Unemployment falls below 9%

I'm confused. You think it's unreasonable for people who commute from the suburbs to the city, using a significant amount of gas, to be concerned about the price of gas?
Do you use this same logic on other expenditures? Should people who cook more than you chose to not care about the price of groceries, or people who take long showers not worry if the utilities rate goes up?
What is it about using more of something that should make you care less about how much that thing costs?
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm confused. You think it's unreasonable for people who commute from the suburbs to the city, using a significant amount of gas, to be concerned about the price of gas?
Click to expand...

The loudest complaints about gas prices seem to be coming from people who commute to work in the wrong kind of vehicle. It's common in this area to see a Ford Super DutyWP four wheel drive truck being used to transport one guy and his sack lunch to work.
 
Kestrel said:
The loudest complaints about gas prices seem to be coming from people who commute to work in the wrong kind of vehicle. It's common in this area to see a Ford Super DutyWP four wheel drive truck being used to transport one guy and his sack lunch to work.
Click to expand...

In my experience, a lot of people are just commuting to work in normal, gasoline-burning automobiles. An early 2000's sedan is going to get somewhere between 20 and 30 mpg, which again for a perfectly normal half-hour commute into work is going to run you 2 to 3 gallons of gas a day.
And, yes, a lot of us are now looking for more fuel-efficient options as gas gets more expensive. This was the monetary-efficient option five years ago, but as gas goes through the roof, it no longer is.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm confused. You think it's unreasonable for people who commute from the suburbs to the city, using a significant amount of gas, to be concerned about the price of gas?
Click to expand...

Tying your question back to the topic of this thread, I think it's unreasonable for people who spend money wastefully and use disproportionately more resources than most of the people on the planet to use a slight increase in gasoline prices (an increase that approaches but doesn't reach the gasoline prices paid elsewhere in the developed world) as an argument that the economic recovery isn't actually happening, albeit very slowly.
 
BenBurch said:
Yes, you chose to live that far from work. If you moved closer, you'd pay a lot less.
Click to expand...

The logic just doesn't click here. The argument seems to be, "having made a choice, you have no right to be concerned about changes that make your choice worse." What's the underlying principle behind that?

By the same logic, if I moved into an apartment building five miles from work, and then they decided to raise my rent, I shouldn't be concerned about that either -- after all, I could have chosen to live further from the city, where rent was lower. And if a gang moves into my neighborhood, I have no right to be concerned, because I could have chosen to move into an area with lower crime.

The argument just doesn't seem to have any basis. Why does making a decision eviscerate your ability to complain when changes disproportionately affect that decision?

By the same logic, should people who take mass transit to work not be concerned if the city doubles the cost of bus fare?
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Yes, you chose to live that far from work. If you moved closer, you'd pay a lot less.
Click to expand...

Even so, it's reasonable for him to be concerned about the price of gas. (It's reasonable for a guy committing burglarly to be concerned about getting caught. He won't get much sympathy over that concern.)

But it's not reasonable that his degree of concern is somehow evidence that the economy is not in fact in a very slow recovery. Indeed, I suspect if the recovery got going substantially quicker, inflation would be a bigger concern than it is now.
 
BenBurch said:
Stock 2010 Prius package IV with the SatNav and the moon roof.
Click to expand...

MSRP $20k; more with your optional features.

I bought a used Malibu for under $7k. You drive a car that cost literally three times mine, and you appear to be accusing me of being wasteful.
 
Do you have any idea how many months of work I put in to just find my Vibe? For me it's an amazing car at a little more than 5k. I couldn't afford a $31k or a $28k car. I also couldn't afford to live closer to work, a proposition that become ludicrous if you're looking for a better job and would have to move again if you got one.

There are perfectly good reasons to be concerned about gasoline prices. Attributing those prices to politics however, not so reasonable.
 
I drive a 2012 Mustang and it gets 31 mpg highway, 19 city. But my commute is like 7 miles, only a mile of which is in the city. I have to fill my gas tank once every 2 weeks or so.
 
BenBurch said:
If it's elitist to want to drive a car with nice seats and a nice electronics package, then make me some reservations at the Country Club tonight, Jeeves.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

It's elitist to assume that everyone should be able to drop 30 grand on a car, or that dropping less than 10 grand makes it "junk".

It's worse if you accuse anyone who doesn't do that of being wasteful or making bad choices. Commuter gas at reasonable prices will cost me $1500 a year; in your Prius it would cost me $600. Explain to me how it makes sense for me to spend $20,000 up front to save $900 a year.

Luxury is, pretty much by definition, wasteful expense. I have no problem with luxury, but that's what your Prius is. Someone who can't afford or refuses to invest in your luxury isn't therefore "driving junk" or making bad choices.

And assuming that, since you dropped way too much money on a car, everyone else should, is elitist.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
I'm confused. You think it's unreasonable for people who commute from the suburbs to the city, using a significant amount of gas, to be concerned about the price of gas?
Do you use this same logic on other expenditures? Should people who cook more than you chose to not care about the price of groceries, or people who take long showers not worry if the utilities rate goes up?
What is it about using more of something that should make you care less about how much that thing costs?
Click to expand...

Be concerned all you want but ultimately it’s about moral hazard. When you make bad decisions, like living someplace where you have to drive a long way to work resulting in you spending a lot on gas, do you expect the government to bail you out or do you learn your lesson and make better choices.

Same thing for long vs short showers, if your utility costs are high you have a choice to either pay or take shorter showers. Food costs can be a little grey, but ever there if you want to eat more food than other people why is it up to anyone else to insure you can afford to do so?
 
BenBurch said:
Yes, you chose to live that far from work. If you moved closer, you'd pay a lot less.
Click to expand...

And if you chose to live someplace with good access to mass transportation or someplace you could cycle/walk to work you would pay less still.
 
lomiller said:
Be concerned all you want but ultimately it’s about moral hazard. When you make bad decisions, like living someplace where you have to drive a long way to work resulting in you spending a lot on gas, do you expect the government to bail you out or do you learn your lesson and make better choices.
Click to expand...

Well, around here, a lot of people make a living running the cattle that make the beef that people eat. They use trucks that have the torque to pull a cattle trailer on a dirt road. Those trucks use gas/diesel; I'm sure a lot of people would prefer not to shell out for all that gas, but no one has come up with an acceptable electric/hybrid Ford F350 flatbed.

This is what people here have been doing for generations. Someone has to do it or you won't get your beef. Not everyone in the U.S. lives or works in a city or suburbs. It's not realistic to suggest to live in town; you still have to transport cattle using gas. Unless you're suggesting going back to horse-based roundups ala The Cowboys. They have a right to be concerned about the price of gas.
 
Tiktaalik said:
Well, around here, a lot of people make a living running the cattle that make the beef that people eat. They use trucks that have the torque to pull a cattle trailer on a dirt road. Those trucks use gas/diesel; I'm sure a lot of people would prefer not to shell out for all that gas, but no one has come up with an acceptable electric/hybrid Ford F350 flatbed.

This is what people here have been doing for generations. Someone has to do it or you won't get your beef. Not everyone in the U.S. lives or works in a city or suburbs. It's not realistic to suggest to live in town; you still have to transport cattle using gas. Unless you're suggesting going back to horse-based roundups ala The Cowboys. They have a right to be concerned about the price of gas.
Click to expand...

Gas is part of the cost of the beef. People just need to look at the cost of beef and decide to pay more or eat less of it. Eating X amount of beef isn’t some entitlement or right. TBH people in many countries could stand to eat a lot less meat in general. I don’t see any particular reason for government to step in and subsidize beef production just so people can keep eating as much as they are used to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom