Unemployment falls below 9%

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Again, you're acting like choosing to live a long way from work is a "bad decision". It's not. That's silly.

Living closer to work is not a "better choice". The suburbs are safer for my family, less expensive to maintain, and more convenient for basically everything other than finding work. It is not a "bad decision" to live there and pay the cost to commute into work.

And, in case I haven't made myself abundantly clear, the long commute with the normal gasoline-powered automobile is still the most cost-efficient option, even at $6 a gallon. That's $3,000 a year, which hurts and I don't like it, but no other option costing under $3,000 more gives anywhere near the same results. The commute is reasonable, which is why the vast majority of those who work in this particular metropolitan area do it.

And, no, I never said I was interested in the government bailing me out. But it's stupid of others to be surprised when those of us who have a long commute, which is a valid choice, are unhappy when the cost of a long commute goes up. Just like it would be stupid of you to be surprised when those who take the bus to work every day are unhappy if the bus fare significantly increases.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Living closer to work is not a "better choice". The suburbs are safer for my family, less expensive to maintain, and more convenient for basically everything other than finding work. It is not a "bad decision" to live there and pay the cost to commute into work.

That's all well and good, but you can't then turn around and complain that the increase in the cost of your commute is proof that the economy is not improving or that Obama has done something wrong. (Well you can, but it's wouldn't be at all accurate!)

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's all well and good, but you can't then turn around and complain that the increase in the cost of your commute is proof that the economy is not improving or that Obama has done something wrong. (Well you can, but it's wouldn't be at all accurate!)

Sorry, but I don't see why not.

I mean, in practice, I haven't done this and don't plan to. But to point to something that is a daily necessity for millions of Americans, fuel for the daily commute, and indicate that its increased cost is bad for the economy is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Or are you saying more generally that it's wrong to argue that increased costs are bad for the economy?

 

[lomiller]

Again, you're acting like choosing to live a long way from work is a "bad decision". It's not. That's silly.

It is if you can’t afford the gas to make the drive.

Living closer to work is not a "better choice". The suburbs are safer for my family, less expensive to maintain, and more convenient for basically everything other than finding work. It is not a "bad”.

So you get value from living further away, you don’t get something for nothing. Again, I fail to see your point. You are getting something you think is worth the cost, so what exactly are you complaining about?
If you think living far from work is worth it then you pay for the gas, if not you live closer it’s a simple choice and one you say you made for good reason so what exactly is the problem?

And, no, I never said I was interested in the government bailing me out. But it's stupid of others to be surprised when those of us who have a long commute, which is a valid choice, are unhappy when the cost of a long commute goes up. Just like it would be stupid of you to be surprised when those who take the bus to work every day are unhappy if the bus fare significantly increases.

Ok so what do you want then? You don’t want to live closer, you don’t want to pay for the gas to drive you don’t want anything bring down the cost, so what exactly are you looking for?

But it's stupid of others to be surprised when those of us who have a long commute, which is a valid choice, are unhappy when the cost of a long commute goes up.

Again, what are you hoping to achieve with these “concerns”? You admit you made the best choice for yourself why then are you so concerned about the consequences of that choice?

 

[lomiller]

Sorry, but I don't see why not.

I mean, in practice, I haven't done this and don't plan to. But to point to something that is a daily necessity for millions of Americans, fuel for the daily commute, and indicate that its increased cost is bad for the economy is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Or are you saying more generally that it's wrong to argue that increased costs are bad for the economy?

You just finished telling us you don’t want government to subsidize your trip so what exactly do you want Obama to do brining in a magic wish fairy to change the law of supply and demand or create new oil supplies from pixy dust?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But to point to something that is a daily necessity for millions of Americans, fuel for the daily commute, and indicate that its increased cost is bad for the economy is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

Or are you saying more generally that it's wrong to argue that increased costs are bad for the economy?

First, "bad for the economy" at least in the context of this thread topic implies that the president can do something about it. Do you think he can? Or are we starting a new topic where we bemoan and curse the invisible hand of the market?

Second, this came up in the context of indicators that the economy is in recovery. What I said was that you can't accurately point to the spike in gasoline prices as an indicator that the economy is not in recovery.

 

[BenBurch]

You just finished telling us you don’t want government to subsidize your trip so what exactly do you want Obama to do brining in a magic wish fairy to change the law of supply and demand or create new oil supplies from pixy dust?

Moreover, government subsidizes petroleum NOW.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you think living far from work is worth it then you pay for the gas, if not you live closer it’s a simple choice and one you say you made for good reason so what exactly is the problem?

Again, if my choice had been to live near a bus line and ride the bus into work, I'd be concerned if the bus fare went drastically up.

If my choice was to live in the city and apartment rental costs suddenly skyrocketed, I would be concerned about that.

What is unique about the choice I made that suddenly I shouldn't be concerned about an increase in my costs?

Or is it your position that people should never care when something becomes a lot more expensive? We should always ignore the increase, or just say, "Hey, this shouldn't bother me; I should just completely rethink my lifestyle and choices because something became more expensive."

The problem is that, using your assessment of my choices, there's no reason to ever be concerned about anything.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You just finished telling us you don’t want government to subsidize your trip so what exactly do you want Obama to do brining in a magic wish fairy to change the law of supply and demand or create new oil supplies from pixy dust?

Are you seriously not aware that there are regulatory bodies right now impeding the production of oil in the US under Obama's control?

New oil supplies don't need to be created from pixie dust; they actually exist!

 

[lomiller]

F
Second, this came up in the context of indicators that the economy is in recovery. What I said was that you can't accurately point to the spike in gasoline prices as an indicator that the economy is not in recovery.

Since global oil supplies are somewhat static over the past 5-7 years and you would expect an uptick in demand with an improving economy I would expect an increase in the price of gasoline in association with any economic recovery. I just don’t see how an economic recovery would not cause such an increase.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Second, this came up in the context of indicators that the economy is in recovery. What I said was that you can't accurately point to the spike in gasoline prices as an indicator that the economy is not in recovery.

Yeah, I wasn't jumping in on either side of that.

Remember, I responded to someone who made a very stupid comparison about the price of gaslone versus the price of bottled water.

I then got attacked for apparently using "too much" gasoline -- because I'm not willing to live in a ghetto, spend four times as much on a car, or try to move to a different metropolitan area to get a job.

Isn't it great to know that rich people have ways for everybody to solve their problems? Just spend a "little" money!

 

[lomiller]

Are you seriously not aware that there are regulatory bodies right now impeding the production of oil in the US under Obama's control?

Give some examples and indicate how much you think this impacts oil prices. Supported by evidence naturally



(that's a trick question btw, it's fairly well established the US doesn't have a hope of lower prices via production, the reserves just aren't there)

 

[lomiller]

Or is it your position that people should never care when something becomes a lot more expensive?

it's my position that someone who expresses "concern" about something but doesn't actually want to change or do anything in response isn't really all that concerned.

dad I'm board!
then watch TV
there's nothing on
then go play outside
it's too cold
well what do you want me to do about it?
I don't know...
well then stop complaining
BUT I"M BORED!!!

 

[AvalonXQ]

it's my position that someone who expresses "concern" about something but doesn't actually want to change or do anything in response isn't really all that concerned.

Ah, so now we've moved on from "you have no right to be concerned" to "you aren't really concerned".

Do you have any idea how patronizing that sounds?

 

[Corsair 115]

ALiving closer to work is not a "better choice". The suburbs are safer for my family, less expensive to maintain, and more convenient for basically everything other than finding work. It is not a "bad decision" to live there and pay the cost to commute into work.

The bolded is really the point. Your choice was a trade off. You get certain benefits from living in the suburbs. But you also get certain drawbacks. Drawbacks such as the time you have to spend commuting and the price you have to pay for gasoline. Welcome to the imperfect real world where choices typically come with benefits we like and drawbacks we don't. If gas prices go up and your commute costs more, well, those are the drawbacks of the choice you made. Presumably even with that factored in your still feel your choice was the correct one overall.

The one thing you certainly don't have is any inherent right to cheap gasoline.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The bolded is really the point. Your choice was a trade off. You get certain benefits from living in the suburbs. But you also get certain drawbacks. Drawbacks such as the time you have to spend commuting and the price you have to pay for gasoline. Welcome to the imperfect real world where choices typically come with benefits we like and drawbacks we don't. If gas prices go up and your commute costs more, well, those are the drawbacks of the choice you made. Presumably even with that factored in your still feel your choice was the correct one overall.

I do. But acting like it's unreasonable to be unhappy when one of the costs of your choice greatly increases from what it was when you made the choice, is inconsistent at best.
Again, you don't make a similar argument if bus fare suddenly doubles. "Those people made the choice to take the bus, so they have no right to complain." How silly is this argument? The people who choose to take the bus have the most reason to complain if bus fare goes up.
And automobile commuters have good reason to complain when gasoline prices skyrocket.

The one thing you certainly don't have is any inherent right to cheap gasoline.

No, but I certainly do have the right (and a good justification) to be sensitive to the price of gasoline.

 

[Corsair 115]

But acting like it's unreasonable to be unhappy when one of the costs of your choice greatly increases from what it was when you made the choice, is inconsistent at best.

Of course you can be unhappy, and of course you can complain. But that in and of itself means little. I'm not happy that peanut butter has skyrocketed in price, reportedly due to a poor peanut crop last year. I can't change the macro economics that resulted in that price hike. All I can do is decide whether to absorb the higher cost or cut back on my purchasing of the product.

Again, you don't make a similar argument if bus fare suddenly doubles.

That analogy doesn't really work if you are referring to public (bus) transit, since there are a myriad of other factors that play into the ticket price.

And automobile commuters have good reason to complain when gasoline prices skyrocket.

Again, of course you are free to complain. But unless you have an idea of how to change the macro economics that affect the price, the complaining is just that, complaining.

No, but I certainly do have the right (and a good justification) to be sensitive to the price of gasoline.

See above.

 

[Unabogie]

That RNC strategy memo sure worked like a charm. They said they wanted to change the subject from the improving economy to gas prices, and sure enough, here we are in a thread about the improving economy and we're only talking about gas prices.

Well played, Reince. Well played.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Of course you can be unhappy, and of course you can complain. But that in and of itself means little. I'm not happy that peanut butter has skyrocketed in price, reportedly due to a poor peanut crop last year. I can't change the macro economics that resulted in that price hike. All I can do is decide whether to absorb the higher cost or cut back on my purchasing of the product.

That's right -- but somebody saying "I don't understand why peanut butter eaters would be upset about the price of peanuts increasing; if they don't like it, they shouldn't have made such bad decisions in their lives" would be nonsensical.

Even worse, "I don't know what the peanut butter eaters are complaining about; a jar of peanut butter still costs less than a jar of skin cream."

 

[Bri]

Even worse, "I don't know what the peanut butter eaters are complaining about; a jar of peanut butter still costs less than a jar of skin cream."

Drinking water is available to most people in the United States for free out of the tap. Comparing the price of gasoline with the price of water is just pointing out the irony that some people are perfectly happy to pay a premium for something they can get for free, but complain about the price of gasoline (which is cheaper than what they pay for water that they could get for free).

-Bri