Pump Jumping [metaquoting myself]

[digitaldiscipline]

The hypersensitivity of pump prices to raw material cost fluctuation is out of all scale with reality because of the high visibility and attention given to it. You don't hear the same attention being paid, day in and day out, to milk prices, or electricity, or anything else... just oil.

I wonder how much we pay for oil's "fame"?

[something I said in a discussion going on in razorwolfe's journal]

Comments

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

Some would argue that. There was always talk about the high price of milk in Buffalo and there is the same out here.

Electricity? Huge talk about it here on the west coast, doubly so after the collapse of Enron and how much it cost the state of CA in contracts. Electricity is a big deal here in PHX as well -- lots of air conditioners running when it's 120F.

The biggest reason why oil is so visible is its consumers -- they're all international. If we don't want the oil, it'll go to China, England, Germany or wherever. You don't ship much milk overseas, or even electricity for that matter.

If you look at what causes prices to fluctuate in a given commodity, you'll often find that the source is not local.

In regards to oil's "fame", there was an article (I think in newsweek a couple of days ago) where someone said that the idea of the nuclear processing standoff in Iran is adding $15/barrel to the cost.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gas jump to $7-8/gallon and keeping the general idiots off the road.

[rachellll.livejournal.com]

That wouldn't keep idiots of the road, so much as people on fixed budgets.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Bingo. The rich assholes in their Hummers would have the road to themselves.

Unfortunately, this still wouldn't kill all of them off.

;-)

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with that? The poor assholes with no insurance already share the roads and most would agree they should be gotten off the road anyways.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Yes, but some of us poor assholes have insurance, and wouldn't be able to afford to drive, even frugally, if gas were to triple in price.

I'm not saying that's altogether bad, but it'd make commuting a real bitch for a lot of people. :-)

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

I'd hardly call you poor.

If gas were to triple in price -- let's be realistic here -- that you wouldn't be able to afford to drive? You seriously telling me that you couldn't afford $50/wk in gas?

As for the commute, there's always alternatives -- move. public transportation (that's a stretch, I realize). telecommute. get a different job closer to home.

Let's not forget the other option that drives our economy -- raise your salary.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

No, not poor, but a minimal portion of each paycheck is left-over after expenses are paid.

Let's say I suddenly have to pay a hundred bucks for a tank of gas. I think I could still commute, but that would eat up a substantial portion (if not all, and possibly more than) of the leftover paycheck funds, severely curtailing any non-essential expenditures (eating out, travel, etc).

Public transportation wouldn't get me anywhere close to where I work. Changing jobs would be the only solution to that.

If I move somewhere amenable to saving myself money, Kim is stuck with the hefty fuel bill, and she makes quite a bit less than i do (or will, in two weeks).

[rachellll.livejournal.com]

Of course, when the price of oil goes up, it affects the price of just about everything else, from transportation to shipping. It's also sort of like going to the source of everything's price-gain, and starting the complaints there.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

I won't disagree with that.

But on the other hand -- if prices do not ever go up, there's no need for your employers to ever give you a pay increase.

Increases in costs of living and higher standards of living is what drives economies forward. Would you rather be living the lifestyle you do here in the states or living in a smaller, crowded, dirtier hole in a third world country?

[rachellll.livejournal.com]

I don't actually understand what your point has to do with mine. But that said, I agree that I prefer to live in this country, despite certain high prices (although we actually get off really easy in terms of gas prices). And sure, raising prices somewhat is good for the economy. But inflation is going at a faster rate than salary increases. Just look at the minimum wage. Also, I believe there are other reasons for employers to increase workers' salaries, such as incentive to a good job. Or giving a promotion.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

The point is that rising prices all around gives busineses the income necessary to pay its workers higher wages (minus the money taken out for things like unemployment tax, FICA, workman's comp, etc).

And inflation is *not* going faster than salary increases, at least not for the median wage earner. I don't know too many people that have gotten wage increases that say they have less buying power than the previous year (well, except for the whole gas thing of late).

Minimum wage: How many people in minimum wage positions are at the same job and earning the same amount they did in 1996-97 when the minimum wage was increased to $5.15? I don't know about you, but if I were in the same job for 10 years, I'd expect to be making a lot more than $5.15. Oh wait, I am! As I'm going to guess is everyone else reading this. (For that matter, if you were still getting paid $5.15/hr from 1996 to present in the same job, you were probably doing such an incredibly lousy job that you didn't even deserve to get that).

And yes, the reasons you listed are perfectly fine reasons to raise salaries. But where do they get the money? Increase prices/revenues. That money has to come from somewhere if the business is to remain solvent.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

There aren't thousands of people in Sweden driving around in Rolls Royce's, living the life of a milk magnate because they are sitting on the largest stores of cows milk in the world.

Until we deal with the current monopoly on this product (either by aggressively pursuing synthetic and/or other natural alternatives, or by eliminating our need for such energy sources to begin with), it will always be this dog and pony show.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

No, they drive Saabs.

Monopoly: Monopoly isn't quite the right word for it, perhaps oligopoly. But there will always be that control -- unless you're going to tell me that every person is going to be able to create their own power source.

If you want to eliminate the need for such energy sources, you're going to have to tell everyone to stay at home. And do nothing. In the dark.

For that matter, let's say you came up with the world's best fuel tomorrow. Who would you want controlling it?

[etcet.livejournal.com]

ooooh, I want a Mr. Fusion unit, or seven! *g*

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

Where are you going to get enough bananna peels and beer to run the damn things?

I also would like seven-of-nine *g*

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Dude, did you just ask -me- where I'll get enough beer?

I figure it works just as well after it's filtered through the ol' kidneys....

And, yes a seven of nine would be just fine. Though I'm not the one who didn't get a certain famous hottie's phone number....

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

Yes, I asked where you'd get enough beer. =8-)
After it's filtered through all the kidneys...it's not beer anymore. All the carbs are gone!

Phone Number: Drop it. I never should have told you.

[fenix-harbinger.livejournal.com]

The difference being...

If synthetics are developed, then multiple companies will be producing them (at least after a time, regardless of patents).

When the product only comes out of the ground in certain locations, and you sit on the majority of that dirt, it doesn't matter who "patents" it.

That is why the the rising price of milk vs/oil is not so much about oils fame as oils location. It isn't that milk isn't as famous. It's that cows can be raised near anywhere.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

If synthetics are developed, it's likely only one or two companies will be making any given one, until they start licensing its production out (and licensing costs money, so expect that to jack up the price). Where do you think the raw materials for the synthetics are going to come from? And you think they're only going to be found domestically? And let's not forget, you have to come up with enough synthetics to satisfy the demand (same reason why we're not running on ethanol derived from corn).

But let's be clear -- *everything* comes out of the ground in one form or another, be it raw or processed. And let's also be clear that everything you take out of the ground comes out in certain locations.

Cows can be raised near anywhere, but let's also not forget that it costs more to raise cows in some places that in others. Same can be said for harvesting resources of just about any type.

A personal example: I own a plot of land that has gold on it. At $350/ounce, it's not really worth my time or effort to get it (and it's literally sitting on top of the ground). At $800/ounce, it's starting to be worth my time, at least in the cooler months when there aren't rattlesnakes, scorpions, gila monsters and very large golden tarantulas.

[razerwolfe.livejournal.com]

You misspelled my LJ Name. :-) Link go nowhere.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

dammit, you're the cretin who misspelled "razor" the first time!