I would consider any company that will PU a box from a shop in Bangkok, haul it to the airport for a flight to the USA and deliver it to my door, a full service freight company. Much of the work done with trucks. If you only consider companies like Consolidated Freightways to be trucking companies, they no longer are in business. They went broke when diesel was $1.25 per gallon in 2002.

trispec · May 2008

Before Reagan the highest tax rate was 70% on individuals making over $108k and families making over $161k.

The dollar was worth something back then. The supposed rich have gotten more numerous and the disparity of income top to bottom is enormous. Politically, the almost rich need to realize they are associating with the wrong sort and the truly rich need to be forced to give back what they've taken from the masses.

Religious conservatives need to look around at themselves and ask how is it that the farmers and rural folk have lined up on the side of the oil barons? Makes no sense. It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of needle than to get into heaven.

gagrice · May 2008

as you see my English is impaired, I may not always express things in an appropriate way

Your English is better than many posters that have gone through our public education system.

I like the idea of trains. Your comment on LA to Las Vegas is something I can jump on. When my sister lived in LV I would fly over from San Diego. I hate the LV airport so I ended up driving most trips. When I considered the time, going through security it was not much longer to drive. And, I have my own transportation while in LV. Same goes now that she is in Phoenix. Round trip air fair for the two of us is about $600. At $4.25 per gallon the round trip in our Sequoia is less than $200. Other than Hawaii and Alaska I think we will be driving. If gas goes to $5 or $6 or more per gallon we will have less people to contend with on the highway. Life is good....

gagrice · May 2008

Religious conservatives need to look around at themselves and ask how is it that the farmers and rural folk have lined up on the side of the oil barons? Makes no sense. It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of needle than to get into heaven.

This would be a good subject for the politics thread. I think the reason many have left the Democratic party is its being taken over by groups that they oppose.

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f146c1e/2152

nippononly · May 2008

If they manage to get the high speed train built between Long Beach and LV, in ten years you might want to give that a try, especially if the gas goes to $8-10/gallon. Of course, in that case you might downsize from the Sequoia? Who knows. But if you don't, I bet it will be cheaper by a fair amount to take the train rather than drive it if gas is at $8/gallon or more. Of course, you will have to AmTrak it from SD to Long Beach, so the time involved will be longer.

I am very surprised to hear that regional rail is not connected to the NY subway system, and the airports also are not. That is a glaring deficiency in any metro area the size of NY. Here in the Bay Area, they finally hooked up the subway to the SF airport just recently (maybe 3 years ago?) and found ridership to be below what they were hoping for on the extension. But that was before the huge rise in gas prices, so maybe now it is seeing a lot more passengers. Certainly, BART and regional rail are in the same station in SF so that connections outside the area are seamless.

mikekrause · May 2008

Speed matters. By simply driving the speed limit and not racing from stop light to stop light, I'll bet that many drivers can improve the miles per gallon that they get from their vehicles.

Case in point, I've been experimenting with my two vehicles. I have a 2008 Honda Accord coupe, four cylinder with manual transmission. Last week, by driving the speed limit, this car got 37 miles per gallon on mostly interstate driving. Compared to its EPA highway rating of 31 mpg, this is a 20% improvement.

I also got nearly 32 mpg from my 1998 Toyota Avalon. This car has over 230,000 miles, yet, in February, on a 540-mile round trip drive from Chicago to Toledo, by driving the speed limit, I squeezed out 32 miles for each gallon.

Granted, it's hard to drive the speed limit on the interstates. I prefer to drive 70-75 mph--based on my experience, so do most drivers (including trucks). But, imagine the impact of more people simply slowing down to the posted speed limits.

tpe · May 2008

I would agree that the growing concentration of wealth in fewer hands is a problem. I don't believe the tax code is a good mechanism for fixing this. I'm not sure what the solution is but if you place too high a tax burden on a particular group they will either structure their finances to avoid income or just decide to not work. The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes. I believe they could afford to take a few years off and I don't believe the government could get by without this revenue.

With that said I also believe we will eventually transition away from ICE powered vehicles to alternatives that are not only more affordable to operate but more environmentally friendly. All of society will benefit. The technological advances required for this to happen will, for the most part, be provided by people trying to make a buck. Not by those complaining about how good the rich have.

ny540i6 · May 2008

I am very surprised to hear that regional rail is not connected to the NY subway system, and the airports also are not. That is a glaring deficiency in any metro area the size of NY. Here in the Bay Area, they finally hooked up the subway to the SF airport just recently (maybe 3 years ago?) and found ridership to be below what they were hoping for on the extension. But that was before the huge rise in gas prices, so maybe now it is seeing a lot more passengers. Certainly, BART and regional rail are in the same station in SF so that connections outside the area are seamless.

It depends on how you define "connected." At Penn, for instance, they don't share tracks, but you never have to come above ground to go from one to the other, and you can purchase a monthly RR pass that also includes subway rides, so you swipe one card rather than two. There are also several statons on the LIRR (Jamaica, Atlantic Ave) where you can transfer. Is it seamless? No, State of the art? No.

There was also the "train to the plane" experiment... did not work too well, because much of the subway system is really not geared to hauling luggage, and (In my opinion) people still saw it as a subway ride, and the concept of paying more, just because the end was somewhere near the airport, did not cut it.

bumpy · May 2008

He'd better find some buddies to carpool with and leave the gas-swilling dinosaur at home.

vchiu · May 2008

I saw many of your posts along and it is clear we view things the same way.

I for once, don't see how levying higher tax on gas would disrupt free market. As far as there is a demand and an offer in a competitive environment, the rules remain the same for every player.
The result anyway is as expected. Now markets compensate for what the government did not do and increase prices in its stead.

I also think it would be difficult to transfer income tax to fuel tax in a fully neutral way, as both sources have very different calculation bases. I would not mind a slight tax increase in the process, provided that this excess be allocated to key investments in alternative technologies and solutions.

Look at how painful financing the ITER project (cold fusion) http://www.iter.org/
was, for a budget (500 million Euros per year for all members.) that is ridiculously low in regard to the potential breakthroughs this can bring. My own country spent the equivalent of 50 years of ITER budget in a bank scandal which originates in poor governance and lack of competency.

>but in a democracy that's what you're destined to get

Our own president is also engaged in an unhealthy rethoric about creating a fund for those who are the most severely stricken by gas hikes. Absolutely pathetic.

I still believe though there may be politicians with a real vision. I won't discuss US politics but I had good feeling about Al Gore's work.

The US managed to go to the moon, whereas 10 years before, everybody thought it was impossible. I am pretty sure the US can find the right technology, be it fusion, electric capacitors or high efficiency photovoltaics if there is a strong will behind it. Maybe we should call the step to oil independance the new frontier.

I spend some time looking at the curriculum of US presidents. Many of them were really great statesmen with outstanding clairvoyance and potential. They shared a common ability of identifying the key threats against the US and tackling them appropriately.
I consider current dependance to oil a strategic threat to the US interests, that need very serious consideration because of its politic, human, economic and environmental stakes. The way it has been managed in the last 10 years is in my eyes no better than a failure. I trust a statesman of stature will identify this and lead in the right way. Regretfully it can't be painless anymore.

bpizzuti · May 2008

At Penn, for instance, they don't share tracks, but you never have to come above ground to go from one to the other,

That's not the point. The point is, how do you get off of Train A at Penn Station and get on at Train B at Grand Central station or Flight A at JFK? Answer: you take a cab. That's the only way. Despite all of the subway running around NYC.

bumpy · May 2008

I never had any problem driving at the speed limit on the interstate. If people behind me want to go faster, they can use one of the lanes to the left.

ny540i6 · May 2008

That's not the point. The point is, how do you get off of Train A at Penn Station and get on at Train B at Grand Central station or Flight A at JFK?

Let me clarify.... I was not disputing your basic point, however... you CAN go from Penn to Grand Central via mass transit... ugly, inconvenient, but possible.

To JFK, or LGA? No go.

vchiu · May 2008

The French are also pretty good at getting on strike and blockading everything when not satisfied (wages, cost of life..)

Currently, the fishermen are protesting against duel hikes by blockading French ports while some are rampaging in supermarkets fish selling area.
While I am not an insider, I can reasonably enough tell that the supermarkets or the French port autorities are not responsible for the hikes. They have to suffer the consequences of their action ,though, and the police don't move.

Naturally the fishermen won extra subsidies to pay for their fuel.

Next in line should come the farmers (like to burn tires on rail tracks)
then the truckers (go at 1 mph on the highway, called "snail" operation) but may be static this year thanks to expensive oil
Then the taxi drivers (will turn paris into a deadlock)
Then the National railways, the dockers, the teachers, the nurses, hunters, ....

Vive la grève! (long live the strike)

lemko · May 2008

Could it happen again?

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080529_Racalling_the_suburban_gas_- riots_of_1979.html

stever · May 2008

I make my wife handle those kinds of logistics but I swear we went from Penn Station to JFK about this time last year and never set foot in a cab. I do remember walking some since we were staying near Grand Central, and it was too nice to bus or take the subway to Penn Station that day. Seems likes there's a dedicated run to JFK from Jamaica Station too. Easy to get around in any case.

Trains have been making money for five or more years now I think. Back when motor freight was cutting into their business the railroads floated along on their real estate, but a whole lot of stuff moves by rail. I think I posted a link last year that said the US moves more goods and commodities by rail on a percentage basis than the EU.

Trispec, those in the wealth classes have their escape plans already in place. It's called AFDC mostly - why do you think they invented it in the first place? :P

But that thread is going a bit far afield.

tpe · May 2008

I think the big difference is that in 1979 there were actual shortages in addition to the high prices. I was living in Los Angeles at the time. I didn't make much money back then so paying $1/gallon was a lot more painful than paying $4/gallon today. However the waiting in long lines and sometimes not getting gas was a recipe for rage.

dieselone · May 2008

I don't know what year it was, but I was talking to my mom the other day. She told me during the oil embargo that they could only get gas on certain days. It went by your license plate number. We survived that, we will survive this.

imidazol97 · May 2008

>posters that have gone through our public education system.

...and through the parochial, charter, and private school system.

tpe · May 2008

We survived that, we will survive this.

I think we'll not only survive this but ultimately be better off for it. The 2 oil crisis of the 70's should have been wake up calls for our need to develop a viable energy policy. Our legislators enacted CAFE, a 55 mph speed limit and decided to call it a day. Basically we chose to hit the snooze button. We wake up a few years later and see that gasoline is once again cheap and conclude that the problems of the 70's were just a dream and it's time to buy the big SUV and move to the outer suburbs. You can't turn back the clock but with the benefit of hindsight a lot of people are realizing that some bad decisions were made. The high prices we're paying right now aren't the result of Middle East disputes but market conditions that are probably here to stay. That being the case the market will dictate the necessary changes that our legislators chose not to.

trispec · May 2008

God bless those french labor unions. Kick'n butt all day long!

Who cares about oil prices when the union will get subsidies. See it's just a matter of who's really charge of the economic conditions, the rich or the middle classes. I vote for middle class dominance. Rich people are largely just the lucky folks. Some people will always be lucky. The lucky shouldn't hold the power of the purse, and power of executive over our heads.

Paying for gas is really tough for millions of people. And now gas is push food prices and all other forms of transportation up and up. Lucky people don't care one bit. They just laugh while they drive off into gas guzzling Germany or Japanese extra luxury SUVs and cars.

I don't care about the American made gas guzzlers, but foreign luxury SUVs and cars, come on people. Prius, Camery, Miata fine, nice practical cars, which I agree America companies don't do so well at, but freak'n give me a break on the foreign luxury SUV's and cars. It's really rubbing it in our face don't you think?

Those lucky people got lucky in this country, but their going to give their money(taken from us) to foreign companies. PaaLease. Clear moral and patriotic violation. Absolutely tax'm into all to hell. Idiots, on so many level. Can't believe it.

And those lucky people are still laughing at car loads of families counting out five dollars for one gallon at the pump, just enough to get home for the evening.

So mad I can't stand it.

trispec · May 2008

So I live is a working class neighborhood. I regularly drive through some amazingly wealthy neighborhoods with 10-15 acre plots and old Mansions. The heating bills and tax bills those folks must pay, I love thinking about it.

What's very interesting is that these rich neighborhoods have their very own gas stations. These are not like gas stations you've ever seen. Clean, full service everything, real live english speaking managers with clean cloths.

But they charge $.40-.60 more per gallon for all grades. Nice pretty Beemer's, Mercy buckets, Lexus monsters and a few Infinity boats too. Oil being checked by real mechanic too. It's a freak'n time warp.

But they can't buy gas where I get gas. They'd feel very uncomfortable waiting in long long lines for the lowest price self service in the metro area. Nope, if they pulled into my gas station, folks might not take so kindly to them shiny Luxury cars with nicely dressed folk stepping out, holding that gas nozzle like it's a poisonous snake. That's just little bit of justice, just a little bit. More's coming though. I can feel it in the air.

kdhspyder · May 2008

Those are great links and great info on what's happening. They both should be required reading for all the conspirisionistas about.

A prime example of what's occuring in the world...

[quote]
Another important concept is to consider is oil exports as described here by Westexas and Khebab. Oil exporting countries have increasing wealth and are attracting massive inward investment and migration resulting in steadily rising oil consumption. Indonesia provides a classic example of a former export land whose rising consumption has totally consumed their oil exports. Indonesia, once part of the oil supply solution has become part of the oil demand problem and has just left OPEC.
[unquote]

kdhspyder · May 2008

I agree entirely with this point. Outside of a few highly developed areas there is almost no public transit available for the vast majority of the working public.

Despite dieselone's blythe dismissal of any pressures from price increases there are massive pressures in other segments of our society. "Let them eat cake" did not go down well 225 yrs ago and it still doesn't. The biggest pressures I see from a sudden run up in fuel costs is societal breakdowns, specifically anger directed toward conspicuous consumers.

"Ohhh, so you feel that you can use as much fuel as you want while I can't afford enough to buy enough to get to work or take my sick child to the clinic....well consume this". Isolated instances are popping up. Will it become a deeper trend?

1stpik · May 2008

That's more true than you may think. Here's an excerpt from a Reuters article today:

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - When Ohio's Kent State University offered custodial staff the option of working four days a week instead of five to cut commuting costs, most jumped at the chance, part of a U.S. trend aimed at combating soaring gasoline prices.

The reason is simple: rising gas prices and a desire to retain good workers. And while so far only the university's custodians are eligible, one official hopes the option will be offered to all departments -- including his own.

On New York's Long Island, Suffolk County legislator Wayne Horsley also has proposed employees have the option of working four 10-hour shifts, rather than five eight-hour shifts, saying it would save 461 barrels of oil in a 120-day pilot project.

"This is a gasoline-driven proposition and we're looking to change people's long term philosophies of life," Horsley said.

In Oklahoma, a resolution is pending before the state legislature encouraging state agencies to implement flexible work schedules that would allow the four-day workweek.

Some schools, including community colleges in rural areas where commutes are long and public transportation is scarce, already have plans to drop a day of classes, usually Fridays.
.

kdhspyder · May 2008

Not really..

I lived the NYC transit system for the better part of 30 yrs from when it was a dime up to 10 yrs ago. Hoboken to Penn Sta to Grand Central to a) Boston or b) Chicago is somewhat disjointed within Manhattan but easily doable on the No 1 plus the TSGC shuttle,

Now as noted previously there is no direct subway connection to the airports ( which is a glaring deficiency ) but subway plus bus is ( was? ) available. The City is too developed now to put in a new highspeed rail system connecting the three airports economically so a more creative solution must be found.

Why they haven't extended the #7 train to Laguardia over the last 40 yrs to me is something more than oversight. TLC pressures not to do it? Similarly the line out to Far Rockaway could easily have a spur to JFK... but no.. TLC pressures again?

coolcat1 · May 2008

Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55xP4vV-bdg

You might enjoy it.
It's the announcement of the "1st world wide wrap your car day".

1stpik · May 2008

When professionals have to start cutting back on basics such as gasoline, that's a sign that things are getting expensive. In the bigger picture, it's a sign that the gap between rich and poor is getting wider.

That gap is not as big a deal as some people make it out to be. It's a natural cycle in any capitalist economy, and it corrects itself, just like a recession.

However, I will admit to some personal jealousy when I see the largesse that occurs these days. As a good capitalist, I'm happy for the folks in the "have" category, but I don't understand some of the abject waste they commit.

Here in Dallas, we have some money flowing. A big part of it comes from oil (of course), but not all. And we have a whole bunch of 10- and 20-thousand square foot homes around here. We even have one that's 48,000 square feet, built just a few years ago.

Honestly, no family could possibly use 10-, 20-, or 48-thousand square feet of living space. It's just for show. In other words, it's just wasted space: conspicuous consumption.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones (a conspicuous consumer if there ever was one), got some bad press a few years back because the water bill to irrigate the grass on his estate is several thousand dollars per month. Most of us can't imagine using that much water in years, much less every month. Again, simple waste.

And all this makes me wonder whether all of "us" can really compensate for all of "them." All the water we can save, all the energy we can conserve really doesn't make up for all the resources "they" waste.

If everyone in Texas bought a hybrid, it wouldn't compensate for the jet fuel that the Saudi Prince's new Airbus A-380 burns when he flies from Riyadh to New York. FYI -- the A-380 is the largest passenger aircraft in the world. It will seat 500 people in commercial configuration ...... or just one guy, if he's rich enough to pay the $320 million price.

On a global scale, all the Kyoto Accords in the world won't do anything to stop China's massive carbon footprint. BTW, last year, China passed the U.S. to become the world's worst polluter.

So it begs the question, if everything "we" can possibly save won't put a dent in everything "they" waste, what's the point? Sure, we can save a few bucks for ourselves, but are we really saving the planet? Seems to me we're just using less so that other people have more to squander.
.

tedebear · May 2008

On New York's Long Island, Suffolk County legislator Wayne Horsley also has proposed employees have the option of working four 10-hour shifts, rather than five eight-hour shifts, saying it would save 461 barrels of oil in a 120-day pilot project.

I remember some high ranking Republicans suggested doing this not too long ago. You should have seen the backlash from all of the labor unions about how they were trying to take away overtime pay (anything over 8 hours per day is normally 1.5x pay rate).

I wonder how that compares to the extra fuel being used to drive an extra day back and forth to work?

explorerx4 · May 2008

the hard part is for people to not drive their vehicle on the day they don't work.
i have the option of working from home, at least occasionally, but i don't do it.
if i went to the grocery store, or whatever, the gas i would use driving a cold engine wouldn't save much over driving my 13.5 miles to work.

lemko · May 2008

Shoot, lets go one further and work three 13.33333> days and get Monday and Fridays off!!!!

lemko · May 2008

48,000 square feet? That's a small warehouse!!! Several thousand dollars to water your lawn? Geeze, I don't think I even pay $500 a year for my water. Even if I were several times wealthier than all these individuals combined, I couldn't justify doing what they do. I'd put that money towards making my community a better place rather than wasting it on myself.

gagrice · May 2008

So it begs the question, if everything "we" can possibly save won't put a dent in everything "they" waste, what's the point? Sure, we can save a few bucks for ourselves, but are we really saving the planet? Seems to me we're just using less so that other people have more to squander.

I believe our friend kernick has suggested the very same thing. How much do we leave for the Madonna's, Tiger Wood's, Oprah's, Clinton's, Kennedy's & Gore's to squander on mega mansions and jet setting? The only good reason I see to reduce my carbon footprint is to save money for myself. If you do it for any other reason you are "the greenies" those wealthy elitist like to laugh about at their high carbon footprint parties.

I think the 4 day work week is a great idea. I liked my schedule the last 25 years of my employment. I worked 21 days 10 hours per day then was off for 21 days. I don't think I could have gone back to a regular 9 to 5 existence.

gagrice · May 2008

lets go one further and work three 13.33333

I know a couple nurses that work 3/12 hour shifts. It is very common where 24 hour coverage is needed. If you are low on the totem pole you get Fri/Sat/Sun shifts.

tpe · May 2008

A lot of this excess consumption by the uber-rich results in employment for the rest of us. As you probably know 2/3 of our economy is based upon consumption and these fortunate few are thankfully doing more than their share. If anything we should be asking them to increase their consumption. It's an unattractive aspect of human nature to envy/resent those that have more but do people really believe that if the affluent were to disappear everyone else would suddenly be better off? I don't believe that.

gagrice · May 2008

Those type homes are not going for fire sale foreclosure prices. London just set a new record for a $200,000,000 home last week. Tiger Woods is putting the finishing touches on his $16 million dollar Dubai home. The last 20 years has made a lot of people rich. When you look at it historically only a few people were that wealthy 100 years ago. John D Rockefeller at his richest in 2008 dollars would be worth more than the 10 richest people today. So the wealth is spread around a bit better than it used to be. I gave up on my million dollar dreams a long time ago.

http://dublin.craigslist.org/rfs/680172618.html
Watch the video to see what $175,000,000 will buy you.

http://www.tigerwoodsdubai.com/en/the-residences/signature-residences.html
You like golf and hanging out with Tiger Woods. Check this place out.

gagrice · May 2008

It's an unattractive aspect of human nature to envy/resent those that have more but do people really believe that if the affluent were to disappear everyone else would suddenly be better off? I don't believe that.

You are exactly right. If we took the $130 billion from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and divided it with the poorest half of the US population it would be about $800 each. I think that is about what the government is doing with their spending incentive plan.

tpe · May 2008

Where I live the civil service people work what's called a compressed work schedule, which is four 9 hour days and an 8 hour day one week followed by four 9 hour days the next week. This results in them getting a 3-day weekend every other week. This started long before high gas prices and everyone was enthusiastically in favor of it. My point is that working fewer days with longer hours is not exploitation in most people's minds.

bpizzuti · May 2008

"Ohhh, so you feel that you can use as much fuel as you want while I can't afford enough to buy enough to get to work or take my sick child to the clinic....well consume this". Isolated instances are popping up. Will it become a deeper trend?

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm worried about. The thing is, the conspicuous use is VERY conspicuous, given the fact that they're usually either flashy Vettes and Vipers, or large Hummers, just as examples. Probably one of the things we should watch for is rising incidents of vandalism on these sorts of vehicles...we see that happening and we are well down a pretty slippery slope.

trispec · May 2008

Here in Dallas, we have some money flowing. A big part of it comes from oil (of course), but not all. And we have a whole bunch of 10- and 20-thousand square foot homes around here. We even have one that's 48,000 square feet, built just a few years ago.

Yep, my brother lives just out side Dallas. He's a jet pilot for some rich corporate Dallas hot shots. You'd think nice job, nope. It's fun sometimes, but mostly he's having to deal with incredibly demeaning demands and personal put downs. Jet pilots today have status maybe only slightly higher than bus drivers.

The wealthy of this nation have built a culture which is nothing short of obscene. The wasting of fuel is on a scale that we regular folks would get sick to our stomachs over. A private jet in a single trip burns through enough fuel to power my car for months. The execs have no idea how much their high powered trip actually costs. It's simply a raw exercise of unfettered power for show. No economic benefit ever comes from wasteful activity.

Waste is waste. The wealthy really do believe they are morally entitled to waste.

bpizzuti · May 2008

Very possible...you know how much car/taxi companies make on airport trips? usually it's a flat charge minimum, and some of them add the meter. $30 now if I remember correctly, but the last time I was in the city was over 6 months ago. They've probably gone up due to gas prices. They could do it because there's no real alternative....and there still isn't.

Are gas prices fueling your pain?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles