Are gas prices fueling your pain?

jimbres · May 2008

Ah, full-throated American populism! If this were 1898 instead of 2008, your enemy would be Big Rail, not Big Oil. (Hard to believe now, but before the automobile came along, the populists of the time believed that railroads were the all-powerful behind-the-scenes puppet masters - with help from the big Eastern banks, of course.)

I'll bet you've memorized William Jennings Bryan's magnificent acceptance speech at the 1896 Democratic convention: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Great stuff!

Me, I'm a libertarian, not a populist - I'd rather starve government than soak the rich - but I salute populism as a great American political tradition.

Back to the subject of expensive gas: according to today's paper, MasterCard reports that U.S. gasoline consumption was 5.5% lower last week than it was a year earlier - 3.8 million barrels less. And the DOT reports that our highway mileage in March, 2008 was down 4.3% from March, 2007. This was first March decline since the late 70s.

aspesisteve · May 2008

don't let the energy hogs of the world prevent you from creating better habits.

all that living large is mainly fueld by ego.

there are alot of people who are 'The Millionaire Next Door"; people who choose not to wear their income on thier sleaves.

Just because there is someone who flies around in a 747 by himself (President of the US) doesn't make what you do to conserve worthless.

I see people who spend gobs of money on these giant homes, cars and things, to be chasing an empty dream.

tpe · May 2008

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

I doubt the wealthy give much thought to what they are morally entitled to. They do what they can afford to do just like the rest of us.

I flew in the Navy during the 80's and have a couple friends that now fly corporate jets. They both love their jobs. When you talk about your brother's dissatisfaction maybe it's not the rich people but him, or maybe he's fiction. Or maybe he's acquired your very well developed sense of being a helpless victim.

explorerx4 · May 2008

my suv is 6 years old, paid off, and i want to keep it for another 4-5 years.
does this sound like one of those 12 step things? :surprise:
we all still enjoy driving it, we are just more careful about how it gets driven.
downside is, 'dad, the mustang 5.0 gets better mileage, can it take that?'

jac0bsdad · May 2008

This post may be deleted because it is more of a political response but I did look at the political chat forum area and it has been 6 days since the last post, so I apologize to the hosts of this forum, and to the other posters of this forum in advance, and I understand if you advocate the deletion or delete this posting..

Answer to the "religious conservative" issue: Conservatives, religious or otherwise, will not vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, if they believe in the following two things: Abortion and Same Sex Marriage... period. A candidate that espouses those belief systems openly cannot gain the vote of a conservative, even if the conservative voter agrees with the other 99% of the things they believe in.. I know that many of you would consider that narrow minded and I understand that but again, I am simply the messenger answering the question. My apologies for offending anyone and for violating forum guidelines. Also, my answer pertains to a southern conservative voter that was born and raised in the Southeast USA...

snakeweasel · May 2008

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

In 1952 and 1953 the top tax bracket was 93% on income over $200K. It went down to 91% and stayed there till 1963.

snakeweasel · May 2008

To JFK, or LGA? No go

When we went to NYC for vacation we stayed in a hotel right at LGA. We had no trouble getting on a bus to the train to get down town.

1stpik · May 2008

Good responses!

On the flip side, I (and we) certainly have to acknowledge that our criticisms of "the rich" comprise the same criticisms of us that many other people in this country have.

Besides being home to plenty of wealth-flaunting folks, Dallas also has plenty of first-generation immigrants, legal and otherwise. They live several people to an apartment, and two families to a house. They drive very used cars. They work hard jobs for low pay.

They must look at a guy like me -- single, drives a new car, owns a 1,700 sq. ft. house, and squanders cash on ski and scuba trips -- and wonder why I waste so much money and energy to support my lifestyle.

But, just like "the rich," I ain't changin' just to please others.
.

ny540i6 · May 2008

When we went to NYC for vacation we stayed in a hotel right at LGA. We had no trouble getting on a bus to the train to get down town.

Your statement is absolutely correct.

To clarify: For many of us who live in NYC we think of either thesubway or the bus... you'd be suprised how many people who get around on the subways NEVER think of getting on a bus, and vice-versa. It would have been clearer for me to say that you can't get on a subway and get off the subway AT the airport.

kdhspyder · May 2008

It depends of course on what they consume...

trispec · May 2008

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.

Missing the point entirely. Wealthy and the generation of wealth necessarily need focus and concentration. But BOTH Bill Gates and Warren Buffett freely admit that the situation is obscene that they would benefit personally, so they are giving theirs away as fast as they possibly can. It's actually kind of hard work to give away wealth without wasting it. The Gate foundation was so good at at the Buffet gave Gates all of his to give away.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the perfect examples of responsible super rich. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are on the record that the tax situation that they face is horribly unfair. Buffett made a huge public case of how he pays less taxes as a percentage than his secretary!

Gates and Buffett have even tried to form a club of billionaires for higher taxes. Only about a hundred billionaires signed up. Ted Turner started a counter club of billionaires for lower taxes. Ted Turner's club got thousands of members signing on. Hmmm Time for an IRS meeting for the TT club members I think. Sick'm boys.

It's going to take a culture change. The super wealthy are going to need to realize in that they are just lucky, not better. Luckiness gets Taxed at 70% from now on. I'd even let Bill Gates and Warren Buffet choose the cut line.

dieselone · May 2008

Gates and Buffett have even tried to form a club of billionaires for higher taxes. Only about a hundred billionaires signed up.

Well, their are only about 350 billionaires in the US. I'd say that's a pretty good response.

To say these people are wealthy mainly due to luck is hilarious. Winning the lottery is luck.

Please take your socialist rant to the politics thread.

Back to gas prices, it's down to $4.05 here.

snakeweasel · May 2008

Here in Chicago it is not unusual to take both the train and a bus. Plus there is train service to both airports.

snakeweasel · May 2008

Luckiness gets Taxed at 70% from now on. I'd even let Bill Gates and Warren Buffet choose the cut line.

Oh thats it, work hard succeed and get screwed by the government. That will encourage people to succeed.

bpizzuti · May 2008

Hey, *I* work hard and get screwed by the government, why shouldn't everyone else? :shades:

RUG is $4.39 up by me, aren't you guys SOO lucky? I think they should replace income taxes with pure fuel taxes. THAT will get people to buy more efficient vehicles and drive less. It'll create a larger market for fuel-efficient exotic vehicles for the rich too. :P

tpe · May 2008

In 1952 and 1953 the top tax bracket was 93% on income over $200K. It went down to 91% and stayed there till 1963.

If your talking historical the highest rates were in 1944 and 1945 when income over $200k was taxed at 94%. By before Reagan I meant what was the top bracket before the Reagan administration's reductions.

gagrice · May 2008

Gates and Buffett have even tried to form a club of billionaires for higher taxes. Only about a hundred billionaires signed up. Ted Turner started a counter club of billionaires for lower taxes. Ted Turner's club got thousands of members signing on. Hmmm Time for an IRS meeting for the TT club members I think. Sick'm boys.

How about some links backing up your crazy claims. If memory serves me right. Ted Turner started the ball rolling on billionaire giving. He pledged $1 billion to charity and challenged Bill Gates and others to follow suit. At that time Gates and Buffett were giving very little of their wealth to charity.

You could make the tax percentage most anything you want. People like Buffett do not take huge salaries from their wealth. They write off a big share of their income. I think when you realize just how repressive Socialism is to Everyone it will be too late. Do I think that many CEO salaries are obscene. I sure do. And right at the top of the list are incomes like $120,000,000 for Bill & Hillary Clinton over the last 7 years. And their donations to THEIR own charity to avoid high taxes.

If your scenario of billionaires wanting higher taxes was true. Which it is pandering to the masses. They are free to write a check to the IRS for as much as they feel they owe this country. When Gates and Buffett kick in an extra billion a year to Uncle Sam, I will believe what they say.

PS
Check out the tax increases proposed by Obama. You will see that you and I will be paying more. Making gas even more difficult to afford.

kdhspyder · May 2008

Actually all the work was done on this by former NCAA legend, Rhodes Scholar, NBA Title winner, Senator Bill Bradley.

He was given full credit by the Reagan Administration for simplifying the tax system at the time.

1stpik · May 2008

"Buffett made a huge public case of how he pays less taxes as a percentage than his secretary!"

Then maybe his secretary deserves a tax cut.

Seriously, when people make statements like this, they're committing a lie of omission. They're citing the percentage of Buffet's total net worth, while only citing the percentage of income for the secretary.

They're also including social security and medicare taxes. When the secretary collects those entitlements, they will represent a much BIGGER percentage of her total income than Mr. Buffet.

If you give an honest comparison, anyone who makes seven figures pays a higher percentage of his income than anyone who makes six or five figures, because the percentage of taxation increases with the amount of income.

Even if it didn't -- even if everyone payed the same tax by percent no matter what their income -- those who made more would STILL pay more. 20% of $50,000 is $10,000. 20% of $500,000 is $100,000.

And the entire argument that the rich should pay more taxes implies that the government deserves extra money, and that it will use it to benefit the citizens. It doesn't, and it won't.

Just look at what they do with the gasoline taxes -- supposedly collected exclusively for road construction and maintenance: bike paths, light rail, and in some states (like Texas) they even siphon 1/4 of the money into the general fund. Meanwhile, we have bridges collapsing into rivers.

Just like our energy conservation simply gives others more to waste, any extra money the gov't receives is just more for them to steal.
.

dieselone · May 2008

Seriously, when people make statements like this, they're committing a lie of omission. They're citing the percentage of Buffet's total net worth, while only citing the percentage of income for the secretary.

Far from an apples to apples comparison. Sure last year we hit the 33% tax bracket filing jointly, but our federal effective tax rate was just over 14%.

I have a lot of respect for Warren Buffet, but when I read his comment comparing his taxes to his secretary I had to shake my head.

If Warren's effective rate was lower than mine, good for him. It doesn't bother me. Percentages don't mean jack.

avalon02wh · May 2008

"Tiger Woods is putting the finishing touches on his $16 million dollar Dubai home."

Yeah, but Dubai will be under water soon as the ocean level rises.

I wonder if he is on one of the Palm Islands?

texases · May 2008

"Seriously, when people make statements like this, they're committing a lie of omission. They're citing the percentage of Buffet's total net worth, while only citing the percentage of income for the secretary. "

These old wives tales never die "Rich people pay less taxes". Then some example get cited of one person with who knows what tax situation. On average the rich pay more $$ (of course, they should) and a much higher average % of their income in taxes. I just looked at the IRS web site (sorry to bring in actual facts here), and found that the group averaging $1,267,000 in gross income paid an average of 25.7% in taxes, compared to, say, the group averaging $42,500, who paid an average of 6.1% of gross income in taxes. I'm not saying the current setup is wrong, just that those who contend high income people pay less taxes, by any measure, are wrong. Check it out yourself (look at Table #1, for 2005, you'll need to do a little math to get the average income #s). 2005 tax info

mattandi · May 2008

but I would really like to read more about what folks are doing to "ease the pain." Taxing the uber-rich and CAFE effects on manufacturers decisions are fascinating topics, but there are other forums more appropriate for those.

(/whine)

stever · May 2008

But today may be the day I bite the bullet and stick $40+ dollars in the Outback.

The radio said gas here went up two cents overnight. It wasn't that long ago that the DJs were doing their morning reports on hog futures or corn prices - now it's RUG that everyone is following.

And ditto what Mattandi said!

avalon02wh · May 2008

Paid $4 the other day for RUG, well technically it was $3.999. Another record.

Last night I paid $3.899. I was bummed, why the drop? How can we have the collapse of civilization if the price goes back down?

When the May vehicle sales come out next week we should see the collapse of the large SUV and pickup market.

In Alaska, RUG is almost up to an average of $4.24 while California is at $5.15 for diesel.

coontie66 · May 2008

That's right, "Percentages don't mean Jack".. The liberals can make statistics say whatever they want... So by their rules if my taxes go down by $500 and a Billionaires go down by $500 is there an equal reduction in taxes or did I get a bigger tax break... GEEEEZE where were they during Stats class?? Probably sleeping it off from the night before.

mattandi · May 2008

My wife and I were talking this morning. She offhandedly suggested she may start riding her bike to work. It appears practical. There is a route she could take, though we are typical, I think, in that there are no dedicated bike lanes. Distance would be about five miles one way. She is a high school teacher, so the facility is conducive with showers and plenty of storage available. We live in the southeast with relatively mild winters. Not sure how she would feel about riding in the rain, but rain doesn't bother her too much with other outdoor activities. She is quite healthy, and summer is upcoming providing the opportunity to improve fitness by next year. We are considering a move that may or may not affect practicality.

I'm left with the nagging question of safety. I looked around to try and get some sense of just how safe is bicycling. Stats are all over the place so it is difficult to decipher. Provided laws are followed and reasonable steps regarding safety are employed, it appears as though riding a bike is at least as safe as riding in or driving a car. Most stats available on the web appear to be presented by biking or helmet advocacy sites, so there may be some bias in their presentation.

I can't help but wonder if the perception that bikes are less safe is somewhat akin to the same type of perception that SUV's are more safe. One being the converse of the other.

High gas prices aren't killing us, but anything that reduces our consumption is something we would consider.

kernick · May 2008

How can we have the collapse of civilization if the price goes back down?

Well I guess I'll unload my shotgun, and not guard my car tonight.

Being here in NH, all I have to do is "feel threatened" and mistake that siphon for a gun, in the dark.

kernick · May 2008

I'm left with the nagging question of safety.

In the past, and even though I only rode a few miles at a time, I've been hit in the face when riding by bugs - almost swallowed a bee - very dangerous if your throat swells. So I'd suggest at least goggles, or a full face-shield. I'd also suggest your wife not ride on rainy days and especially when there's a threat of thunder and lightening.

Your wish to reduce consumption may be correct, but consumption may be reduced per capita, but overall consumption will still increase as more and more people use oil and gasoline. If you were in the Northeast I'd show you new condos and housing being added, that each have an oil-burner, and will use 750-1000 gal/year each.

Despite conservation efforts since 1973, our energy usage has grown. Conservation efforts only slows the energy increase, as long as we continue to grow our population and GDP.

BTW heating oil has now reached $4.50/gal. This fall your congressmen are going to be asked to take your tax dollars and subsidize a lot of people here in the NE, so they can heat their houses.

larsb · May 2008

Congrats on at least starting the discussion.

Sidewalks are a much safer place to ride than the streets. Check the laws and see if sidewalk riding is allowed in your area.

As far as riding in the rain - I bought a "rain suit" from a guy who used to do a lot of sailing. It is a neoprene-like outfit which has a separate top and a bottom that both go over your clothes. I live in Phoenix so rain is not often a problem - but I have had to use my rainsuit several times in the last year anyway. Other than looking like a big old yellow Dork, this works perfectly for me. I get to work dry as a bone.

She could also consider an electric assist bike. That's what I have. This allows me to get my commute done and not end up a totally sweaty pig at the end of the ride. And I still burn about 600-700 calories a day on my two 30-minute daily rides. I've lost about 15 pounds since I started riding the bike. Search Ezip or E-zip at the Walmart.com site. The bike is $348 right now. It's a good deal on a nice little bike and there is a woman's version also.

I measured the cost to charge my bike battery last night. Cost 0.09 kwh to charge it, which comes out to about one and a half cents. Almost free at 3 cents per day.

Good luck.

kernick · May 2008

I was more concerned with braking on a bike in the rain. I've had the experience of riding a bike about 20mph and hitting the brakes and going right thru an intersection, with my braking distance at least doubled.
If riding on the road, you must also consider that driver's windows fogup quickly, and sometimes it rans so hard the cars can literally not see and have to pull over.
I agree that you should ride on the sidewalk as much as possible.

trispec · May 2008

The tax system is BROKEN. Throw it out and start completely over.

Here's a replacement to be done on the back of 3X5 card. 15% for income to $30K. 17% for incomes to $60K, 19% to $120K. 23% to $240K, 27% to $580K, 31% to $1.6M, 39% to $3.2M, 49% to $6.4M, and 59% to 12.8M, 69% to what ever number.

Deductions: Interest on up to two homes. Charity fully deductable at your income rate. Capital gains ZERO Tax (you keep what you kill so to speak).

This is my first tax system ever. Never even thought about it before. Not really... See it's not hard.

mattandi · May 2008

I neglected to mention that there are few sidewalks along the route she would take. Only on one stretch about a mile long through a residential area. I admit that I'm not sure of the law, but my guess is biking on that stretch of sidewalk would be allowed. The rest of the route is residential streets sans sidewalks.

She grew up sailing. We do lots of camping and often hike. She already has better rain gear than me. I am only assuming that riding in the rain would not be the most pleasant experience.

trispec · May 2008

Walmart's $80-$90 Men's 26" NEXT Aluminum Shocker 21 speed bikes are awesome to get started with for really cheap. I'm 40lb over my college weight and the shocker absorbers are a complete god send for my rump. You're going to get sore down there and shocks totally minimize the worst of the possible damage. Plus mountain bike tires make you feel much more secure on most road surfaces, some of which have become pretty bad I must say.

And for $80-$90 bucks, who cares if you decide to not continue ridie it. Hell that's one tank of gas for some people.

texases · May 2008

Would she have a clear shoulder the whole way, at least? Around here, some jerks get unpleasant (and, sometimes, dangerous) if they're being held up by a bike in a car lane.

mattandi · May 2008

Every activity has some risk. I would have to guess that the bug risk is slight at best. Stormy weather certainly poses some danger. Alternative plans might be warranted. All comes under those reasonable safety measures.

Discussions on conservation are interesting. There are so many factors at play.There are individual considerations as well as corporate considerations. It's actually a fairly simple matter to reduce energy use on an individual level. It is also fairly doable on a per capita basis. It becomes increasingly difficult as we move to the societal and global levels. I am willing to accept that at those levels it may be a practical impossibility. Population dynamics, developing cultures, growing industrialism and other factors play into the increasing demand for energy.

Part of the problem here is the perception that is bred that suggests that what the individual does has little effect in the grand scheme. IMHO that is a misguided, incorrect, and defeatist perception. Individual efforts and choices do make a difference. The difference is obvious and apparent at the individual level and more obscured beyond the individual level, but the difference is still there.

mattandi · May 2008

Yes, clear shoulder practically the entire route. Unfortunately jerks abide with us nearly everywhere. Goes back to the as long as laws are followed bit I mentioned in my OP. We have a very long way to go (revert?) to becoming more accepting of other vehicles besides the motorized kind on our streets.

We'll look at it more this summer.

imidazol97 · May 2008

This needs to go to the Politics topic. But your tax system won't work. You have people making $20,000 paying tax. They shouldn't have to pay tax. If we could find a way, the politicians would have them not even paying for gasoline. Those people vote, you know. 0.15 X $20,000 = $3000. We can't have that! :P

ny540i6 · May 2008

I say... GO FOR IT!!

You describe an active, intelligent adult - she (and you) can handle it.... of course you could also follow her insecret for the first few days just to be sure...

kernick · May 2008

Individual efforts and choices do make a difference. The difference is obvious and apparent at the individual level ...

Yes, I totally agree. I didn't have the $ for a candy bar at times when I was in college, and have since made choices in my life that have put me in fine shape not to be affected much by these gas costs. I continue to adjust, and plan for contingencies.

and more obscured beyond the individual level, but the difference is still there.

Yes your individual conservation makes a slight difference. Since 1973 - a) the avg. mpg. of our vehicles has increased, b) we have gone to EnergyStar appliances, c) many of us have already gone to low-energy lighting, d) we have gone to more energy efficient windows, e) our industries are more efficient and conscientious, but the fact is that we collectively continue to use more and more energy each year.

Those are facts, not pessimistically or optimistically based. We use more energy as our economic goals are to increase GDP and to improve our lifestyles. This is the goal of every nation and people worldwide.

So unless the supply of energy or oil or gasoline has some sort of large increase, which I don't see imminent, we are going to continue along this path. Those who have more money will continue to get as much fuel/energy just as it is true today. And high prices do not mean social chaos, as we have seen this in Europe; and in many countries where the vast majority can not afford gasoline and cars.

If you look world-wide today, only a small percent of the globe has as much energy as they want. Many people can not afford much fuel. There is not enough fuel for everyone. The fact is that now the pool of people who can afford our "normal" quantity of oil and gas may be shrinking. This topic kind of infers "what are you willing to do to stay in that pool, what are you going to give up or how are you going to restructure your life, OR are you dropping out of the % that are buying gasoline?"

mattandi · May 2008

Well, she has been bugging me for us to live a bit more healthy lifestyle. It didn't exactly come out of the blue when she mentioned it this morning, just not an option that we have seriously considered before.

avalon02wh · May 2008

It was suggested over in the diesel forum that I post the RUG to PUG cost difference. So here goes. The info is based on the May 30, 08, AAA numbers. The formula is (D2-RUG)/RUG converted to a percent. Or (PUG-RUG)/RUG. The percent represents the additional cost of D2 over RUG or PUG, likewise for PUG over RUG.

Clear as mug. :shades:

State RUG/D2 PUG/D2 RUG/PUG
Alaska 13.3% 1.3% 11.9%
Alabama 21.7% 10.6% 10.1%
Arkansas 22.9% 9.5% 12.2%
Arizona 25.1% 13.4% 10.3%
California 22.7% 13.4% 8.2%
Colorado 20.3% 7.6% 11.8%
Connecticut 18.0% 6.0% 11.4%
District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5% 9.7%
Delaware 22.7% 10.6% 10.9%
Florida 20.7% 9.4% 10.3%
Georgia 21.1% 7.9% 12.3%
Hawaii 21.7% 13.0% 7.7%
Iowa 21.2% 9.8% 10.3%
Idaho 21.9% 12.4% 8.5%
Illinois 16.7% 5.2% 10.9%
Indiana 20.8% 9.2% 10.6%
Kansas 22.4% 14.7% 6.7%
Kentucky 18.7% 5.9% 12.1%
Louisiana 21.1% 8.5% 11.6%
Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8% 11.6%
Maryland 22.0% 11.9% 9.0%
Maine 22.2% 10.2% 10.9%
Michigan 18.9% 7.9% 10.1%
Minnesota 21.3% 13.7% 6.7%
Missouri 22.1% 10.9% 10.2%
Mississippi 21.3% 10.1% 10.2%
Montana 19.3% 9.1% 9.3%
North Carolina 20.6% 8.9% 10.8%
North Dakota 18.5% 10.6% 7.2%
Nebraska 19.7% 13.9% 5.1%
New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4% 12.2%
New Jersey 24.1% 11.6% 11.3%
New Mexico 22.2% 10.0% 11.1%
Nevada 22.7% 12.3% 9.2%
New York 23.0% 12.6% 9.3%
Ohio 19.7% 8.0% 10.9%
Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2% 9.2%
Oregon 19.5% 11.6% 7.1%
Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6% 10.1%
Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1% 9.9%
South Carolina 22.2% 9.6% 11.5%
South Dakota 19.3% 7.7% 10.8%
Tennessee 21.7% 9.7% 10.9%
Texas 21.9% 11.2% 9.6%
Utah 22.4% 11.2% 10.1%
Virginia 20.9% 11.0% 8.9%
Vermont 25.4% 11.7% 12.3%
Washington 20.5% 10.8% 8.7%
Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8% 8.6%
West Virginia 20.3% 9.5% 9.8%
Wyoming 21.3% 9.2% 11.1%

mattandi · May 2008

Yes your individual conservation makes a slight difference. Since 1973 - a) the avg. mpg. of our vehicles has increased, b) we have gone to EnergyStar appliances, c) many of us have already gone to low-energy lighting, d) we have gone to more energy efficient windows, e) our industries are more efficient and conscientious, but the fact is that we collectively continue to use more and more energy each year.

That is correct. This begs the question of whether or not our conservation efforts over the last 25 years have been a failure? Or what would our energy use be if we had not employed any conservation measures over that time?

Our demand for energy will continue to increase. Our energy use will continue to increase. Does this mean that we should cease all efforts to use less energy on a per capita or individual basis?

I do not differ from you very much on most of this I think. I do differ in that I think there is plenty of energy available. Most of the demand is socially and culturally driven, not as need based as is popularly believed. We just want the cheap and easy solution. Not surprising actually. Part of the human condition I suppose.

avalon02wh · May 2008

Any thoughts as to why premium in NH is so much higher than regular when compared to other states? The latest from AAA has PUG at a "premium" over RUG of 47.6 cents. In Nebraska the "premium" is only 20 cents.

I thought it might be due to ethanol, but the cost difference in Iowa (corn/ethanol state) is 40 cents.

tedebear · May 2008

Well, she has been bugging me for us to live a bit more healthy lifestyle.

Congratulations to your wife for suggesting the bike commute. My wife is the one who got me interested in cycling once again after 15 years off the bike. I stayed with it and became a lot better at it than she was. Now she won't ride with me. :sick:

Anyhow, for commuting tips you might look at websites such as the LAB (League of American Bicyclists) or the Bicycling magazine forums. The last one has a VERY active area with all kinds of tips, tricks, clothing suggestions, etc. I'm at work and have to deal with a company firewall or I'd post links to the above. They should be easy to find with a quick Google search.

I generally avoid riding on rainy days, mainly because lightning usually follows rainy weather and I'm not a good lightning rod. I do have a really high tech rain jacket that "breathes" when the rain stops so I don't get soaked in sweat.

I stay off the sidewalks. They are pretty much forbidden to ride on where I live. There are few shoulders on my 34-mile RT commute but I've found that if I obey the same traffic laws as other vehicles on the road, signal my turns, etc., I gain a lot more respect from the motorists who I have to share the roads with. I do not "hog" the lane but sometimes there's only so far over I can move.

You said you are in the SE area. I don't know what state but during a transcontinental ride last summer I experienced a lower tolerance level from drivers in the SE who did not think I should be on the road. In fact, I don't think anyone even honked at me until Alabama. They say Florida is the absolute worst.

You'd better dust off your saddle, too, or your wife will soon be leaving you in the dust.

vchiu · May 2008

>And for $80-$90 bucks, who cares if you decide to not continue ride it.

That is definitely a good deal. There is nothing better than a bike for its outstanding infinite mpg and healthy side effects.
When I rode in Paris, cars were pretty respectful. The most dangerous were pedestrians with their non existant discipline.

> Hell that's one tank of gas for some people.

Half a tank for a mid-sized sedan in France, but we won't find $90 new bikes here.
it is rather $200 , so you are right, a big full tank also buys a bike over here.

explorerx4 · May 2008

plenty of people smoking cigs and many of them while they are driving.

andre1969 · May 2008

an article from last Sunday's Washington Post caught my eye..."Peeved at Prices? Don't blame the Dealer". It goes on to tell the story of a local Exxon franchise owner who's between a rock and a hard place. It says that if she raises the price of gasoline a couple pennies per gallon, Exxon's computers know it and will adjust the wholesale price that SHE pays by the same amount. So the net effect...Exxon's still raking it all in and she's no better off than she was before.

On top of that, credit card fees are killing her profit margins, and just the week before the article was printed Exxon, who owns the land the station is on, gave her a new lease stating that they're raising her rent 30%, phased in over the next three years!

When she told Exxon that she can't make money with rent that high, the territory manager simply replied... "When you go, leave us the keys".

This kind of attitude makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about big business...NOT. :mad:

andre1969 · May 2008

With a top tax rate of 93-94%, what incentive would there be to work, once you got to that level? I guess one consolation is that $200K in 1953 was more like $1.5-1.6 million, I guess there weren't too many people falling into that bracket. And for those that were, I'm sure there were ways around it.

But if I were making just under $200K and offered a promotion that would give me, say, a 10% increase but also 10% more work, responsibility, stress, etc, the only way I would take it would be if the only other option was to be shown the door. Or, if the company threw in some kind of non-taxable perk that was too good to refuse.

andre1969 · May 2008

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.

I used to be able to do that kind of stuff, but having a desk job has made me lazy. Back in the day though, I could work 7:30-4, or 8-4:30 Monday-Friday, and then work part time, 5-11 on Mon/Tues/Thurs, 5-midnite or later on Friday, and then go in 5-1 on Saturday. I gradually phased that down though, and eventually quit that part time job.

These days though, I usually have to work late on Thursdays, usually putting in 10-11 hours instead of 8. Those extra 2-3 hours will kick my butt! Part of the problem though, is that 2-3 hours sitting at a computer getting eye-strain, carpal tunnel, and sort of physically vegetating is different from an extra few hours running around on your feet. Both will wear you out, but in different ways.

Are gas prices fueling your pain?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles