THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 25 Jul 2010 09:03 On Jul 25, 1:19 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:26:02 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net > > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >In article <o4ol46ps6nfib5usp54aookiq8bash5...(a)4ax.com>, > >Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>I'm just saying adapting would be impossible without moving very close > >>to where you have to normally travel to. People with 2 people working > >>would have to move close to where the highest paid person worked, and > >>the other person would have to quit their job and get one closer, no > >>matter how little it paid. Employers, realizing this, would lower the > >>pay they offered 'cuz they'd know they could get away with it. > > >Do the math, Dave. Picking some reasonable numbers, $8/gallon > >additional, 12000 miles a year, 15 miles per gallon. Works out to > >$6400/year. Very few people would move for some small fraction of > >$6400 per year. Economically, it wouldn't make sense. > > 12000 miles a year? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Most people 'round > here commute from Fredericksburg area to Washington DC, about 100 > miles a day, total, or 25,000 miles a year just to go to work. $8 / > gallon at 25 mpg is $8,000 just for 1 person to go to work. If there > were 2 people, going to separate parts of DC, they'd have to double > that to $16,000 miles a year, just to go to work. What they'd be > doing is buying a condo, instead of a house, in DC, paying about 2X - > 3X as much as they pay for a house and lot in Fredericksburg, and both > taking the Metro to work, which is not cheap either, prolly around $8 > - $10 a day for 1 person, and of course twice that for the 2 of 'em. > > Otherwise, most places I've lived, I've always communted about 35 > miles round trip per day to and from work. That's just a third of the > above numbers, so instead of $16,000 a year, I'd be paying maybe > $5300. Thati's STILL a LOT of money just to go to work. If 2 > people, it could be $10K. > > And of course with these analyses, we're only looking at WORK travel. > if we want to do fun stuff, like going to the gym or movies, or just > doing errands, its "more." > > $8/gallon gas would bankrupt the country, that's all. People don't > have those kinds of resources. BULL HOCKEY 2/3 of most folks "driving" is home-to-work-to-home SOLO commuting. what $8 gasoline will do - as well as HOV./HOT Lanes is to take you out of your SOLO car and put you in a Van or Bus or Carpool or public transportation... which is what much of the rest of the world does with when gasoline hits $6-7 gallon. How come $6-7 gasoline has not "bankrupted" other countries?
From: Larry G on 25 Jul 2010 09:04 On Jul 25, 1:21 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:18:41 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net > > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >In article <epjl46dgioj9f243ldgefs8bc2uk2lk...(a)4ax.com>, > >Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>And why do you suppose the Euros are thin? > > >Mostly because they eat less. > > It's cuz of all the physical activity they get doing things like > walking to work, biking to work, etc. They do that 'cuz its too > expensive to take their cars. That's what the envirowackos aim to > make happen here. so our energy "problems" are because we prefer to be obese and it takes more energy to serve obese?
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 10:46 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:04:38 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 25, 1:21�am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:18:41 GMT, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net >> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >> >In article <epjl46dgioj9f243ldgefs8bc2uk2lk...(a)4ax.com>, >> >Dave Head �<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >>And why do you suppose the Euros are thin? >> >> >Mostly because they eat less. >> >> It's cuz of all the physical activity they get doing things like >> walking to work, biking to work, etc. �They do that 'cuz its too >> expensive to take their cars. �That's what the envirowackos aim to >> make happen here. > >so our energy "problems" are because we prefer to be obese and it >takes more energy to serve obese? Its 'cuz we choose not to be roasted by the sun in the summer, frozen by the winter, get rained, sleeted, snowed on, expose ourselves even more to the criminal element while traveling (there's lots of places you don't want to be biking or walking thru in any city), and so forth. It happens that driving to work and back is not the best thing for maintaining a healthy weight. Not driving to work is not a great way to maintain happiness (but nobody gives a S whether anyone is happy, eh?) nor avoid getting sick from exposure to the weather and maybe dead from criminal attack, which we have a whale of lot more of than Europe.
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 11:21 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >some of what you say has some merit. Much of it is pure >rationalization of what you want America is all about people having what they want. >... based on cheap energy and all of >that would change if energy was not cheap and no..you'd not die from >it I might, if I have to use an electric motorcycle to afford to go to work on my own schedule. Those things are death machines. But it might be all I can afford. I think they're under 10K. I'd still need my car, my Jeep, etc, I'd just have to add yet another vehicle. The cycle would probably be it. >but you'd have to re-prioritize how you chose to spend your money - >as those folks have who already pay more for energy. We're supposed to be working to make things BETTER here, not trying to figure out ways to make 'em worse. >I did carpool for 34 years... and did put up with Howard Stern one or >two days a week. As a result.. I put no more miles on my car than >average and the car was a 4-day 30mpg model that carried 4 quite well. God, that would suck. >I did not drive that way every day. I did not have to reschedule my >life. I carpooled on the days that it make sense to and did not on the >days it did not. Were the people that you called at 6:30 AM to tell them to FO and you weren't picking them up that morning upset? I know I would be... >I never felt worse off because of it to tell the truth. That would really frost my jets, believe it. >I got to read >a lot of books and catch up on the winks while someone else dealt with >the traffic. Oh, no no no no no... if I'm going, _I'm_ driving. Period. I've been driving since 1963, and haven't hit anything on the open road yet. Am going to keep it that way, 'cuz I'm the best driver out there. Not riding with people that screw around and manage to wreck on a periodic basis, which is, from most people I talk to, just about everybody. 'Cept me.
From: Matthew Russotto on 25 Jul 2010 17:21
In article <6lhn465lfsga3jdu7or7i12tb5ptpkt7ud(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > >12000 miles a year? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Most people 'round >here commute from Fredericksburg area to Washington DC, about 100 >miles a day, total, or 25,000 miles a year just to go to work. $8 / >gallon at 25 mpg is $8,000 just for 1 person to go to work. If there >were 2 people, going to separate parts of DC, they'd have to double >that to $16,000 miles a year, just to go to work. What they'd be >doing is buying a condo, instead of a house, in DC, paying about 2X - >3X as much as they pay for a house and lot in Fredericksburg, and both >taking the Metro to work, which is not cheap either, prolly around $8 >- $10 a day for 1 person, and of course twice that for the 2 of 'em. You see, Dave, you've just gone and shot your whole argument down, despite your disagreement with my numbers. Even at $8/gallon additional, it doesn't make economic sense for them to move to DC, as the housing costs would eat up the savings. And if they didn't... then as gas prices rose, housing prices in Metro-accessible areas would also rise until an equilibrium was reached and it no longer made sense to move closer. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |