I live 18.5 miles away and pay half the rent. I pay about $110 a a month in gas to get to and from work.About an hour or an hour and 15 by bike and you'll never have to worry about going to the gym 'cause your trip to and from work will take care of that.
Hmmm...I would have to argue with your estimate of the time involved. If I didn't take the freeways, my drive time would increase to 50 minutes to an hour or more. I would say that would more than double on a bike (while traffic isn't nearly as much of an issue, it's simply slower. I cannot do 40mph uphill on a bike. And imagine how I'd smell when I got to work!). Note, it's not a straight shot. Sure, I could probably make an average of 15mph on bike if I had a pretty good path. But I sometimes have trouble navigating the streets of this city when I know where I'm going.
But, yes, point taken and, indeed, valid.
I hadn't considered taking the bike, as nearly 20 miles is a distance that is outside of my comfort zone of traversing under my own power. For example, what if I were to sprain my ankle? I'm then stranded 20 miles from home. Not to mention the weather in this city...I would be soaked any way you look at it...snow, sweat, or rain. (Ok, done making excuses for my innate distaste of physical exertion.)
One person choosing to carpool would not do that, but a whole bunch of people doing so, across the nation, could make an impact.
I don't think the majority of americans have jobs where carpooling is a viable option.
All because gas is too expensive for their older gas guzzlers. Too bad they can't afford a $30,000* hybrid.
Edit:
*I don't know how much hybrids cost.
If you're counting pennies more than kg of CO2 saved, even the Camry Hybrid – the most fuel efficient vehicle here – ultimately costs an estimated $1,298 more over seven years to own than its conventional gas counterpart, mainly due to its initial purchase price and a higher end-of-lease buyout.
One person choosing to carpool would not do that, but a whole bunch of people doing so, across the nation, could make an impact.I don't think the majority of americans have jobs where carpooling is a viable option.
I would say the majority of urban and suburban residing Americans, yes. But I believe that's a smaller percentage than most believe. But I don't have any numbers to back that up.
|
... I hadn't considered taking the bike, as nearly 20 miles is a distance that is outside of my comfort zone of traversing under my own power. For example, what if I were to sprain my ankle? I'm then stranded 20 miles from home. Not to mention the weather in this city...I would be soaked any way you look at it...snow, sweat, or rain. (Ok, done making excuses for my innate distaste of physical exertion.)
Then there are those of us who live in environments where such a thing is simply not practical--Fairbanks, Alaska: Winter, December = less than four hours of daylight, average temperature around -40 degrees Fahrenheit (that's minus 40 degrees!).
I would say the majority of urban and suburban residing Americans, yes. But I believe that's a smaller percentage than most believe. But I don't have any numbers to back that up.
I'm still guessing that even in major cities - the ratio of office employees vs clerk type employees are the clerk type outweigh the office employees.
Clerks can't generally carpool due to shift restrictions. Then we have the office employees - you could have some carpooling here - but I still think it's not enough.
Ofcourse, I have no numbers either... I wish there was a study or something we could quote.
Director of Narrative
|
Today two of my coworkers and myself were stuck in miles of traffic driving a Chevy truck from a jobsite with the fuel gauge leaning on the E. We started talking about fuel prices and gas mileage and hybrids and fuel cells and the silly idea of burning food for fuel, when my boss interjected, "What if people switched to a four day work week?"
Now, of course, this wouldn't work for all industries. As we already have heaps of people working five, six and seven day work weeks and many people worldwide have become very accustomed to eating pancakes at 3am on a Tuesday, picking out the right crown molding for the baby's room at 8am on a Saturday and buying a new router at Best Buy on a Sunday afternoon. However there are many industries that could easily just get their workers to just work four, ten-hour days a week. I think that would save a s!&#load of energy, from the commute to the power to run the machines and lights at any particular job.
Isn't part of this the argument for maintaining Daylight Savings Time?
This is something that I just started thinking about today. What do y'all think? Of course it's radical, but consider me just spitballing.
Edit: The majority of clients that our company services are dental facilities. Most of them are either closed on Fridays or only work half days. Just to give a point of reference.
|
|
... "What if people switched to a four day work week?"
Now, of course, this wouldn't work for all industries. ... What do y'all think? ...
Edit: The majority of clients that our company services are dental facilities. Most of them are either closed on Fridays or only work half days. Just to give a point of reference.
Initially, I'd say the read the spoiler for my long-winded response...
When I was a kid, I remember that nothing except McDonald's and the movie theatre were open on Christmas Day and New Year's; now, almost everything is open, every day, year-round, and it's what people expect.
In the US military we move post-to-post usually once every 2-3 years; and it's always a crapshoot when it comes to Post facilities. Will the Commissary (military grocer) be open when I get off work, or is it open 10AM to 6PM, while I'm at work. And you can ask the same question for every facility except the hospital. The reason is that it's all government-run, and the US Government is a 24-7 industry, but our office hours are 9-5, Monday-Friday. If there's no offset in industry, then business will never occur--it's a Catch-22 where if everyone works when the shops are open, and everyone's off when the shops are closed...
So, if we all could go to a 4-day week, would we offset? Which industries would work on which days? What if my industry and the grocer have the same cycle? I will never eat.
"What if people switched to a four day work week?"
In some sectors the option of four "tens" is an attractive option.
Even if the business open five days, they just stagger who is there Mon-Thu and who comes in Tue-Fri.
In order for it to work, there does have to be trust and redundancy.
I'm retired Navy and have several friends that work in the power plant industry. Most of them work 12 hour shifts, four days at a time, and then have 3 or 4 days off.
I'm sure somewhere up above this was probably mentioned, but there's also telecommuting. It's not an option for everyone, but even if it was one day a week, it helps some.
The other thing is most businesses are still stuck in the industrial age mindset of thinking of work weeks in terms of hours. Why not productivity? or objectives or milestones?
Nothing frustrates me as much as being "more efficient" than my co-workers but having to stick around the office because the time clock has not hit 8 hours yet.
Granted, some industries (service specifically) have to be hours oriented. The bank teller can't go home because he's served 100 customers, for example.
|
|
...Nothing frustrates me as much as being "more efficient" than my co-workers but having to stick around the office because the time clock has not hit 8 hours yet..."What if people switched to a four day work week?"
Small, off-topic rant follows...
Did a great job on that PowerPoint presentation? Awesome, you are now the GTG (Go-To Guy) SME (Subject-Matter Expert), and your additional duty is to make sure everyone else is doing as great a job as you!! Besides, everyone knows how hard it is to cut-and-paste, and no-one's as good as you at writing over last month's document and giving it a new date, so do it for your buddy while he googles the theatre listings and shops Amazon!
huh-hE-huh-hE-huh-hE
(that's supposed to represent hyperventilation following ranting...)
Small, off-topic rant follows...
I never said finding more oil was the whole solution. The point is, we need oil for at least a while until something better comes along. And unless you know some way of recycling the crap that comes out of your exhaust pipe, that means we need more oil. Aside from that, the primary reason gas is so expensive is simple supply and demand. If you want to bring the price down, the only real way to do it is to increase the supply.But NOT drilling for that extra oil might hopefully speed up the search for alternative solutions.
Yes, and it'll cause practically everything to cost lots more, including food. The poor will become far poorer, the middle class will become poor, businesses will grind to a halt (or at least slow down drastically), and many will lose their jobs.
For the record, food supplies are already becoming alarmingly low and alarmingly high-priced throughout much of the world. Some companies are already taking steps to reduce costs. Lots of economic problems are already being caused by the high price of oil.
Just letting it rise so "those mean, wasteful Americal capitalists" will have to pay more is ridiculous, foolish, and just wrong. It was already tried in the '70s and it screwed the whole country and most of the rest of the world royally.
It's been done, and it doesn't work.
Aside from all that, history shows that innovation tends to come fastest during periods of prosperity (and in war, but that's another subject). In order to innovate, one has to have resources, not just need.
Working at a university means many of the offices will be closed a lot during the summer. Four 10s are common. So is going home after 5-6 hour days with the idea being you will put in 10-12 hour days during the academic year. It is encouraged as a cost savings on the part of utilities (four 10s, not the shortened days)
Unfortunately that is not me as the job description says something akin to 'be there while the office is open'. During the summer though I can ride my bike to work.
|
Re: 4 day work week and efficiency/hours debate.
Currently, I work 5 days a week. A lot of people commute, and some can telecommute. It almost works, but in my department, since we're so small, telecommuting is not always the answer.
The odd thing is, my work is all about efficiency. You could never come in and as long as your work gets done, they are happy. Sounds great, right?
Well, here's the odd part: We have a time sheet program that's based on us having a certain percentage based on HOURS WORKED. So basically, we're told to take our time which isn't always possible in the marketing research field. So now I sometimes sit at work staring at the wall because otherwise, I'm wasting time!
Annoying. So close, yet so far.
huh-hE-huh-hE-huh-hE
(that's supposed to represent hyperventilation following ranting...)
Huh. I thought that was the sound Transformers made when they went from car to car-man hybrid.
Energon cubes! I must have energon cubes! And I'll kill any filthy Autobots that get in my way!
Energon cubes! I must have energon cubes! And I'll kill any filthy Autobots that get in my way!
Energon cubes...aren't those what I picked up in Netherstorm last night?
/threadjack
I agree that, holistically, Jeremy and Chris are right--$10 per US Gallon is not extreme on a developed nation-scale. I think petrol in London was something like $10 a gallon the other day. But for your average American, $10 a gallon is (superficially, at least) a lot of money. If you glance back through the posts you'll see that some of us (like me), because of the car we currently drive, would be spending upwards of $200 a week, if gas rose to $10 or $11 a gallon.
The original post assumes retaining ownership and use of the current vehicles, and does not take into consideration the purchase of a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. For example, if I drove a a Civic or a Prius, gas could rise to $25 a gallon, and I would still drive. My Jeep (which, in stop-and-go traffic, under 35 MPH, can average 7 miles to the gallon) is a different story altogether.
Honestly I just can't say I have much pity.
Reality is oil is a useful product and we can use it to make all sorts of neat stuff like different kinds of plastics etc. we probably should not be in a situation where we are wantonly burning such a useful product in cars that, under normal conditions of use, get 7 miles to the gallon. Its essentially needfully wasteful of such a valuable product.
Yes, and it'll cause practically everything to cost lots more, including food. The poor will become far poorer, the middle class will become poor, businesses will grind to a halt (or at least slow down drastically), and many will lose their jobs.For the record, food supplies are already becoming alarmingly low and alarmingly high-priced throughout much of the world. Some companies are already taking steps to reduce costs. Lots of economic problems are already being caused by the high price of oil.
Rising food and other commodity prices will certianly have a detrimental impact on many millions of the worlds poor but the net effect is probably positive. Most of the worlds poor work on or close to the land or in other forms of resource extraction. Rising commodity prices ultimatly benefit them.
Incidentally, concerning the offshore deposits in Florida, we should definitely be allowed to drill it. Florida really screwed up that decision. Responsible, regulatable companies can't legally get to that oil, but China (for one) can. The environmental impact of their operation is already being felt, though they only started drilling off our coast recently. And what can we do about it? Short of starting a war, nothing. It makes much more sense to me that American interests should get the oil off our own coasts rather than letting our enemies harvest it.
If it was just a matter of easing the moratorium on drilling off the books it'd likely have already been done. The environmental issues aren't the big stumbling block. The big stumbling block is that this oil deposit is right off the coast of Florida in Cuba's territorial waters.
So far the idea of America going to Castro hat in hand has been to bitter a pill to swallow. I mean in all likelihood he'd gloat, on TV to boot. Maybe when he's confirmed as being dead relations can be normalized with Cuba and this oil exploited. Having his brother gloat on TV just does not have the same impact. Its more in the mildly annoying department.
(And for those of you who like to whine about global warming, pollution, oil consumption, etc., China is now the world's biggest polluter and consumer of oil - go over there to do your whining, please.)
In total sure though not even in the same ball park on a per capita basis.
One solution I've seen put forward to this is pollution tax system that would allow one to gain credits by not actually going into places like China and building them a new environmentally friendly coal fired electricity plant as opposed to cleaning up an American one. This would have a bigger net positive effect because, bad as an American coal fired electricity plant is, a Chinese one is about four times worse.
What happens is eventually the middle to lower class Americans that drive older used cars because they cannot afford a newer car will no longer be able to afford the gas to get to their low paying job. So, now they can't even get their so they eventually lose their job. As I would guess that our nations public transportation isn't that great across the board. I know Indiana bites at it.
So, now we have a good majority of Americans losing their jobs because they can't get there. Then.. they can't pay their bills...etc.
All because gas is too expensive for their older gas guzzlers. Too bad they can't afford a $30,000* hybrid.
Edit:
*I don't know how much hybrids cost.
A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.
The other issue here thats not really being taken into account is that these working poor that loose their jobs - just who is replacing them? This is not something thats really all that one sided. A whole bunch of companies that choose to build their offices out in the boonies becuase its cheap can't exactly exist with no labour. At some point the work places have to come up with incentives to get the workers to come and work for them. Be that gas rebates in the pay cheque or organizing car pooling or what have you.
|
|
...at some point the work places have to come up with incentives to get the workers to come and work for them. Be that gas rebates in the pay cheque or organizing car pooling or what have you.
Some businesses in my hometown are doing this now--gas vouchers that can be used only by the employee at certain stations under contract with the business; and shuttle vans that pick employees up and drop them off, which is also a great way to effect time-management in the office.
I think at seven dollars I would stop driving for everything but the pure essentials: food, fuel, visits to dying loved ones.
At ten I'd probably move to another city/country.
Its essentially needfully wasteful of such a valuable product.
This, I agree with.
Rising food and other commodity prices will certianly have a detrimental impact on many millions of the worlds poor but the net effect is probably positive. Most of the worlds poor work on or close to the land or in other forms of resource extraction. Rising commodity prices ultimatly benefit them.
Making more food available by allowing the poor to die off from hunger doesn’t strike me as a net positive. Generally, those who work the land do not own the land, and couldn’t buy the food growing under their noses regardless of hunger. It’s the Irish Potato Famine all over again (food is available, but it is being sent away instead of feeding the local population).
A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.
$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings. I’ve been working poor before, and driven third and fourth hand ugly-as-all-get-out cars into the ground until we could afford to scrape up the cash for another vehicle when even $2500 would have been an unheard of extravagance, at which point we’d donate that run-down vehicle to someone even worse off with the know-how to fix it up so they can run it to work for another 6 months. As the saying went, if the engine runs, any car is worth at least $300. It’s hard to think about replacing a vehicle for better mileage when you’re returning bottles and looking in the couch for gas money to get to work (returning from work generally consisted of fumes and prayers).
Rising food and other commodity prices will certianly have a detrimental impact on many millions of the worlds poor but the net effect is probably positive. Most of the worlds poor work on or close to the land or in other forms of resource extraction. Rising commodity prices ultimatly benefit them.
Making more food available by allowing the poor to die off from hunger doesn’t strike me as a net positive. Generally, those who work the land do not own the land, and couldn’t buy the food growing under their noses regardless of hunger. It’s the Irish Potato Famine all over again (food is available, but it is being sent away instead of feeding the local population).
No doubt we'll see all sorts of horror stories along the lines your speaking of as rising commodity prices causes the system to adjust but I still feel the net effect is beneficial.
For at least the last 30 years commodity prices have been extremely low. We are not facing a situation where there was 'just enough' and now their is not enough, we are coming out of a situation where there was oversupply for most of the worlds products - rising demand from large industrializing nations is basically tightening up on that oversupply.
So it might well be the case that the land owner for a coffee plantation is going to take advantage of rising demand for coffee by stiffing his workers. That sort of thing happens, but the coffee pickers are in a better position if coffee prices are high - that evil land owner has some give - maybe they can unionize or maybe there are other jobs available and competition will force him to raise how much he pays his workers etc. This is fundamentally a better situation for the workers then one in which they were paid nearly nothing in large part becuase the evil land lord himself could not really sell his coffee for a profit in any case. Thats been the situation for most products for much of the last 30+ years. The people on the land could grow crops or cotton or what have you but its value was so low that it was not actually profitable to do so.
In the first world we basically found that we had to pay our farmers massive subsidies just to stay in business and none of them were foolish enough to believe that farming would make them money - they did it becuase they loved the life style. My understanding is that the US government actually paid farmers NOT to farm some of their land. In Canada we used to drive massive ships loaded with grain and dump it into the Pacific Ocean in order to get rid of the stuff.
Now there are going to be exceptions - lots of them even. In some cases a product is in fact already tapped to its maximum potential and rising demand is going to make some of these products very hard to come by. In most of these cases the worlds poor usually still benefit - if their product is rare and valuable then they can sell it for significant profit and hopefully buy larger sums of a cheaper staple.
Still I can think of, off hand, at least one area where the world supply is in a crisis and rising demand is a disaster and of great significance to the worlds poor - fisheries. Here we have so badly mismanaged the worlds fish supply that about a third of the worlds fisheries have already collapsed and most that remain are in significant danger of doing so. We've gone so far as to change our eating habits to less desired fish repeatedly due to this phenomena since many of our historical favourites have long ago crashed. In other cases we've substituted for fakes. So genetic analysis of "Red Snapper" reveals that about 70% of the product labelled "Red Snapper" actually is some other kind of fish. Truth is its getting hard to find Red Snappers - their over fished. This really is a disaster in the making - something like 40% of the worlds population, most of them very poor, rely on fish as a significant staple of their diet - often the only protein they get. Rising demand on already highly stressed fish stocks really are a major cause for concern and, so far, there really has not been any agreement to do anything about it. Basically a tragedy of commons without any real agreement on what to do about it. In significant part because fishermen vote - I've read that currently we are in a situation where it costs more to catch most of these fish then they can be sold for, in other words the tax payers subsidize the destruction of the earths fish stocks...how stupid is that!
Nonetheless I think that most of the worlds poor ultimatly benifit from this situation in the same way as America and Canada's farmers are suddenly sporting smiles. People that work on or close to the land benefit if the resources they are extracting from the land is of higher value.
A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.
$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings. I’ve been working poor before, and driven third and fourth hand ugly-as-all-get-out cars into the ground until we could afford to scrape up the cash for another vehicle when even $2500 would have been an unheard of extravagance, at which point we’d donate that run-down vehicle to someone even worse off with the know-how to fix it up so they can run it to work for another 6 months...
These were actually two different points that got kind of lumped together.
Point 1: A Prius is about $25,000, I agree that this is not really cheap but its not extravagant either. It might lead to enough savings to be worth buying compared to other cars in its class. Depending on ones driving habits and whether 71 miles to the gallon is going to save enough to justify the cost.
Point 2: Small fuel efficient cars are, in general, cheaper then large gas guzzlers in any case - though they are rarely all that sexy.
A Yaris will get you around 30-40 miles to the gallon and cost you about $12,000
A Corolla (Probably the worlds most popular car) is around $16,000 and will also do 30-40 miles to the gallon.
Point 2: Small fuel efficient cars are, in general, cheaper then large gas guzzlers in any case - though they are rarely all that sexy.
Still reading your comments, but I thought you would appreciate this Scott Adams Blog Link.
No doubt we'll see all sorts of horror stories along the lines your speaking of as rising commodity prices causes the system to adjust but I still feel the net effect is beneficial.
(I'm just being flippant by the last comment, btw, don't read anything into it.)
|
|
I’m planning to get a new car soon, and have been considering the Honda Civic Hybrid.
Now the Civic Hybrid uses the same body as the standard Civic sedan, similar engine power, same interior (but slightly less boot space). Fuel costs are supposed to be about 60% of the standard model (which is already pretty fuel efficient), and servicing costs would be the same.
I could get the standard car for about $24,000, the Hybrid would be about $28,000.
However, if I’m looking at paying 28, I could consider the Civic Sports (not a hybrid car) for about 26 – 27, which has a nicer interior, better wheels, better sound system, more features, sun-roof etc. Hmmm …
|
|
I just read that Chrysler has a deal--if you buy a new Chrysler between now and July, give them the credit card you will use to buy gas for the next three years, they guarantee you will never pay more than $2.99 per gallon (over that three year period). It's supposedly good for more than 97% of all stations in the US. The catch is using the same credit card to always buy your fuel. If I were buying a new car this summer, I'd definitely take a look at their vehicles. If things don't shape up, who knows, fuel could be as much or more than $6 a gallon in the next couple years.
Heard this on the radio the other day and looked it up, as we've been very happy with the Cruiser, and it gets about 32 mpg (well, that and I get a fair discount through work [but then it's Detroit, so who here doesn't?]).
Apparently you tell them a credit card you own and use to buy gas with (preferably the one with the lowest interest rate, I would think), and they issue you a special discount card that locks gas prices on that card.
Here is the list with max amounts of gas per year you can purchase and all that good crap:
|
|
Heard this on the radio the other day and looked it up, as we've been very happy with the Cruiser, and it gets about 32 mpg (well, that and I get a fair discount through work [but then it's Detroit, so who here doesn't?]).
Apparently you tell them a credit card you own and use to buy gas with (preferably the one with the lowest interest rate, I would think), and they issue you a special discount card that locks gas prices on that card.
Here is the list with max amounts of gas per year you can purchase and all that good crap:
This would be a time to get a new card, or reuse one that's all paid off. Use the new card ONLY for gas, then pay it off each month. We use an Alaska Airlines card for everything that will take a credit card instead of using cash or checks; and then we pay it off each month, so, no finance charges. Plus we get a mile for every $ we spend--I flew from Korea to the US round trip for free last month. If I could get in on a gas deal like that? I'd do it right now.
A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings.
Au contraire, $25,000 IS very cheap for a Prius, considering that e.g. over here in Denmark it's priced at around $78,875...
You Americans were complaining about what again? ;-)|
|
A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings.Au contraire, $25,000 IS very cheap for a Prius, considering that e.g. over here in Denmark it's priced at around $78,875...
You Americans were complaining about what again? ;-)
Good God! How much is a BMW!?
Good God! How much is a BMW!?A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings.Au contraire, $25,000 IS very cheap for a Prius, considering that e.g. over here in Denmark it's priced at around $78,875...
You Americans were complaining about what again? ;-)
Depends on the type, of course. :-)
Give me a model and I can find an example (the Prius price above is, of course, for a new one, not a used one).
I think I liked the other avatar better, but personal preference and all that.
Has anyone seen the compressed air car they are building in Barcelona? Neat stuff.
I think I liked the other avatar better, but personal preference and all that.
Has anyone seen the compressed air car they are building in Barcelona? Neat stuff.
Not just in Barcelona, France and Australia are doing it too.
Youtube link 1Youtube link 2
Wicked cool stuff.
Good God! How much is a BMW!?A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings.Au contraire, $25,000 IS very cheap for a Prius, considering that e.g. over here in Denmark it's priced at around $78,875...
You Americans were complaining about what again? ;-)
I'm given to understand that Denmark has some kind of tax system on cars. That Pruis is still around $25,000 pre tax. Its just that the government takes about a $50,000 cut.
I'm given to understand that Denmark has some kind of tax system on cars. That Pruis is still around $25,000 pre tax. Its just that the government takes about a $50,000 cut.Good God! How much is a BMW!?A Prius is about $25,000. In general little fuel efficient cars are often very affordable. Not exactly sexy or anything but usually pretty cheap.$25,000 is not cheap, even considering long-term fuel cost savings.Au contraire, $25,000 IS very cheap for a Prius, considering that e.g. over here in Denmark it's priced at around $78,875...
You Americans were complaining about what again? ;-)
It's true that the primary reason why it's so expensive is because of taxes. And yes, it pretty much tripples the price, so the base cost is around $25,000.
Unfortunately the sitting government (which just got reelected last Fall) has promised to lower the taxes on environmentally better cars, but, of course, has done absolutely nothing of the sort yet (I'll readily admit that I'm not a fan of the current government). Typical politicians and their promises.
Today diesel prices passed gas prices...
Our admin is considering going 4/10s many of our lowest-paid folks are starting to look elsewhere for work. Because of student rental most can not afford to live in town and the drive is becoming cost prohibitive.
Point about the Irish potato famine: Most of us Idahoans already do not afford Idaho spuds (though I think those in my area have been really happy with the prices of wheat as 'all' the corn goes to fuel ;)
I would think carpooling is more of an option than people (americans) give it credit for, even if it is just from the outskirts of town. If one building can house a couple thousand workers you paths are crossing somewhere.
Finally a link on some 'other' ways to conserve gas.
Today diesel prices passed gas prices...Diesel has been more expensive than gasoline for about 2 years in NJ. Of course, in the style of the state, I get gas for free. All it requires is a gun.
In all seriousness, despite NJ being a pit of corruption and userous taxes gas can be found here at under $3.60 as of yesterday.
I don't recall a time here in Denmark when the price of diesel has ever topped the price of gasoline. It's always been the "benefit" of buying a diesel car that you could get the fuel cheaper, but then the car itself had a higher vehicle excise duty.
In France, the diesel is around ¤ 1.40/1 L., the 95 is near ¤ 1.50/1 L. and the LGP is ¤ 0.70 at its maximum. Do the ¤/$ currency conversion rate and prepare you to... cry!!!!! =)
I don't recall a time here in Denmark when the price of diesel has ever topped the price of gasoline. It's always been the "benefit" of buying a diesel car that you could get the fuel cheaper, but then the car itself had a higher vehicle excise duty.Today diesel prices passed gas prices...Diesel has been more expensive than gasoline for about 2 years in NJ. Of course, in the style of the state, I get gas for free. All it requires is a gun.
In all seriousness, despite NJ being a pit of corruption and userous taxes gas can be found here at under $3.60 as of yesterday.
On the drive in today, diesel was $4.72 a gallon with regular gas at $3.85. Diesel has consistently been substantially higher than gas for quite a while now, as far as I recall. I was actually quite happy to see the $3.85, as it had been $3.99 the day before.
|
|
Ahhh...a breath of fresh air for we active duty US military:
I just read that the DoD is including "special fuel pay" in the 2009 budget. Service members with DoD installation-registered vehicles should qualify for the additional monthly stipend, which is designed to offset the increased cost in fuel. The amount is computed like COLA (Cost of Living Allowance), and is variable by location, surveyed fuel cost, number of family members, and rank and time in service. If Congress and the Administration Ok it, that is...