Rising Fuel Prices

[redpoint5]

When I worked for a brick mason for a month, it was my responsibility to get to the storage unit 45 minutes away by 6am. Then I rode in the truck with the mason. When we needed materials, he'd throw me the keys and tell me to put the cost on his company tab. People at the yard would recognize the truck and bill his account.

I had just gotten out of prison, so my bank account was 3 digits. Fuel prices mattered more to me back then, just as the price of everything mattered more.

Regarding the comment, fuel prices affect the cost of just about everything. We live in a wealthy era because of cheap fuel and cheap machines. If we relied on expensive machines like oxen and slaves, we'd all be relatively poorer.

[freebeard]

In the 1980s I had a Type II panel van with a full length roof rack. One summer I drove up the Willamette valley to various jobs, and I'd roll the table saw out of the van and sleep in it at night, then use it to haul lumber the next day.

[Autobahnschleicher]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

It does depend on commute distance and type of vehicle. I know lots of people that commute a little over 150 miles every day in a pickup truck (constuction worker) to get to work. That's about 10 gallons every day at 15mpg. So $3.50 per gallon is $35 a day. $5 a gallon would be $50 a day. And $23 per gallon would be $230 dollars per day. Multiply that by 6 (sometimes 7) workdays per week (about 26 days a month) and $3.50 is $910 per month, $5 would be $1,300 per month, and $23 would be $5,960 per month for the commute.

The reason people commute like that is because of the rising cost of living in certain areas. We're talking some $6,000 per month in wages, but in the area where there's work, $4,000 per month or higher rents for a 2 bedroom apartment. But 75 miles away you can get a place for under $1,000 per month. So $1,000 plus $910 plus whatever other per-mile driving expenses still works out to a lot less than $4,000.

If prices reached some $23 per gallon around here I'm not sure what would happen. The labor shortage would definitely rise even higher, cost of materials would skyrocket and rents would likely skyrocket as well. Wages allways seem like the last thing to rise.

A 150 mile commute with a vehicle that inefficient seems like a rather irrational combination.
Given a 50 mph average speed that's a 3 hour drive per day wasted.

Regarding housing prices over there, that's another issue.

[Autobahnschleicher]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That is coming from a place of privilege IMO. I know many, many people who have their decresonary income reduced to basically zero with cost of gas even at $3.50/gal. My sister in law with a bachelor's degree and 10+ years with the same company as a supervisor with Head Start inc couldn't afford to rent let alone buy in our simple Montana town. So even with the best reliable economy car she could afford, a stripped down fwd CRV getting 30 mpg on her commute, she spends over $4000/yr on gas at just $3.50/gal. That's 10% of her gross pay. This is repeated over and over again by all the service industry jobs done by hard working barely getting by people. There is no bus, no train, and rent for the simplest place in town is $1500 now. To buy at least $400,000. They are forced to live 20, 30, even 60 miles away. These gas prices and anything higher just further turn people poor. Many now are just deciding to give up, stay home, and live on welfare. Hence a big worker shortage in a supposedly rapidly growing city. It's great for my 16 year old with zero experience. She landed a $12/hr job with flexible schedule and has almost no expenses. There are many $15/hr offers she could take too but she likes the crew she has and likes serving at the retirement home, vs a fast food restaurant. She of course will have to move out of town if she ever wants to live on her own. Bottom line these high energy costs hurt the working poor the hardest. While the rich live close to their job, and can afford a $50,000 EV and then get a $7500 tax break for that, and then stick a $10,000 solar array on the roof and get another big tax break for that, just so they can drive 2 miles to work and then 30 miles on a weekend going to dinner, brewerys, and the theater or something. Yeah, even $50/gal gas would be nothing for them.

My car isn't exactly the most fuel efficient either, however chosing to drive extremely long distances all the time alone is not a good idea.
Especialy in a car as large and gas guzzling as that honda SUV, an economy car would only need about half as much fuel and probably cost less.
But that's not the big factor, carpooling, taking public transit or riding bike saves a lot of gas.
I'm not exactly making much money, but I do my best to avoid having to drive long distances by car.
Wich is more of a factor than my cars fuel efficiency, wich is pretty bad as you can see in my signature.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

In the 1980s I had a Type II panel van with a full length roof rack. One summer I drove up the Willamette valley to various jobs, and I'd roll the table saw out of the van and sleep in it at night, then use it to haul lumber the next day.

I'm still fond on Kombis because they can be still quite fuel-efficient compared to a larger semi-bonnetted van. I'd still consider picking a late-model panel to convert to Diesel and use for stealth-camping.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Autobahnschleicher

A 150 mile commute with a vehicle that inefficient seems like a rather irrational combination.
Given a 50 mph average speed that's a 3 hour drive per day wasted.

Regarding housing prices over there, that's another issue.

Well, the great majority of work in those areas is construction. And most people work for themselves. So you have to have a vehicle you can haul tools and materials in and get into places that may have undeveloped roads and driveways. Plus people think you need a truck-like vehicle with 4WD for driving in the winter. Add to that that a lot of places that sell materials more economically are also down where housing is cheaper, so that helps make up for the cost of the commute too.

Anyhow, it still is cheaper than renting near the place of work. I do think some of these people are crazy for the time they spend away from family, and a lot of times they end up divorced or with other family problems. But it's the way things have been going. People want more ane more and stuff keeps getting more expensive and competition keeps driving wages down so your only option is to work more and more to keep up with the Jones'. Well, except now there isn't any competition because people are looking for a change.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Well, the great majority of work in those areas is construction. And most people work for themselves. So you have to have a vehicle you can haul tools and materials in and get into places that may have undeveloped roads and driveways. Plus people think you need a truck-like vehicle with 4WD for driving in the winter. Add to that that a lot of places that sell materials more economically are also down where housing is cheaper, so that helps make up for the cost of the commute too.

Anyhow, it still is cheaper than renting near the place of work. I do think some of these people are crazy for the time they spend away from family, and a lot of times they end up divorced or with other family problems. But it's the way things have been going. People want more ane more and stuff keeps getting more expensive and competition keeps driving wages down so your only option is to work more and more to keep up with the Jones'. Well, except now there isn't any competition because people are looking for a change.

That's not backed by any evidence I can find. Especially now, wages have exploded at the lower end of the spectrum. Burger flippers can start at like $15/hr these days with thousand dollar bonuses, which is absolutely insane.

People are better off than they were before, and not by just a little, by every metric.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Autobahnschleicher

My car isn't exactly the most fuel efficient either, however chosing to drive extremely long distances all the time alone is not a good idea.
Especialy in a car as large and gas guzzling as that honda SUV, an economy car would only need about half as much fuel and probably cost less.
But that's not the big factor, carpooling, taking public transit or riding bike saves a lot of gas.
I'm not exactly making much money, but I do my best to avoid having to drive long distances by car.
Wich is more of a factor than my cars fuel efficiency, wich is pretty bad as you can see in my signature.

It's not a big SUV, it's a tiny Honda without even AWD. It has an efficient CVT and a small 4 cylinder. You aren't getting double 30 mpg highway with anything out there, maybe 40 or 45 mpg, but it wouldn't be ideal on the deadliest stretch of road in Montana. She has 2 giant teenage boys so and an adult daughter living with her (a masters degree LCSW who can't afford to live in her own place either but at least is all teleconference so don't have to drive.) The CRV is about as small as she can get by with. As I pointed out, no bus or trains around here. There is a free city bus in town that would go the last 2 miles of her 60 mile each way but what's the point then? Carpool never really works out, she has a unique schedule at her work, and it's never consistent enough for other people to team up with.

PS I see you are in Germany. Just for a point of reference Montana is almost exactly the same size as Germany but with 1 million people while Germany has 84 million people. Sometimes I don't think Europe gets how wide open much of the USA is.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That's not backed by any evidence I can find. Especially now, wages have exploded at the lower end of the spectrum. Burger flippers can start at like $15/hr these days with thousand dollar bonuses, which is absolutely insane.

People are better off than they were before, and not by just a little, by every metric.

They start at $15/hr and end there as well. 20 years ago rent was an easy $600 here and burger flippers got $7/hr. Now rent is over $2000 and you get $15. 20 years ago the Post Office started at $17/hr and the house I bought was just over $100,000. Now the PO starts at $18.50/hr and the house I live in would cost $400,000 even in the condition it was back then (we have done a bunch of work so it's even more than that now). I would much rather be starting out 20 years ago compared to today. Very few are better off.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

They start at $15/hr and end there as well. 20 years ago rent was an easy $600 here and burger flippers got $7/hr. Now rent is over $2000 and you get $15. 20 years ago the Post Office started at $17/hr and the house I bought was just over $100,000. Now the PO starts at $18.50/hr and the house I live in would cost $400,000 even in the condition it was back then (we have done a bunch of work so it's even more than that now). I would much rather be starting out 20 years ago compared to today. Very few are better off.

Everyone's better off, as nobody would just transport themselves to an earlier epoc at the age they're at.

Entry level jobs were never meant to be a "living wage", but an introduction to the workforce.

I get what you're saying, because my dad worked for Safeway for basically his whole working life. Pay was good when he started, and stagnated to the point of being poor for a single-income family of 4. He could have advanced but had no ambition to do so, and I'm a chip off the old block because I don't want to be responsible for anyone beyond myself (and my family). Making decisions for idiots sounds like hell to me, and being responsible to higher up idiots even moreso.

Naturally, technology affects the lowest ends of the workforce first, because those are the easiest jobs to automate and eliminate. That's an intractable problem that will increasingly affect higher skilled jobs. I've already mentioned how the expertise of doctors is threatened by big data in other threads. That's not to say their jobs can be eliminated immediately, but their value is diminishing.

Big picture is that technology and globalization is to blame for the comparatively slow advancement of the bottom sectors of the labor economy, and it will continue forever to eat into that labor economy, producing abundance in its wake.

We can endlessly argue "fairness" till the cows come home, but the advancement of technology has made everyone better off.