"...I'm a stay at home mom..."

 

There is a problem. That she stays at home. Not to say that it is bad, but if your finances are tight, then picking up a part-time or full-time job may be necessary. She blames others for the problems, yet does nothing to resolve any herself.

Jumping to conclusiuons there, aren't you?  You know her whole story in that one sentence?

"...I'm a stay at home mom..."

 

There is a problem. That she stays at home. Not to say that it is bad, but if your finances are tight, then picking up a part-time or full-time job may be necessary. She blames others for the problems, yet does nothing to resolve any herself.

 

You are jumping to some major conclusions. How many kids does she have, do any have disabilities, what are her husband's hours, etc.  Learn more about her situation before you persecute her.

Also, Seicer, even under the best circumstances, at the cheap end (Wyoming) daycare costs run $340-420 per month per child. That quickly eats away at even a decent full time wage for a non-skilled laborer.

True, and I am basing my opinion (which is what it was) on personal experiences. Granted if she just gave birth, work is not the best option, but I am assuming under a model of where she stayed at home and cleaned house and helped her son/daughter with homework or did whatever else was needed. Like the 1940s before women were really empowered.

 

Mum didn't work after giving birth to me for a few years, and after I could walk and poop on my own, I went to a daycare in the morning and in the afternoons until she got off from work. Cost a little bit of extra $, but with two parents working, we could afford it.

 

I think this is diverging from the topic a bit much (sorry, didn't mean to derail this).

 

The whole trucking bit, though, is not a sad story. My uncle is a truck driver and does long hauls, and his pay has essentially been cut in a third over the past few years because of rising diesel prices. He is thinking of getting out of the industry and looking elsewhere, but he doesn't blame the industry or oil companies, saying that it is only reasonable because trains (and barges) are far more efficient than carrying a load on a truck.

I do IT consulting for some clients in the transportation sector -- whether it's a "right" or not, these independents/mom & pop carriers are indeed dropping like flies. Each individual is just a small cog but the collective reliance on these guys to move the massive amount of freight/food/imports in this country is real and there will be much pain, and increased prices for everything before it all shakes out.

 

There are already cases today where manufacturers and the large retail entities that drive much of the transportation sector are having difficulty finding carriers to take their shipments at any price.

 

The article starts off on an irresponsible note, and some guy thinks that driving a truck is a right? Nice job of the media misguiding the public, rather than informing them...

It is a sad story when someone loses their livelihood.  I know some will take the attitude that a trucker is getting what he deserves for working in a oil-based industry, but even as a conservative, I tend to be sympathetic.  I agree and am hopeful like kingfish out of water that perhaps more jobs will be created in the rail industry to offset job losses in the trucking industry.

Those that survive will gain increasing pricing power (which will likely only exacerbate the inflationary spiral).

It is a sad story when someone loses their livelihood.  I know some will take the attitude that a trucker is getting what he deserves for working in a oil-based industry, but even as a conservative, I tend to be sympathetic.  I agree and am hopeful like kingfish out of water that perhaps more jobs will be created in the rail industry to offset job losses in the trucking industry.

 

Yup, I just hope we don't screw around on this rail and wait too long.  I know it takes time (red tape), but until I see construction near and on the lines, I won't believe it.  I think the next five to ten years may be a period for America to just come to the realization of we have to "Live Within Our Means" across the board and INVEST IN MASS TRANSIT.    The mentality of the past 50 years will slowly die off due to the decline of credit lending and the fast growing 3rd world countries emerging!

 

Theirs an uncertain future ahead of us right now.

Also, Seicer, even under the best circumstances, at the cheap end (Wyoming) daycare costs run $340-420 per month per child. That quickly eats away at even a decent full time wage for a non-skilled laborer.

 

It's over $1000 a WEEK for reputable/safe newborn day care, and that is usually up to age 2.  If you factor in the cost of a woman working (dry cleaning, new clothes more often, more makeup/hair supplies, the cost of the commute), it's often a wash or in favor of staying home at lesat when they're younger because of the cost of child care.

 

^I was going by averages for that region for in-home daycare of a pre-schooler. It does get way out of hand real quick. I would love for my wife and I to have earning parity; I'd stay home with the kids in a hot minute and let her deal with all the corporate boo-yah.

 

But to steer it back to topic, a stay-at-home parent is one less commuter on the road (endless trips to ballet/soccer/the pediatrician/grocery store notwithstanding).

My worry is that combination of inflation, a piss poor credit market, bankrupt gov't due to an aging populace, war, and poor spending restraint will dry up the kind of money needed to invest in rail. The darker scenario is a general disinvestment in infrastructure across the board. I hear bikes and rikshaws thrive in this sort of environment.

^you raise very real concerns dmerkow.  Add in the 800 overseas military installations that we are funding (the only reason any nation needs 800 overseas military installations is if they are trying to maintain an empire) and this country is hemorrhaging money that would be better spent improving our energy security at home. 

^We're always going to need trucks, but out of curiosity, I wonder how many of these guys could transition to jobs in rail transport?

 

I don't know about rail, but one of our country's greatest economic assets, along with things that are rarely brought up like everyone speaking the same language, is the inland waterways, which is an incredibly small industry relative to its importance in the national economy.  For example, not only do we have the coal, but we can transport it for next to nothing from source to dozens of power plants.  In the Mississippi river system, there are less than 5,000 total people moving astronomical amounts of bulk freight in the most fuel-efficient way possible.  The annual federal subsidy to the inland waterways is around $450 million, a ridiculously slim amount of money when considering specific military programs like the low-profile Osprey have hit $50 billion (I believe more than the stealth bomber).  Rail to some extent took a lot of advantage away from the river cities, but at the same time there are totally stupid things going on like coal being transported by rail to riverside plants which were originally being shipped by barge.  There is tons of corruption in the world of utilities, leading to nonsense like that, and there's just no hiding it when the barge crane is still there rusting on the bank! 

 

But getting back to your question, I think part of the problem with trucking is that it has allowed a lot of people in remote areas to keep making a living but it's ridiculously labor and fuel intensive, and to move a similar amount of freight by rail, barge, or ship would not only require less fuel but less labor as well.  When you go through small towns and wonder how the hell they're hanging on, long haul truck driving has been bringing money into those areas for decades and the decline of trucking is going to mean the decline of those kinds of places.     

Just as a comparison:

 

1 barge = 15 train cars = 58 tractor-trailers

 

1 tow can carry 15 barges = 225 train cars = 870 tractor-trailers

 

1 tow requires at least 2 crew men = 1 train requires at least 1 conductor = 1 tractor-trailer requires at least 1 driver

 

Say each operator is paid $25/hour and they work 10 hour days 5 days a week and they are out for 1 week.

 

$2,500 per tow = $1,250 = $1,250 (ALL BASE)

 

But factor in what they carry...

 

$2,500 (1 tow) = $2,500 (112 cars per load * 2 = 225) = $1 million+

 

I think I did my math right?

On the Ohio the max number of barges is 15, although sometimes they will run with more between locks.  On the lower mississippi there is no limit and 40+ is commonplace.  However any line tow runs with at least 9 and more like 11 crew.  They operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  It's not as slow as it seems because running at 10mph 24 hours a day gets you pretty far and the modern 1200ft. locks on the Ohio are a breeze, assuming there is no line.  It takes under an hour and only two crew to lock through a 1200ft. lock but around 3 hours and 3 deckhands on a 600ft. lock.  When the tow's broken up, the third deckhand has to climb the lock chamber just to put a line around the mule that pulls the front half of the tow through.   

This really is one of those challenging efficiency issues. It would be great to invest in rail and water, because they use so much less energy and labor but we also need jobs for the less than brilliant or educated or just those who would rather work their bodies than their minds. As noted above trucking kept a lot of small towns going (and probably did the hard work of the Southernization of the rural America) so where do these guys go next. A built out rail system certainly would need more workers than it has today, but it would also be brand new and computerized so a lot less folks than it did during its heyday.

 

My grandpa raised four kids working in the shop on the old L&N. Maybe if history doesn't work out and the shift happens, I'll see if CSX needs anyone.

1 tow requires at least 2 crew men = 1 train requires at least 1 conductor = 1 tractor-trailer requires at least 1 driver

 

....I think I did my math right?

 

A freight train typically requires at least a two-person crew: an engineer and an assistant engineer or conductor. That's common for most freight trains that don't do any enroute switching (ie: unit trains like Roadrailers, some doublestacks, single-user coal trains or auto-rack trains). For most general/mixed freights and some intermodal freights, a third or fourth crewman might be needed -- typically a brakeman or two.

Oil's 2-day decline: $11 a barrel

Futures plummet after surprise growth in crude, gasoline stockpiles hints at impact of high prices on usage.

By Kenneth Musante, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: July 16, 2008: 11:22 AM EDT

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Wednesday, bringing a two-day selloff to more than $11 a barrel, after the government's weekly inventory report suggested record high gasoline prices may be reducing the nation's energy consumption.

 

At11:19 a.m. ET, light, sweet crude for August delivery was down $5.09 to $133.65 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/16/markets/oil/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

If gas gets lower again all you going to see is people buying as much gas as they can which would raise demand and prices again.

Oil's 2-day decline: $11 a barrel

 

Cool this is a great time to buy a Hummer H2 now!!

Supposedly some of the drop is banks selling off their profits to get more cash in their accounts.

U.S. cities scrambling to meet rising mass transit demands

By Manav Tanneeru, CNN, July 16, 2008

 

Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) -- U.S. cities are racing to cope with ever-increasing demand on public transportation as gas prices remain at record levels.

 

Even regions that have traditionally resisted giving up cars and have limited access to mass transit are reporting a surge in public transportation use.

 

Click headlne above for full story:

Why did oil drop $11/barrel? BECAUSE I FILLED UP THIS MORNING THAT'S WHY! Luckily it was the Civic.

And to think I used to doubt that you were the center of the universe! LOL

Anyone else drive a Hybrid?  Can auto manufacturers make them fast enough?  If they make mostly cars with 30-150 MPG, will that be enough (combined with modest increases in public transportation)?

My parents have a Prius and love it.  But it is really only a marginal improvement over a good small/midsize car and 30-150 MPG is a wide range, so I don't know how to say what will be "enough".  I know that Toyota can't make the Prius fast enough to meet American demand yet, and partly that is because Europeans are buying them up with their more valuable currency.  Of course in the longer run, production rates will rise.  But for the time being, our economic circumstances are putting alot of constraints on our response to high oil prices.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/07/ford-fiesta-wil.html

 

Ford Fiesta = 38.9 MPG combined. For sale in Europe this October; the states will have to wait for Q3 2009.

 

GET THE DAMN THING OVER HERE NOW. It looks beautiful and will have the highest MPG rating of any non-hybrid.

Ford Fiesta = 38.9 MPG combined. For sale in Europe this October; the states will have to wait for Q3 2009.

 

GET THE DAMN THING OVER HERE NOW. It looks beautiful and will have the highest MPG rating of any non-hybrid.

 

My old  AN600 gets 60 mpg combined, and it was built over 35 years ago.. :lol:

Yes, but cars then were far lighter because they had a lack of safety features and crash protection that greatly increases the overall weight.

I haven't mentioned this before, but hybrids really are a joke. Their only real advantage is in their slightly lower emissions. All that extra hardware adds so much weight that it's really difficult for the electric motor to offset the added mass. If they built the Prius without the electrics, it would probably get better mileage. Hybrids benefit much more from the design aspects of the rest of the car - small size, smaller wheels and tires, lightweight structural materials, improved aerodynamics and a lower-output gasoline engine that is tuned specifically for high efficiency. Automakers seem to be uninterested in using these principles in the rest of the line.

 

A good example is the Chevy Tahoe hybrid. When Chevy decided to build it, they used lightweight materials that lowered the weight of the truck by 400 pounds, before adding back +-800 pounds for the electronics . Instead of the 20-inch wheels of the regular model, they equipped it with much more reasonable 17s. They also lowered the gasoline engine's output significantly. The job was already finished before they added the hybrid stuff.

 

The problem is that everyone has been fooled into thinking that they need their vehicle to do a 15-second quarter mile, hold everything that they own, be as tall as every other vehicle on the road including vans and lifted pickups (for "visibility"; what a lie -- people can completely adjust to a lower vehicle in 10 miles or less. It's called looking up.) and have wheels that belong in a rap video. I'm not just talking about SUVs, either. Park an ultra-efficient '80s small car next to one of today's small offerings. The 2008 model will look like a bus. '80s small cars were slow for the most part, true. They did 20-22 second quarter miles. Many of today's cars (and even SUVs) do astounding 14-15 second quarter miles, which would clobber most of the legendary muscle cars of the '60s-'70s. The average non-enthusiast does not need that much power! 17-18 second quarter miles cars are still very fast on the street and can easily keep up with traffic up to 110mph. But, consumers have been fooled and think that's too slow! So, in order to bring back that big-block Chevelle SS 15-second quarter mile, they have to add all the weight and complexity of the hybrid system.

 

There is a discussion somewhere else on UO about how a hybrid's carbon footprint, if you want to go by that standard, is much larger than a conventional car's due to the manufacturing process.

Park an ultra-efficient '80s small car next to one of today's small offerings. The 2008 model will look like a bus.

Your not kidding! Even a smart car looks Big  next to my little car.

 

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/07/ford-fiesta-wil.html

 

Ford Fiesta = 38.9 MPG combined. For sale in Europe this October; the states will have to wait for Q3 2009.

 

GET THE DAMN THING OVER HERE NOW. It looks beautiful and will have the highest MPG rating of any non-hybrid.

 

wait, the ford fiesta never died?

Oil extends slide into 3rd day

Even with the recent slide, crude is up about 40% so far this year.

Last Updated: July 17, 2008: 7:11 AM EDT

 

SINGAPORE (AP) -- Oil extended its fall early Thursday after plummeting more than $10 a barrel in the previous two sessions as evidence mounted that record prices are slowing U.S. demand.

 

Higher U.S. oil supplies, along with evidence of quickening inflation and slowing economic activity in the world's largest economy, have helped pull prices down from last Friday's record above $147 a barrel, said Victor Shum, an oil analyst with consulting firm Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/17/markets/oil.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008071707 

 

So the moral of the story is, if we want to see sustained economic growth again in the U.S., we'd better start investing in rail/transit, navigable waterways, walkable towns and, of course, researching and developing an effective energy alternative to oil. There are those who want us to believe there is an alternative fuel "Plan B" ready to go, but there isn't one. Until we come up with one, we need to invest in energy-efficient transportation (since it constitutes 70 percent of our oil consumption) in an order of magnitude that can be quickly implemented. In other words, not everyone is ready to get a hybrid car when they just bought a new car a year or two ago. Nor can we quickly get more rail infrastructure built quickly unless Congress grants big bucks ASAP and waives the need for environmental approvals.

 

But we could quickly get a subsidy/incentive program out there to help bus company operators to renovate older buses and provide expanded services between cities. You might be amazed at how many used buses are on the market. Other public investments could include providing funding for electric trolley bus conversions, building bike stations in downtown areas, marking bike lanes on roads, etc.

I haven't mentioned this before, but hybrids really are a joke. Their only real advantage is in their slightly lower emissions. All that extra hardware adds so much weight that it's really difficult for the electric motor to offset the added mass. If they built the Prius without the electrics, it would probably get better mileage. Hybrids benefit much more from the design aspects of the rest of the car - small size, smaller wheels and tires, lightweight structural materials, improved aerodynamics and a lower-output gasoline engine that is tuned specifically for high efficiency. Automakers seem to be uninterested in using these principles in the rest of the line.

 

A good example is the Chevy Tahoe hybrid. When Chevy decided to build it, they used lightweight materials that lowered the weight of the truck by 400 pounds, before adding back +-800 pounds for the electronics . Instead of the 20-inch wheels of the regular model, they equipped it with much more reasonable 17s. They also lowered the gasoline engine's output significantly. The job was already finished before they added the hybrid stuff.

 

The problem is that everyone has been fooled into thinking that they need their vehicle to do a 15-second quarter mile, hold everything that they own, be as tall as every other vehicle on the road including vans and lifted pickups (for "visibility"; what a lie -- people can completely adjust to a lower vehicle in 10 miles or less. It's called looking up.) and have wheels that belong in a rap video. I'm not just talking about SUVs, either. Park an ultra-efficient '80s small car next to one of today's small offerings. The 2008 model will look like a bus. '80s small cars were slow for the most part, true. They did 20-22 second quarter miles. Many of today's cars (and even SUVs) do astounding 14-15 second quarter miles, which would clobber most of the legendary muscle cars of the '60s-'70s. The average non-enthusiast does not need that much power! 17-18 second quarter miles cars are still very fast on the street and can easily keep up with traffic up to 110mph. But, consumers have been fooled and think that's too slow! So, in order to bring back that big-block Chevelle SS 15-second quarter mile, they have to add all the weight and complexity of the hybrid system.

 

There is a discussion somewhere else on UO about how a hybrid's carbon footprint, if you want to go by that standard, is much larger than a conventional car's due to the manufacturing process.

You have any evidence/links to back your assertions?

I haven't mentioned this before, but hybrids really are a joke. Their only real advantage is in their slightly lower emissions. All that extra hardware adds so much weight that it's really difficult for the electric motor to offset the added mass. If they built the Prius without the electrics, it would probably get better mileage. Hybrids benefit much more from the design aspects of the rest of the car - small size, smaller wheels and tires, lightweight structural materials, improved aerodynamics and a lower-output gasoline engine that is tuned specifically for high efficiency. Automakers seem to be uninterested in using these principles in the rest of the line.

 

A good example is the Chevy Tahoe hybrid. When Chevy decided to build it, they used lightweight materials that lowered the weight of the truck by 400 pounds, before adding back +-800 pounds for the electronics . Instead of the 20-inch wheels of the regular model, they equipped it with much more reasonable 17s. They also lowered the gasoline engine's output significantly. The job was already finished before they added the hybrid stuff.

 

The problem is that everyone has been fooled into thinking that they need their vehicle to do a 15-second quarter mile, hold everything that they own, be as tall as every other vehicle on the road including vans and lifted pickups (for "visibility"; what a lie -- people can completely adjust to a lower vehicle in 10 miles or less. It's called looking up.) and have wheels that belong in a rap video. I'm not just talking about SUVs, either. Park an ultra-efficient '80s small car next to one of today's small offerings. The 2008 model will look like a bus. '80s small cars were slow for the most part, true. They did 20-22 second quarter miles. Many of today's cars (and even SUVs) do astounding 14-15 second quarter miles, which would clobber most of the legendary muscle cars of the '60s-'70s. The average non-enthusiast does not need that much power! 17-18 second quarter miles cars are still very fast on the street and can easily keep up with traffic up to 110mph. But, consumers have been fooled and think that's too slow! So, in order to bring back that big-block Chevelle SS 15-second quarter mile, they have to add all the weight and complexity of the hybrid system.

 

There is a discussion somewhere else on UO about how a hybrid's carbon footprint, if you want to go by that standard, is much larger than a conventional car's due to the manufacturing process.

You have any evidence/links to back your assertions?

 

Experience. Specific information about the Tahoe came from Car and Driver magazine.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jul2008/bw20080711_257959.htm

 

Real Estate News July 12, 2008, 12:01AM EST

 

The Unraveling of the Suburban Fringe

Most of the overbuilding during the housing bubble took place in outer-ring suburbs. They are also likely the places to be hit worst by the downturn

by Prashant Gopal

 

The 30 or so highway miles from Prince William County in Northern Virginia to Washington, D.C., are among the nation's most stress-inducing stretches.

 

Ohio drivers cut miles, pollution

Monday,  July 21, 2008 2:58 AM

By Spencer Hunt and Morgan Day

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

High prices at the pump are taking cars off the road and reducing air pollution.

 

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that vehicle travel decreased by 16 billion miles during the first three months of the year compared with the same period in 2007.

 

In Ohio, drivers cut 134 million miles.

 

More at:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/21/gas_effects.ART_ART_07-21-08_A1_QOAQ7VK.html?sid=101

Ah, the silver lining!!

From those numbers it looks as if Ohio is last in the pact.

Jordan backs drilling in Alaska

 

By MALIA RULON • Gannett News Service • July 27, 2008

 

WASHINGTON -- Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), whose district includes Mansfield, is backing a plan to expand oil drilling in Alaska.

 

http://mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/NEWS01/807270317

 

 

Americans ditching the car

Commuters are driving less, the federal government says. Workers are leaving their cars at home and finding other ways to get to work. Highway funds at risk.

By Kenneth Musante and Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writers

Last Updated: July 28, 2008: 2:29 PM EDT

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May compared with a year earlier, according to a report Monday from the Federal Highway Administration.

 

"We have seen the longest decline in vehicular miles traveled since we started collecting this data," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters in a conference call with reporters.

 

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/driving/index.htm?cnn=yes 

 

 

Americans ditching the car

 

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May compared with a year earlier, according to a report Monday from the Federal Highway Administration.

 

 

 

Okay, legit question...How on earth does the FHA measure this statistic?

See, at the beginning of May, America set its trip mileage to 0...

 

KJP?

They've secretly embedded GPS devices in all of the bobbleheads sold over the last decade.

I just got my Vespa LXV150 this week!!

 

Bought it more for conservation issues than for gas prices, but the savings is just an added bonus.  Now if it would just stop raining.

See, at the beginning of May, America set its trip mileage to 0...

 

KJP?

 

Yeah, I can understand there might be proxies for obtaining this number.

I just got my Vespa LXV150 this week!!

 

 

Congrats on the scoot!

Be prepared for expensive routine maintenance on the newer vespas like oil changes, and tires.  They kind of lock you in so you void the warranty doing the work yourself. I bought my old vespas because they are so easy to work on and I am a cheapass when it comes to spending money on transportation.

 

Good to have another scoot on the road,  just watch out for crazy cagers!!! I had a lady pull a lefty in front of me 2 weeks ago and she totalled my scooter.  Buy a full face helmet if you want to save your jaw in an accident! :mrgreen:

Americans ditching the car

 

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May compared with a year earlier, according to a report Monday from the Federal Highway Administration.

 

 

 

Okay, legit question...How on earth does the FHA measure this statistic?

 

Two possibilities.  They might calculate it using statistics about the number of gallons of gasoline sold and the average fuel economy of vehicles currently on the road.  Or they could just monitor a representative sample of the US population.  I would guess that their exact methodology is available somewhere on their website.