Actually, $40-$50 isn't that much for a gas budget for a month.  Many of the people at my office probably spend four or more times that.  That's a little more than one tank refill per month, most likely.

 

I was going to say, I averaged spending $365/month last year on gas (between my wife and I). 

Actually, $40-$50 isn't that much for a gas budget for a month.  Many of the people at my office probably spend four or more times that.  That's a little more than one tank refill per month, most likely.

 

I was going to say, I averaged spending $365/month last year on gas (between my wife and I). 

 

Heh. I wasn't trying to say I spend a fortune, but we now spend about a fourth of what we used to when we lived elsewhere and had 2 cars. Since we didn't have to spend as much on gas, we got a more expensive apartment and have spent money in other places (vacations, dinners, etc). So now with prices increasing, its starting to be noticeable. I can only imagine if I were spending over $200/month. That's crazy.

You're going to love this guy. My Dad lives in sprawlicious Macedonia. He may want to move when he reads this....

 

The Wisdom of Macedonia Mayor Don Kuchta

POSTED BY ERICH BURNETT ON WED, MAR 7, 2012 AT 12:51 PM

 

Macedonia Mayor Don Kuchta retained his crown last fall by earning 47 more votes than the next guy and a couple dozen more than two others who almost beat him. He is a man of the people, as long as you’re not referring to the 75 percent of people who don’t actually like him.

 

But nobody can match the three-term mayor when it comes to ladling wisdom upon his appreciative populace. That includes a monthly “Mayor’s Message,” a newsletter in which Kuchta expounds on topics near to his heart. This month, he’s got environmentalism on his mind. Goddamned environmentalism.

 

The good mayor notes that taxes on gasoline pay for maintenance to the region’s streets. But as loathsome fuel-efficient vehicles increasingly occupy our roads, those precious funds are being depleted, which keeps red-blooded road-construction workers from buying socks at the Macedonia Walmart, or something like that. Anyway, we’re all getting screwed by fuel efficiency.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2012/03/07/the-wisdom-of-macedonia-mayor-don-kuchta

You're going to love this guy. My Dad lives in sprawlicious Macedonia. He may want to move when he reads this....

 

The Wisdom of Macedonia Mayor Don Kuchta

POSTED BY ERICH BURNETT ON WED, MAR 7, 2012 AT 12:51 PM

 

Macedonia Mayor Don Kuchta retained his crown last fall by earning 47 more votes than the next guy and a couple dozen more than two others who almost beat him. He is a man of the people, as long as you’re not referring to the 75 percent of people who don’t actually like him.

 

But nobody can match the three-term mayor when it comes to ladling wisdom upon his appreciative populace. That includes a monthly “Mayor’s Message,” a newsletter in which Kuchta expounds on topics near to his heart. This month, he’s got environmentalism on his mind. Goddamned environmentalism.

 

The good mayor notes that taxes on gasoline pay for maintenance to the region’s streets. But as loathsome fuel-efficient vehicles increasingly occupy our roads, those precious funds are being depleted, which keeps red-blooded road-construction workers from buying socks at the Macedonia Walmart, or something like that. Anyway, we’re all getting screwed by fuel efficiency.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2012/03/07/the-wisdom-of-macedonia-mayor-don-kuchta

 

Actually Mayor Kuchta is right, but for the wrong reasons. We WILL have to find ways to pay for roads aside from the gas tax, but finding the political will to do this is problematic at best. It's his focus on the same old "roads uber-alles" that's wrong.

 

BTW, any other funds raised for roads probably would not be subject the restrictions of Article XII, 5a of the state constitution. That opens any effort up to other forms of transportation. An enlightened person (not many of those in the legislature) would build a consensus that calls for an inclusive transportation policy that takes care of all Ohioans, not just those who can afford to drive.

You're going to love this guy. My Dad lives in sprawlicious Macedonia. He may want to move when he reads this....

 

 

It would be Great if Macedonia's mayor was named Alexander.

And Columbus (COTA) leads the nation in ridership gains....

 

Public transportation use up across the nation in 2011

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

 

Americans last year took 235 million more trips on buses, trains and subways than in 2010. That's the most ridership since 2008, when gas prices soared to a national average of $4.11 a gallon in July.

 

Also driving ridership: an improving economy. Greater use came despite more than eight out of 10 transit systems either cutting service, increasing fares or both in recent years, says Michael Melaniphy, the association's president and CEO. "Can you imagine what ridership growth would have been like if they hadn't had to do those fare increases and service cuts?"

 

Ridership grew in 2011 as the year progressed, gas prices rose and the economy improved. Passenger trips rose by 1.6% in the first half of the year, by 2% in the third quarter and by 3.7% in the last three months.

 

Read more at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-12/public-transit-ridership-up/53490166/1

Sigh! Gas went up $0.25 cents overnight. $4 a gallon in Cincinnati.

0.25 cents, or 25 cents?

Survey: High gas prices forcing consumers to cut costs

Business First

Date: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 11:02am EDT

 

A new poll found that people are cutting their budgets in other areas as they deal with rising gas prices.

 

A new poll found that people are cutting their budgets in other areas as they deal with rising gas prices.

 

More than half of Americans are making budget cuts to cope with rising gas prices, according to a new survey.

 

A Harris Poll of 2,451 adults found that 55 percent of people who own a vehicle have cut back on products and services as gas prices have increased. For households with an income less than $35,000 a year, that jumps to 67 percent, while those with incomes of $100,000 or more are cutting back at a 37-percent clip.

 

Read more at:  http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2012/04/12/survey-high-gas-prices-forcing.html?ana=fbk

Interesting to note that the issue is no longer what is the "tipping point" for how much consumers are willing to pay for gasoline.  Rather, the issue now is that the so-called "tipping point" is less of a concern than just the sheer unpredictability of gasoline prices.

 

 

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/121505.aspx

 

Media Advisory 5/15/2012

Contact:

Mantill Williams

(202)496-4869

[email protected]

 

Volatile Gas Prices Point to Increased Use of Public Transportation

 

 

Public Transit Industry Teams With Building America’s Future to Call Upon Congress to Act Now and Ensure Public Transit Systems Have the Resources to Handle Added Demand 

 

Washington, DC—The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and Building America’s Future (BAF) today released a study predicting that record numbers of Americans will turn to public transportation as a cost-cutting measure in the face of volatile gas prices. To meet this impending surge in demand, APTA and BAF are calling on Congress to pass a multi-year, fully funded surface transportation bill as the Senate and House begin Conference Committee negotiations.

 

The analysis used historical trends and independent research data to make predictions on the impact gas prices would have on public transit ridership across the nation. It showed that on average, nationwide public transportation systems will add nearly 200 million new trips this year even as gas prices fluctuate by as much as 50 cents per gallon.

 

For example, as gas prices approached an average of $4 a gallon nationally this year, the analysis predicted an additional 290 million passenger trips could be expected on average for the year, resulting in more than 10.7 billion trips per year. Even as gas prices drop to $3.75, the analysis predicted there would still be an additional 240 million passenger trips because of the volatile up and down nature of fuel prices.  These behaviors show that Americans are looking for a long-term, sustainable alternative to driving.

 

APTA and BAF noted that commuters are initially drawn to public transportation because of gas price spikes but remained public transit users even when gas prices drop because of the numerous benefits of public transportation. The groups said that the nation’s public transportation infrastructure is not prepared to handle the long-term unpredictable nature of gas prices.

 

“Whether it is by bus or train, millions of Americans rely on public transportation every day and mobility in our nation’s most populated areas depends on effective transportation options,” said Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania and co-chair of BAF. “Without reliable transit systems, congestion in our metro areas will rise to unacceptable levels. With more people expected to ride already overburdened transit systems, it is imperative that Congress act and pass a well-funded, multi-year transportation bill as soon as possible.”

 

“The volatility of gas prices continue to highlight the vital need for our nation’s leaders to provide long-term solutions to the increasing demand for public transportation,” said APTA President Michael Melaniphy. “Nearly all experts agree that the swings in gas prices will continue for the foreseeable future. As millions of Americans are expected to turn to public transportation for a way to save money, we must address the ongoing capacity issues faced by many systems around the country. Congress must provide stable investments to allow public transit systems of all sizes from coast to coast to meet demand.”

 

“This study emphasizes that the elasticity of gas prices proves that Americans across this country view public transportation as an integral part of the transportation network,” said Gary Thomas, president/executive director of Dallas Area Rapid Transit and chairman of APTA.  “Since the public views our commuting network as one cohesive system, we should fund and build it as one system where both public transportation and our road network complement each other.” 

 

“Congress must pass surface transportation reauthorization that recognizes the added demand the systems are facing,” said Paul Jablonski, chief executive officer of San Diego Metro Transit System and chair of the California Transit Association.  “Our system achieved record ridership growth while providing vital transportation solutions to the citizens of San Diego.  Our political leaders must look to continue to support its expansion.”

 

“We know these up and down spikes in gas prices will bring more riders,” said Curtis Stitt, president and CEO of the Central Ohio Transit Authority. “We must invest now or our system will not be able to accommodate this influx of new public transit riders looking for alternatives to driving.” 

 

The projected estimates use the 2011 APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report as a baseline. To show ridership growth, this elasticity projection is compared to a given increase above the average price for regular gasoline as reported in the last 2011 report by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

A copy of the report can be found at www.apta.com

 

                                                                                                            ###

 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member organizations; engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services, and intercity and high-speed rail. This includes: transit systems; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and state departments of transportation. More than 90 percent of the people using public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA member systems.

 

Building America's Future (BAF) is a bipartisan coalition of state and local elected officials dedicated to bringing about a new era of U.S. investment in infrastructure that enhances our nation's prosperity and quality of life.  Founded by former Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, BAF boasts a politically diverse membership of state and local elected officials from across the nation.

 

 

 

The volatility of recent months has definitely been interesting.  Lots of rapid swings (though, at least in this area, basically all between $3.50 and $3.90).  I'm actually curious as to whether people are predicting that these rapid swings within that band will be with us for a while.  If people were really starting to think that, you'd start to see increasingly high amounts of quantities demanded (i.e., really big lines at pumps) when the prices fell below $3.60 (because people would be thinking that it was about to swing back upward rather than continue dropping to $3.25), and much more empty stations when it gets to $3.90 (because people would be thinking it would be falling from there rather than continuing to $4.25).

 

I haven't noticed it at my local Speedway, but I'm a horrible source of even anecdotal evidence for this, much less statistical evidence: given that I walk to work most days and my drive is three blocks when I drive, I'm very seldom at a gas station or even driving, walking, or biking past one.

Fill up now while you can. Gas is going to go over $4 a gallon.

Bah.  And I've been only doing partial-fills when it's been in the $3.85 range, hoping for another swing down to the $3.60 mark or so.

I love how gas prices can go from $3.20 to $3.85 and you don't hear much about it, but when they go from $3.85 to $4.05 people lose their minds.  The $4.00 gasoline ceiling is interesting...

Bah.  And I've been only doing partial-fills when it's been in the $3.85 range, hoping for another swing down to the $3.60 mark or so.

 

That's hard on your fuel pump. You won't save money that way considering that a fuel pump costs $600+ to replace. Today's in-tank fuel pumps require gas around them to keep 'em cool.

I love how gas prices can go from $3.20 to $3.85 and you don't hear much about it, but when they go from $3.85 to $4.05 people lose their minds.  The $4.00 gasoline ceiling is interesting...

 

I still remember a fight breaking out at the gas station across the street from my high school when gas crossed the $2.00 mark.  Those even dollar amounts are simply psychological barriers.

Just be glad you don't own a boat.  Add $.50 to $1.00 to the cost you see at the pump on the street and that is what you will pay generally when filling up.  It also hurts when you put in $300 and only get half a tank.  May be time to start looking at sailing.

And most pleasure boats get like 2 mpg.

I love how gas prices can go from $3.20 to $3.85 and you don't hear much about it, but when they go from $3.85 to $4.05 people lose their minds.  The $4.00 gasoline ceiling is interesting...

 

I still remember a fight breaking out at the gas station across the street from my high school when gas crossed the $2.00 mark.  Those even dollar amounts are simply psychological barriers.

 

That shows the ridiculous sense of self-entitlement drilled into Americans' heads about cheap gas.

Bah.  And I've been only doing partial-fills when it's been in the $3.85 range, hoping for another swing down to the $3.60 mark or so.

 

That's hard on your fuel pump. You won't save money that way considering that a fuel pump costs $600+ to replace. Today's in-tank fuel pumps require gas around them to keep 'em cool.

 

Well, I'm still putting half a tank in at a time.  But still.  Interesting.  Especially because I'm often letting it run down close to E before filling, and it can stay there a long time because I don't drive that much (before I filled up yesterday, it had been below a quarter tank for around two weeks).

Ohio has the highest increase in gas prices in the nation. The US has a 36 day supply of oil.

 

How does gas prices go up so much with the platformes down a couple of days??????

 

Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/money/consumer/dont_waste_your_money/ohio-gas-price-jump-highest-in-nation#ixzz2526gE51o

glad I'm getting a Prius here in a couple days...

Ohio has the highest increase in gas prices in the nation. The US has a 36 day supply of oil.

 

How does gas prices go up so much with the platformes down a couple of days??????

 

 

There's also been a couple of large refinery fires. And will the Gulf oil drilling platforms be down for only a couple of days? I recall reading that it takes a while for the platforms to get back up to operation and get the oil flowing again.

Clearly, the price increases were negotiated by the Romney campaign.

glad I'm getting a Prius here in a couple days...

Happy motoring!  My car costs about ten cents per mile to operate.  I think I'm getting off good.

The average price of a gallon of regular gas in California hit $4.67 a gallon today. A record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/27/imf-study-peak-oil-could-do-serious-damage-to-the-global-economy/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

 

IMF study: Peak oil could do serious damage to the global economy

 

The world isn’t going to run out of oil anytime soon. But there’s still concern among various geologists and analysts that our oil supply won’t grow as quickly or as easily as it used to. We’ll have to resort to harder-to-drill oil to satisfy our crude habits. More expensive oil. That would push prices up. And high oil prices could act as a drag on growth.

 

This, at any rate, is the basic idea behind “peak oil.” And there’s some reason for worry. Between 1981 and 2005, world oil production grew at a steady pace of about 1.8 percent per year. All was well. But starting around 2005, oil production appeared to plateau. And, since demand for oil kept rising, especially in countries like China and India, that caused prices to soar. Oil doesn’t get much cheaper than $100 per barrel these days. And that, some economists worry, has acted as a drag on growth around the world.

Considering how important cheap and reliable energy is to a modern society, I'm surprised I'm the first vote for long term loss. Oil is such an integral part of manufacturing and agriculture. Benefit? I just don't see it.

Considering how important cheap and reliable energy is to a modern society, I'm surprised I'm the first vote for long term loss. Oil is such an integral part of manufacturing and agriculture. Benefit? I just don't see it.

 

I can't tell from your post how you feel.

 

My belief is that, since cheap and reliable energy is important to modern society, then we need to get off the oil standard as quickly as an affordable transition will allow. Oil WAS a cheap and reliable source of energy, but not anymore. It was a short-term high from substance abuse in the thousands-of-years history of mankind thus far. A sudden shift to other, longer-term, and renewable sources will be painful, but a shift must be made nonetheless. Hopefully this shift can be made on mankind's timetable, rather than on oil's.

Considering how important cheap and reliable energy is to a modern society, I'm surprised I'm the first vote for long term loss. Oil is such an integral part of manufacturing and agriculture. Benefit? I just don't see it.

 

I can't tell from your post how you feel.

 

My belief is that, since cheap and reliable energy is important to modern society, then we need to get off the oil standard as quickly as an affordable transition will allow. Oil WAS a cheap and reliable source of energy, but not anymore. It was a short-term high from substance abuse in the thousands-of-years history of mankind thus far. A sudden shift to other, longer-term, and renewable sources will be painful, but a shift must be made nonetheless. Hopefully this shift can be made on mankind's timetable, rather than on oil's.

 

But how different are oil's timetable and mankind's?  In the most efficient world, you would use oil right up until the last instant it was cheaper than any alternative, then switch.

 

Existing government subsidies for oil and gas exploration distort the market signals that would otherwise clarify when oil and gas wouldn't be more efficient than alternatives--but then again, the same applies for subsidies for alternative energy companies on the other side of the ledger.

The last instant?  I think the model you're applying is to general.  There is going to be significant lead time, infrastructural needs, research, etc.  These things don't allow us to make those kind of snap decisions of how to power our economy.

Exactly. There was a pretty interesting study done for the Department of Energy under Bush II which showed that a "painless" transition from oil to renewables would take no less than 20 years. Less time requires increasingly more economic pain.

It will be interesting how much Ohio gas prices goes up even though we get most of it from Chicago far away from the storm.

It will be interesting how much Ohio gas prices goes up even though we get most of it from Chicago far away from the storm.

 

They went up 30 cents in one day -- Saturday. When I left for Columbus in the morning, my local gas stations were charging about $3.15. When I got home that evening, they were charging $3.45.

I can't tell from your post how you feel.

 

My belief is that, since cheap and reliable energy is important to modern society, then we need to get off the oil standard as quickly as an affordable transition will allow. Oil WAS a cheap and reliable source of energy, but not anymore. It was a short-term high from substance abuse in the thousands-of-years history of mankind thus far. A sudden shift to other, longer-term, and renewable sources will be painful, but a shift must be made nonetheless. Hopefully this shift can be made on mankind's timetable, rather than on oil's.

Not sure where I'm being unclear. The poll question was whether the high price of gas is a long term benefit or loss. High oil prices signify the end of an era. Any replacement to oil will be neither as cheap or as simple. Electricity for transportation and manufacturing? Biochemicals for plastics? Sure it'll happen but it won't be cheap. You can already see the slowed growth in the global economy. Transitioning from one expensive energy source to another is not a long term benefit. Necessary? Sure, but the world won't be better off for it. That's just ridiculous.

 

Using words like "high" implies we made a mistake in taking advantage of a cheap energy source. In recent history you can peg rapid growth to periods of cheap oil.

^A slowed global economy would certainly result from higher energy prices no matter what the source.  I think you're making the mistake of believing that rapid economic growth is all that really matters.  Moderately higher energy prices do hurt families and the economy, but most believe that they will change human behavior for the better in many cases.  Land use, transportation, and energy efficiency, just to name a few, have tons of room for improvement.

 

The other thing to remember is that the question is for gasoline only.  I firmly believe that higher gasoline prices will lead to much better land use patterns, higher utilization of more efficient transportation, and improve cities as families begin to move closer to the employment centers.  High gas prices do hurt the economy, but in the long run after we all adjust to it the benefits will outweigh the temporary economic pain.

Higher energy prices are bad.  Even with perfect land utilization and maximum efficiency and whatever, high energy prices are still worse than low ones.  All day.  Every time.  A fuel crisis significant enough to force drastic changes in society would be a catastrophe-- even if some or all of these changes are good ones.  Why?  Because after all the changes, you're still in a fuel crisis.  We do need to start making better planning decisions, no doubt about it.  But if we're forced into it by Mad Max economics, we've already lost.

Not sure where I'm being unclear. The poll question was whether the high price of gas is a long term benefit or loss. High oil prices signify the end of an era. Any replacement to oil will be neither as cheap or as simple. Electricity for transportation and manufacturing? Biochemicals for plastics? Sure it'll happen but it won't be cheap. You can already see the slowed growth in the global economy. Transitioning from one expensive energy source to another is not a long term benefit. Necessary? Sure, but the world won't be better off for it. That's just ridiculous.

 

Using words like "high" implies we made a mistake in taking advantage of a cheap energy source. In recent history you can peg rapid growth to periods of cheap oil.

 

Now I understand where your position is, that you view renewables as an expensive alternative to the oil of yesteryear when it was a cheap and abundant fuel. Maybe you even view it as expensive alternative to the oil of today. I don't agree, but what-ev.

 

And, of course, nothing is cheaper than conservation. It's the most effective and cheapest alternative there is. I have vastly cut back on my driving by working from home when I can. When I can't, I usually take transit to work downtown.  I've put only 25,000 miles on my car since I got it on June 1, 2010, and most of that driving is between Ohio cities where we don't have usable rail or bus service. Otherwise my car sits in the garage.

Walking is and always will be free.

^Until Obama starts taxing us for it!  :whip:

 

:wink:

^A slowed global economy would certainly result from higher energy prices no matter what the source.  I think you're making the mistake of believing that rapid economic growth is all that really matters.  Moderately higher energy prices do hurt families and the economy, but most believe that they will change human behavior for the better in many cases.  Land use, transportation, and energy efficiency, just to name a few, have tons of room for improvement.

You're damn right it is all that matters. The explosion in economic prosperity is a direct result of investment and R&D brought on by cheap energy. Without it, you wouldn't be here arguing with me on the internet -- maybe not for another 100 years.

 

The other thing to remember is that the question is for gasoline only.  I firmly believe that higher gasoline prices will lead to much better land use patterns, higher utilization of more efficient transportation, and improve cities as families begin to move closer to the employment centers.  High gas prices do hurt the economy, but in the long run after we all adjust to it the benefits will outweigh the temporary economic pain.

^^ And this post is exactly the problem I have with the poll question. Who decides we are better off in the long run? You? Better is a very subjective term and you are going to have a hard time convincing somebody else what is better for them.

 

Now I understand where your position is, that you view renewables as an expensive alternative to the oil of yesteryear when it was a cheap and abundant fuel. Maybe you even view it as expensive alternative to the oil of today. I don't agree, but what-ev.

Nicely worded. And yes, I do view renewables as an expensive alternative to the oil of today. I'm not arguing that isn't necessary. Just that we won't be better off in the long run for it. We aren't trading one expensive fuel source for an alternative, cheaper fuel source.  It's one expensive fuel for another equally (or more-so) expensive fuel. Electricity is cheap. The infrastructure to transport and store it is not.

 

And, of course, nothing is cheaper than conservation. It's the most effective and cheapest alternative there is. I have vastly cut back on my driving by working from home when I can. When I can't, I usually take transit to work downtown.  I've put only 25,000 miles on my car since I got it on June 1, 2010, and most of that driving is between Ohio cities where we don't have usable rail or bus service. Otherwise my car sits in the garage.

Can't argue with that. People will conserve as costs go up. We see it already. Young people are moving back toward the city for the variety of reasons.

 

I get it. This is an urban enthusiast forum. Folks here will favor whatever policy enhances the urban environment. My concern is that rising oil prices raises the cost of everything. That is not a long term benefit.

^Man it'll really suck if it gets more expensive to bring everything over from China rather than make it here if the cost of shipping goes up. Then Americans will have jobs. Yuck.

 

And worst of all, the share prices of publicly-traded companies that make all that stuff overseas might go down!

A prosperous economy does not necessarily bring a higher quality of life. A higher quality of life is what we should all be striving for.

I get it. This is an urban enthusiast forum. Folks here will favor whatever policy enhances the urban environment. My concern is that rising oil prices raises the cost of everything. That is not a long term benefit.

 

This urban enthusiast agrees with you.  Higher energy costs will impair urban development as much as anything else.  Perhaps more... density and transit offer lower overhead through time, but much higher initial construction cost than sprawl.  In an environment of scarcity, expensive long-term advantages can be a tough sell.  Cities need to sell themselves on their own merits, which I believe are more than suffcient without a fuel crisis.

Let's keep in mind higher gas prices rapidly raise prices on food, and that has done a ton to hurt the economy. Also, it can raise the price of public transit. Cities with a lot of busses that run of gas have to raise the cost of a transit pass. I don't see any positive in higher gas prices. Young people are moving to urban areas with or without higher gas prices. It's an extension of the college lifestyle. If anything, the kids moving to the central cities are the wealthier ones. They can at least afford to not live with their parents. They could probably stomach higher gas prices better than others. It's the kids in the suburbs who are really screwed- most don't make enough to get their own place (landlords have income thresholds), and they have to blow their paychecks on gas getting to work. In no way is this good for the American economy. And as said before, higher gas prices raise the cost of food, clothing, toiletries, etc. It's not just due to shipping from China. It makes it more expensive to ship within the United States too.

 

I now spend about $200 a month on groceries. I used to spend $100 a month on groceries. That's $100 dollars that's not being spent going out or buying other products. Gas is partly to blame for this quick rise in grocery prices.

I now spend about $200 a month on groceries. I used to spend $100 a month on groceries. That's $100 dollars that's not being spent going out or buying other products. Gas is partly to blame for this quick rise in grocery prices.

 

Yes, but much of the rise in gas prices has been the result of a collapsing U.S. dollar, which raises the price of your groceries completely independently of the fuel used to transport them to market.  You would be paying more for your bread even if the wheat fields, mill, and bakery were all right next to the store and farmhands walked the goods through the production chain by hand.  Ditto every other commodity.  Clothing has been getting more expensive as well, regardless of its country of manufacture; the cotton market has been particularly squeezed.

 

Higher fuel prices caused by a depreciating currency are more of a loss than higher fuel prices caused by the actual use of gas for productive activity.  After all, if energy is used effectively, it should hopefully produce wealth sufficient to actually let people pay the higher price necessary for the next quantum of energy.  If gas goes up in price just because of dollar depreciation, though, there's nothing good about that.  After all, that same depreciation will increase the price of all commodities, including those needed for windmills, solar panels, and any other fuel source.

Another cause in the rise of food prices is "flight to necessity" as I call it, or simply renewed interest in commodities at the expense of other asset classes. Pixel money is increasingly considered frilly as compared to the money that goes into feeding the Earth.

 

Yes, but much of the rise in gas prices has been the result of a collapsing U.S. dollar...

 

That's all true, but is gasoline also becoming less affordable?

 

If you made $10 an hour over an 8 hour workday in 2000 and gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, you could afford to buy 53.3 gallons of gasoline for that money. If your wage rose to $15 an hour by 2012 but gasoline rose to $3.50 a gallon, you could afford 34.3 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline would be becoming more unaffordable.

 

I saw an extensive analysis spreadsheet on another forum where a poster had taken the time to look up average income, gasoline prices, average housing costs, etc., and he concluded that the average person in the United States is worse off now than at any time since 1983, when gasoline prices and other costs of living were at an all time high compared to wages.

 

A prosperous economy does not necessarily bring a higher quality of life. A higher quality of life is what we should all be striving for.

What kind of hippy bullcrap is that? I agree a higher quality of life is what everybody should strive for. The best way to accomplish that is with an economy that sustains enough decent paying jobs for people to live comfortably.

 

I don't understand how you can have one without the other. Maybe we should ditch our cell phones, cars, and McMansions, and all move to a communal farm in Utah, where pesky things like gasoline costs and foreign policy don't matter. Until the community grows too large and we can't sustain the farm without the use of fertilizers that are manufactured using oil and heavy equipment that runs on diesel.

 

^Man it'll really suck if it gets more expensive to bring everything over from China rather than make it here if the cost of shipping goes up. Then Americans will have jobs. Yuck.

 

And worst of all, the share prices of publicly-traded companies that make all that stuff overseas might go down!

Even with higher fuel costs, it'll be cheaper to manufacturer overseas and ship it here. But that's a function of lower wages, lower import tariffs, and a government that doesn't give a crap about their own environment. The U.S. went through that same period -- it was called the industrial revolution. And if their share prices go down, you can bet the first people getting shafted is the American employees, not the overseas ones. It sucks but that's how things have become...

 

Ironically, the collapsing dollar that Gramarye mentioned has made it profitable for some companies to shift manufacturing to the U.S.. For example, many foreign auto companies are moving (or planning to move) final assembly here. With typically much higher domestic content to boot, so local parts manufacturers benefit too.

 

Yes, but much of the rise in gas prices has been the result of a collapsing U.S. dollar, which raises the price of your groceries completely independently of the fuel used to transport them to market.

 

True. And what really backs up your argument is the fact the demand has leveled off or is even declining in the United States. People are driving less, and the cars they are driving use less fuel than the old ones did. A lot of people traded in the big SUV's and went for small SUV's. Rising fuel prices are not a supply and demand issue as much as a weakening dollar issue. Everything is getting way more expensive because the Fed printed way too much money.

 

It just sucks that I've had to double my grocery budget in five years. If that's not hyper-inflation, I don't know what is. How the hell do people with families feed their kids anymore? If I'm single spending this much money, I can't imagine what a family budgets for food these days. I bet there has been a huge spike in food stamps and assisted meal programs...