Higher Oil Prices Are Starting To Bring Jobs Home 777
penguin_dance notes a report up at ABC News that high oil and gas prices in the US may be moving jobs back home in a trend that some economists are calling "reverse globalization." It's becoming more and more expensive to ship finished product from other countries, so some companies are moving the manufacturing back to the US. The article hints that this trend may spill over soon to raw materials such as steel. One economist is quoted: "It's not just about labor costs anymore. Distance costs money, and when you have to shift iron ore from Brazil to China and then ship it back to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh is looking pretty good at 40 bucks an hour."
I am more concerned about the distance... (Score:3, Interesting)
from my home to my office....when will my company start teleworking as an option!
But US jobs and stable prices despite the raising fuel costs is great news!
Telecommuting (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if companies would pull their heads out and either/or/both go to a 4 day work week and re-implement telecommuting...
Re:Telecommuting (Score:4, Insightful)
Telecommuting is great, IF most of your employee base has a high level of experience and is responsible. In this day and age, thats the minority though... I've worked for a small-ish company who did it, but they lucked out big time on the quality of their employees. As for 4 day weekends...considering fridays don't even count as it is for a lot of people because its the "last day of the week", when you cut it to four, its even worse. Again, worked for a company who did that...nothing was getting done. It can work, but you need one hell of a nice corporate culture and good employees to do it. Not for everyone, definately.
And for doing 4 days but more hours each days to compensate...again, very, very few people can be efficient at their job for more than like 6 hours, nevermind 9-10.
These are things that work well in a small company of "special" people who can take it...but people who can take it are quite rare...even though many would pretend otherwise and lie to themselves about their own limits.
Re:Telecommuting (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen that happen because if you're not there when the execs ask the team for advice, you don't get asked and don't get a boost in perceived value. You won't get invited to adhoc meetings and you'll miss all those water-cooler conversations. You also don't get invited to lunch with the team or the management, which often spread news regarding the project, so when you actually do show up to a planned meeting, you'll appear extremely unprepared because you missed all those casual details. You also don't get the special projects handed out at a moment's notice, which generally saves someone's ass gaining you another supporter. Volunteering for those special projects makes you look like a go-getter, but you'll be completely bypassed because you weren't there to raise your hand. Also, if your teammates work late, it's assumed you're not. If they can't see you putting in extra time, you gain no benefit from doing such. You will watch helplessly as your teammates slowly rise in ranks. They will receive the flagship projects to work on, while you get handed the maintenance projects, which only buries you deeper because you have no chance to shine on those projects. Your teammates will be recognized every time they complete something, which will never happen on on your crappy maintenance project.
I worked at a job in which every member of the team was remote, and it worked out very well, but once the team was consolidated in the office, the stragglers had a difficult time proving they were working as hard as the ones showing up in person. I watched previously great workers drift off into mediocrity because they suffered declining perceived value by management.
But, like I said earlier. I think it works if everyone does it, but not if 1 or more teammates don't.
Whacked upside the head ... (Score:5, Funny)
... by The Invisible Hand.
Adam Smith strikes.
Macroeconomics (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
I was hopeful this would be a trend (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently I saw a show that visited Asbury Park in NJ, and it was stated that the slow decline of the park started with cheap airfares. It immediately struck me that this trend should now start to reverse itself, as travel costs are rising while consumer confidence is dropping.
High gas prices are going to have some bad side effects, but also quite a few good ones. Hopefully, reduced travel will be effected on almost every scale: suburbs will wilt and cities will grow stronger, local foods will become more popular, inefficient business travel will be replaced by online meetings, etcetera. I think most people who have wanderlust aren't going to let higher airline prices stop them, but perhaps they'll take fewer and longer trips in order to reduce expenses - e.g., instead of going to France and Spain on one trip, and the U.K. on another, they'll wait and take a longer trip to visit all three.
It less oil to use rail over ships to move iron... (Score:3, Interesting)
It less oil to use rail over ships to move iron ore and other big stuff.
Misleading about Steel! Already restricted (Score:3, Interesting)
You won't get any more local steel production unless there are local manufacturers that want it or if it can be produced at internationally competative prices. Steelmaking is one of those things that is not labour intensive so nobody can honestly blame unions or cheap labour countries on the price of the stuff - it comes down to effective or ineffective management.
Too bad (Score:3, Interesting)
High oil prices will do way more than Kyoto (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, for all the environmentalists out there screaming to put regulations on carbon emissions, etc., the price of energy is the only thing that's going to have a substantial impact on the amount of fuel we use. People are actually considering more fuel efficient vehicles, and at my place of work people are taking advantage of opportunities to work from home once in a while. Especially when their commute is over one hour. If we keep it up, people might move closer to work.
Re:High oil prices will do way more than Kyoto (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem with high oil prices is that the money is going largely to rich oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, so that they can build monstrosities like ski resorts in the desert. I would have preferred to pay a carbon tax instead; at least the money would stay in our own economy and be used to build infrastructure. Carbon taxes could be offset by decreases in income taxes, so that we don't pay any more overall. As an environmentalist, I am strongly opposed to these high oil prices, because they are siphoning off our wealth and giving it to rich oil foreign oil companies.
China is the last (Score:3, Interesting)
In the 50's it was Japan,
In the 60's it was Hong Kong
In the 70's it was Taiwan
In the 80's and early 90's it was South East Asia
In the late 90's to now it has been China
To be worthwhile producing elsewhere you have to be able to produce for less than 30% of your home costs.
There is nowhere left to go
We have to manufacture our own again
So maybe we will get decent working conditions at last!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The steel thing is already happening (Score:5, Informative)
It's also putting the kibosh on the American Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with telecommuting is that your job is basically dependent on the quality of the IT staff to a much higher degree. My employer tries to do telecommuting, but somewhere between cost cutting in IT, draconian security restrictions, and a dodgy network connection, it fails to be useful for getting real work done.
We've been looking to move out of our high cost of living area for quite some time, but the rising cost of gas has put that on hold. I would like to buy a house - and can afford one on the edge of the suburbs, but alas, any saving in mortgage payments would be consumed by the cost of fuel. Even though I'm just a fifteen minute commute from work, I spend nearly fifty dollars a week getting there and back.
So yeah, it might bring some manufacturing jobs back home. But those of us who have become used to working in the city and commuting out from the cheaper communities are finding themselves in quite a bind. I can't afford a house in my current area, and I can't afford the gas to drive from the places where I can afford a house.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I'm going to have to wait another 5 to 10 years for the next housing market crash before I'll be able to move into a house. When my Dad was my age, the loan on his (our) house was up - and he was a factory worker. Today, I make almost four times what he did, and can't even afford a three bedroom house. So much for the American Dream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The society that your dad lived in, was built by the Greatest Generation... the one that endured the Great Depression and won WWII.
The society that you live in, was built by worst generation (IMO), children of the 60's (Clintons, GWBush etc.)
Re:It's also putting the kibosh on the American Dr (Score:4, Informative)
The American Dream is overrated because the "advertised" American dream is not necessary. If the standard to "achieving" the American dream is to own a house with an ample lot size, a nice car or three, and enough cash to throw parties every weekend or whatever other activity you find fun, well I say that's just the TV and popular culture brainwashing you.
You can be perfectly happy and successful living in a town house without a yard and an econobox car. Almost every form of entertainment or activity is still accessible without the McMansion or the SUV. The only lacking thing is the increased expenses and the ability to flex your debt-inflated-penis with your shiny SUV and spinners.
I'm probably in the same boat as you. I make more than my parents yet I can't afford a house near work. I can afford a 2 bedroom condo though. And after thinking, I would be plenty happy with condo as long as I was single. I'd still be happy with it if I was married. The only time it would start to feel cramped is if I wanted to have a family. But by then, I would probably be married and I figure a 3 bedroom town house would suffice. The only thing I really get with a bigger house is bragging rights and a whole lot more maintenance. For example if there was a yard I'd have to pay for a gardener or do it myself. If there were extra rooms I'd have to clean yet another room. I don't need that. A 2 bedroom condo with a decent kitchen, living room, and a few complex facilities (pool/patio) is plenty to keep me happy.
Houses (with full yards, extra rooms, and large garages) only make sense in rural areas. In places like suburbs they're just a luxury and bragging rights.
Re:It's also putting the kibosh on the American Dr (Score:4, Funny)
Distance is still dirt cheap (Score:3, Interesting)
No it isn't if the alternative is (probably less than) 40 bucks per month.
True, handling and treatment of raw materials may be one of the first things to become cheaper when
handled in what I'll call "the west" as opposed to "the east", because huge quantities are handled
by relatively few people.
But what are we going to do with all those raw materials at home? They still need to be transformed
into consumable goods, which involves much more labour - cheapest done "somwhere else".
True, sea transport costs more than twice es much today than just a few years ago, but if you look at the
absolute numbers, it still is more or less for free compared to the worth of the shipped goods. There needs
to be at least another tenfold increase in shipping costs before businesses really start to feel it in
their manufacturing costs.
I know for a fact that it is (in quite a lot of cases much) cheaper to import presorted recovered paper
(for paper production) from China and India to Europe than to collect it and have it sorted in Europe directly.
Transport costs simply don't matter in that case.
This situation is changing at the moment - not because of higher bulk shipping rates, but because of developing
paper industries in China and India, consuming more of the recovered paper on the spot, thereby increasing prices for
the exported good "recovered paper". Interesting side effect: The shipping costs' percentage in the total price/weight is
therefore even decreasing.
Geez. Works both ways. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exports will also go down.
Ask anybody in the mail order business if the ballooning shipping charges have hurt or improved sales. Same goes for food prices, or anything which needs to be moved from point A to point B.
Greed destroys itself. --And let's not make any mistakes here; the higher fuel prices are being artificially inflated. It's a short-term money grab which will of course threaten the continued health of the oil industry and many of our daily economic realities.
I'd certainly enjoy seeing that happen, (especially if it involves the hanging of Bush and his oil cronies), although the collapse will be painful. We're probably going to see lots of unnecessary deaths from cold this winter, lots of frost-bitten children in emergency wards, and that will be difficult to live through. It will take a while before new systems are found to replace the rotten old ones, but New is good when it comes to the cycle of life and decay.
Where I do find this positive is in the alternative power markets; electric vehicles actually have a shot at market viability. That could be a really cool thing to see. --If new schemes are implemented smartly, that is.
But seriously. Let's hang Bush.
-FL
Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
They weren't expecting the return of blast furnaces to Pittsburgh, however. So we burn a little less gasoline, and dump tons of coal and limestone in the steel furnaces.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Transportation is still a huge problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Although high oil prices will force us to live more frugally and locally (probably a good thing in terms of the environment), the US has the small problem that its transportation infrastructure is designed based around the roads. Cars specifically.
A coherent bus network simply doesn't exist, Amtrak is a pathetic mess, and Americans (white people, specifically*) hate the concept of public transport.
*I hate to bring race into this, but for whatever reason, it's more or less a heavily recurring trend that, outside of big cities, white Americans don't use public transportation. I'm white, in my 20s, and take the bus to work every day. It's an extremely rare situation to spot somebody from my own demographic on the bus that isn't also homeless.
It's the 1850's all over again. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think people forget that this is not the first time people have been looking for a new fuel for industrial purposes.
Up until the 1850's, lighting lamps were fueled by whale oil, and with the rapid decline in the whale population even by then there was considerable concern about what to substitute for whale oil. The discovery of using kerosene derived from crude oil about this period changed all that, and that was the foundation of the oil industry as we know it today.
Today, rapid changes in technology could make gasoilne obselete as a motor fuel within the next 20 years. The most important announcement was MIT's announcement of research into high-energy supercapacitors using carbon nanotubes back in 2006; that may just open the way for a drastic reduction in the size of the battery pack needed for a battery-electric vehicle (BEV), making it possible for a practical electric car that could carry four passengers in comfort yet go up to 400 km (248 miles) or more on a single charge, and the charge time for the battery pack would be a tiny fraction of even Li-On battery packs.
That same technology could make it possible to have electrical storage units from home size to city size that could provide power after being charged up by a solar cell array or wind turbine array. I can imagine a single house with a sun-facing solar cell array (now much cheaper thanks to nanotechnology) that provides power during daytime and charges a supercapacitor electrical storage unit for use at night.
In short, I see within 20-25 years most homes and apartment complexes with cheap solar arrays on their roofs and supercapacitor electrical storage units somewhere in the building.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
If high fuel cost continues, it will only bring back the sail-boats, not the off-shore jobs.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be bringing nuclear wessels [sandia.gov]. With the cost of oil to fire a ship being what it is, the Savannah would have been competitive back in the 70's. The only problem to solve is that high seas piracy still exists and the US government doesn't want the nebulous "bad guys" to steal a nuclear wessel and reuse its atomic fuel for something nasty.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The 163 pounds of uranium she consumed is estimated to have provided the equivalent power of nearly 29 million gallons of fuel oil."
That just put everything in perspective. Holy hell. For the amount of money you saved you could hire a small army to arm your vehicle. US Government could nationalize some ships.
29 million gallons of fuel.
Damn. Just Damn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's put it completely in perspective - Savannah's core could provide the equivalent energy of 29 million gallons of fuel oil, but that same core costs you as much as 50 million gallons of fuel oil... plus the increased costs of the crew required to operate it, the increased costs of the 'boil
Re: piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, a nuclear ship can sustain high speeds much longer than conventionally-powered ships. Makes you harder to capture.
I think it might be an interesting development to bring back the "Q-ship"... troll for pirates, then blow their asses out of the water by surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with bringing guns into a fistfight is the other part is going to step it up.
That means instead of somewhat bloodless captures the pirates will be shooting first and looting later.
Re: piracy (Score:4, Informative)
I don't have the energy to go through this all over again, so I'll punt to the experts:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6700447/Scrubbing-dirty-bombs-explosive-hype.html [ecnext.com]
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/gentips/02/07dirtybomb.html [uiuc.edu]
http://www.notposta.com/?p=19 [notposta.com]
http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_072503_fear.html [onthemedia.org]
Long story short: Dirty bombs don't work. It's not nearly as easy to distribute radioactive materials as the media would have you believe.
wessels? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, Mr Checkov. Mr Sulu, lay in a course for the 1970's.
Alternative ship energy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the high price of fuel....and everything else going up along with it..I could safely bet that the avg. person in the US does not have the environment topmost on their heads. If they could come up with cheap energy for running cars, etc...I think many people in the US would now be comfortable strip mining the Rocky Mountains and The Applachians down to nothing without a 2nd thought. This has hit the general public in a way they never really ever imagined before, and they are shocked. I'd say they'd be prepared to do about anything if the price keeps increasing at this rate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care so much about the environment in Alaska. Well, I do, but it's not my primary concern. I'm against drilling there for other reasons. Even the highest estimates say we'll only get about a 10 dollar reduction in the price per barrel of oil. That translates to a few cents per gallon. I think the money and time are better spent trying to figure out how to get us off fossil fuels than just postponing the inevitable decline of oil. And as a bonus, all that territory in Alaska can remain untouched by man.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I think that as soon as they announce that we will start new drilling out there in previously 'banned' areas...that speculators in oil will begin selling off...and that should drop the prices almost overnight back to more normal levels.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Missing assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that OPEC and other sellers won't decrease output to keep production (and therefore, prices) exactly where they are.
All drilling in Alaska is guaranteed to do is to screw up Alaska.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oil companies have leases all over America to drill for oil. They are currently only using 20 percent of these leases.
They want to get the Alaskan drilling rights because they are GREEDY and want them for down the road when they've drilled all their current leases.
When you see the president that drilling in ANWAR will help the US, he is LYING. (That, and his lips are moving--so you can tell he's lying.)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Myth said:
"Oil companies have leases all over America to drill for oil. They are currently only using 20 percent of these leases."
I agree. I remember back in the 80's after the Oil Boom, there was many a domestic sweet crude well capped due to low prices on the oil market. I'll bet some of those wells are due to be uncapped in the near future if they haven't been already.
There is a possible additional source in the Barnett Shale in Texas. The offshore sites could be increasingly utilized.
Also, Canada has that oil bearing sand they've been talking about. Extracting that oil is becoming economically feasible.
I'm not too keen on the ANWR drilling idea. We've already despoiled just about every pristine and beautiful place on earth... something needs to be preserved.
Bottom Line: There's oil to be had here without sending the wealth overseas.
It's time for a change though... I'm looking forward to additional advances in Fuel Cell and Solar Technology and other efficient ways to convert energy.
High oil prices, while tough on the buck, just might be the incentive we need to better explore alternatives. It's a bitter pill.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Informative)
Yet with all this new supply pouring in from the north the price of oil hasn't dropped a bit.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
Erm, hello ? It might take 1 barrel of crude to make 19 gallons of gasoline, but at the same time you're also getting other products (natural gas, kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, paraffins) out of that barrel of crude that can also be sold.
Absolutely no fudging necessary, just a bit of understanding of how a refinery works.
Quit buying into the bull puckey talking points (Score:5, Informative)
Check out this article which details exactly what this lease and usage entails.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391719487790187.html?mod=rss_opinion_main [wsj.com]
In other words, the politicians are using word play to infer that the oil companies are drilling on the lands relying on public ignorance that a lease of oil producing lands does not equate to a guarantee of oil.
So basically, the process is.
1. Secure the lease
2. Get the permits to do test drilling
3. Do test drilling
4. Determine if its economically feasible to recover the oil
5. Get permits to actually to set up a site to manage it
6. Get permits to drill on the site
7. Go to court to keep your permits after being sued by every other environmentalist group
8. Drill for oil
9. Profit?
Remember the first rule : If a Congressman's lips are moving he is 99% of the time telling you a lie or a falsehood by omission.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
I say, save the oil in alaska and use it for truly priceless stuff when it runs out everywhere else.
Given all the yammering-- it's clear if oil was 300 a barrel, alaska would be covered with pipes. so we *will* drill there someday. just a question of when .
Who cares about the environment, it can recover in 20-40 years.
Real problem is still TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm, so maybe going nuclear IS the solution...
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the point is that it can be made safer, but never totally safe. Your own point about AC vs DC supports this idea. Yes, electricity is used every day by about a bajillion people (it's a technical term) [wikipedia.org]). The VAST majority of them use it safely, but every day somebody, somewhere does something stupid and gets themselves fried. Electricity is far, far safer than it was, but it is still dangerous in the hands of imperfect humans. Humans make mistakes. Some people think this doesn't apply to them, but they are mistaken.
The difference between a dude who stands in his hot tub to work on the filter pump and the guy who spills soda on the reactor control panel [wikipedia.org], is that hot tub boy only kills himself and at most a few of his friends.
For the record, I am in favor of nuclear energy (Go Isotopes!), but let's not kid ourselves about it being TOTALLY safe.
Oddly enough, it's when we think something is totally safe that we are most likely to screw up.
Re:Interersing trend... in 1985 (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems all the nuclear advocates I run across here are stuck in 1985 with this problem - will a nuclear advocate with a clue please stand up?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps you missed the part where the libs, enviro-whackos, and "intellectuals" lobbied successfully against building any new reactors.
Why the hell should anyone research nuclear power generation technology when there was no way to build them and recoup the research costs?
You guys fucked it up big time in the 80s by shutting down nukes. Now you are all shitting bricks over "climate change" (not Global Warming anymore, is it?...at least not for another 10 years)
So the one thing that could have averted the la
Here's what happened (Score:3, Interesting)
On December 12, 1952 a combination of mechanical failure and human error led to a now-famous power excursion and fuel failure in the NRX reactor at AECL Chalk River Laboratories. At the time NRX was one of the most significant research reactors in the world (rated at that time for 30 MW operation), in its sixth year of operation.
During preparations for a reactor-physics experiment at low power, a defect in the NRX shut-off rod mechanism combined with a number of operator errors to cause a temporary loss of control over reactor power. Power surged ultimately to somewhere between 60 and 90 MW over a period of about a minute (the total energy surge is estimated to be approximately 4000 MW-seconds). This energy load would normally not have been a problem, but several experimental fuel rods that were at that moment receiving inadequate cooling for high power operation ruptured and melted. About 10,000 Curies of fission products were carried by about a million gallons of cooling water into the basement of the reactor building. This water was subsequently pumped to Chalk River Laboratories' waste management facility, where the long-term ground water outflow was monitored thereafter to ensure adherence to the drinking water standard. The core of the reactor was left severely damaged.
This accident is historically important, not only because it was the first of its type and magnitude, but also because of its legacy to Canadian and international practice in reactor safety and design. Nobody was killed or hurt in the incident, but a massive clean-up operation was required that involved hundreds of AECL staff, as well as Canadian and American military personnel, and employees of an external construction company working at the site. In addition the reactor core itself was rendered unusable for an extended period. Environmental effects outside the plant were negligible, as was radiation exposure to members of the public. The health record of AECL and Canadian military personnel involved in the clean-up was scientifically reviewed in the 1980s (no significant health effects were observed).
Several of today's fundamental safety principles of reactor design and operation stem from the lessons learned at this formative stage of Canada's nuclear program, making Canada an early leader in this field. Among these were:
The accident also demonstrated that, due to a combination of redundant safety features, emergency procedures, and a level of inherent "forgiveness" (or robustness) in the technology, a major fuel-melt accident in a nuclear reactor can occur without significant environmental effects and radiation exposure to the surrounding population.
The NRX core was completely rebuilt, improved, and restarted within 14 months following the accident (the first time something like this was attempted), and the reactor continued to perform for another four decades before being retired.
As with the analysis of the accident itself, the clean-up and repair of the NRX reactor shed light on several new concepts of reactor operation and design. A major example of these is the complete rehabilitation of a large reactor core, which contributed to the unique long-term maintenance philosophy of not only research-reactors at Chalk River Laboratories, but also CANDU power reactors.
Fortunately for the environment, more nuclear reactors [wikipedia.org] are going to be built instead of incredibly destructive coal-fueled power plants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear power, even when considering the one nuclear meltdown that we have had and all the deaths caused by it, has resulted in less deaths than any other form of power generation per MWh generated. Including wind and solar.
Secondly, Nuclear power in the only baseload power source which does not release significant amounts of CO2. If you believe that we need to reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the next few years to avoid catastrophic anothropogenic global warming, then Nuclear Powe
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interersing trend... in 1985 (Score:5, Informative)
> we haven't figured out what to do with the tons of nuclear
> waster we have NOW,much less if we did like McCain wants and
> added 45 new plants.
Of course ``we'' have:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Fast_neutron_reactors_(FBR) [eoearth.org]
Prohibited by the Carter Administration in the USA, but used
throughout the World. Breeder reactors use the output of
conventional fission plants as fuel and the resultant waste,
once reprocessed, has a half-life of a few centuries instead
of hundreds of millenia.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Informative)
Who cares about the environment, it can recover in 20-40 years.
Where do you get this crap? Take a look at the island of Crete. This island used to be almost completely covered in forest. Then the Minoans began clear-cutting it for lumber to build ships. This continued for several generations. When the forest was clear cut, there was no longer any mechanism for the top soil to be held in place. It washed into the sea. The isle of Crete is now a wasteland in terms of the ability to grow forest -- solid forest has not grown there in thousands years.
You are naive, ignorant, short sighted, and have an offensive disregard for the natural world.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
You suggest the "natural world" should forever be a snapshot of when you first noticed it. An environment is not an entity of its own accord. It is a result of all its inputs, and we are a very large input on the environment. The only difference between us and other inputs is our self-awareness.
The impact we have on the "natural world" becomes part of that world. Are there not birds, rats, cockroaches, etc. that thrive on the fruits of human progress? What makes them less important than the flora and fauna in a tropical rainforest?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... It doesn't matter what we do. If 6 billion people go to ANYTHING they will destroy it. And we are headed towards 9 to 11 billion last I heard.
You are right. But don't worry, nature will find a way to fix that problem. I don't believe I will live to see it, but the Earth may very well be pristine again after the meek inherit it.
I hate to make light of the situation, as there are definitely things we can do to better our current situation environmentally. But in the grand scheme, the Earth will be just fine... until the Sun envelops it.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that the area they want opened for drilling (an area the size of Dulles International Airport, about 2000 acres, in an area covering over 19.5 million acres) are quite literally empty, right? Nine months of the year they're ice and three months of the year they're mud. Nothing non-microbial makes its habitat there. It's nothing paradisaical and talking about it as if it were does not make it true.
The oil is going to magically transport itself from said area to the coast for shipment? How'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A die-off? Are you fucking serious? Lack of food is caused by sociological problems. Environmental damage is being caused mostly by sociological problems, and partly because of moronic environmentalists saying OMFG its Nuclear! and stopping nuclear reactors fr
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well then stop being part of the problem and be part of the solution
commit suicide today!
No need for that (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot: Part of the solution!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not so sure, currently Americans have the option to drill in Alaska. It is absolutely beautiful and pristine up there, but drilling would arguably have much less impact on human settlement than strip mining the Rockies or the Appalachians. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think this shows some consideration for environmental problems.
I know that we all like to think that the entire ANWR region is full of beautiful mountains and pine trees, and much of it is, however, the parts we want to drill in are on the coast, about five miles from where we are already drilling (with minimal environmental impact) at Prudhoe Bay. It looks more like THIS [alaskastock.com].
Also, the 1002 area (the area where we want to explore) is about 2000 acres, or the size of Dulles Airport, out of a total ANWR size of 20 MILLION acres, or about the size of N. Carolina. Less than
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly, highly doubt that. With the mortgage crisis here in the US home prices are falling not increasing. And I doubt that that will stop anytime soon. Another thing is, North America has only been explored within the last 500 years, it lacks the shortage of land which is part of why Europe has such high prices for houses, mix that with the fact that home prices are falling and people with a lot of land are cashing it in to get some cashflow... You get the picture. While this may make large buildings such as new arenas and skyscrapers more pricey, for the average person home prices will only keep falling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The price of the average house is falling because it was never worth what the bubble fanatics thought it was.
That McMansion out in the exburbs is looking to cost a lot more to heat this winter ... and next, ... and the year after. Transportation costs are going up as well. Plus, people don't want to spend an hour each way commuting. Cities are going to make a comeback, and those McMansions, stuck in the wilderness, with a declining tax base, will be the new slums. Look for a reverse donut-hole effect.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Already there are people complaining that 1/4 of their take-home pay is going to gas. Houses that kind of made sense at $1/gallon, just aren't worth it any more. Better to pay a bit more (you can afford it from the gas savings), live closer to work, and reap the additional benefits of more free time and less wear and tear on your car tp boot.
Even if there were no foreclosure crisis, $5/gallon gas would be lowering the value of houses that were built too far from any commercial center. This is just a happy coincidence - let the get-rich-quick house flippers, speculators, and everyone who lied on their mortgage application "because they just had to have their overpriced dream" eat shit and die. I have zero sympathy for realtwhores crying about how they're going to lose their own homes because they can't find anyone else to drink the kook-aid (no, that's not a typo - too many of them were were kooks, con artists, fraudsters, hucksters, etc. and they made the mistake of believing their own lies).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Says the guy that's never paid a gas heating bill. Natural gas prices have gone up a lot, from almost nothing to a little bit. Natural gas is also locally supplied and has absolutely nothing to do with oil prices. Don't say they are the same because they aren't, it's still far far cheaper to heat a house with gas than it is with electricity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any reason why Saudis would want to sell two barrels of oil for the price of one (that they ask - and get - today.) If the demand goes down they'd rather lower the production. This way they get the same cash flow and use less of their non-renewable resources. Given that there are very few sellers of oil on this planet, compared to buyers, the sellers are already free to dictate their terms, and
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oil was $10 a barrel in 1999.
That's down from $34 in 1982 (about $80 in 1999 inflation-adjusted dollars).
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm [ioga.com]
Why would the saudi's sell oil for $10 when they could sell it for $34?
Because they can't.
Every day this goes on, the longer oil prices will be low.
Every day, more people start carpooling, move closer to work, replace a 13mpg truck with a 31mpg (or higher) car, start riding public transportation, start working from home 2 days a week, start working 9/80 schedules.
My morning commute is now consistently 5 minutes faster in the morning and 15 minutes faster in the evening because the number of cars on the road has dropped that much.
Already, Iran is stacking up tankers because their online storage tanks are full.
Already our national gas usage is down about 4% in one month.
The current prices are caused by speculation. The same bubble of excess wealth passing through it that passed through the stock market in 1996-2000, housing in 2002-2005, and commodities now. The true "last barrel" cost of producing oil right now is about $50 a barrel. Everything over that is excess.
Once demand drops like a stone, then the oil companies STILL have to pay the bills. A lot of them are spending money like water. A very few of them are investing the current profits wisely.
They will sell oil to whoever will buy it- because just like the average salaryman in the U.S., they are just a couple paychecks from being homeless.
Keep dreaming (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess what's different from 1999...
- the US dollar is worth ~40% less than it was in 1999
- there are over 2 billion people whose economy, and therefore demand for energy, is surging.
- there is an oil supply graph that, rather than increasing every year, has been roughly flat for the past three years (not coincidentally, the time when the price has skyrocketed)
Oil, in our lifetimes, is a finite commodity. It has an energy return on investment higher than anything else out there right now. There is still a lot in the ground, which is to say, we're not going to run out any time soon. But we have skyrocketing demand and a constrained supply. In the past, high prices have led to exploration and increased production. Well guess what. The large deposits of easy to retrieve oil have been found. We've reached a point of diminishing returns. Oh, there's still a lot of oil. The Saudis continue to pump almost 10 million barrels of it a day, more or less the same amount they've been pumping for the past 5 years. But in that time, they've been bringing new drilling projects online, in order to make up for declining production out of their old fields. And their oil exports have dropped by over 10% in just the past 2 years, due to increased domestic demand from a booming economy.
You can tell yourself it's all speculation, if it makes you happy. But the supply of oil to global markets is no longer increasing, while demand remains high, globally. And there are a whole lot of people in Asia who will gladly buy any oil that we don't.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you fail economics. Changes in supply and demand are independent of each other. A change in supply says nothing about demand, and the opposite is also true.
Also, house prices *do* fluctuate just like stocks.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... Most of the cost that Europeans pay for fuel is in the form of taxes, which they have voluntarily inflicted upon themselves, and not some kind of relationship to status as a world power. Oil is traded in a world market, whoever pays more gets the oil.
Also, the housing prices you linked to are in cost/square METER. Given that there are roughly ten square feet in a square meter, the costs are 2x, not 24x as you suggest.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is doing just fine dealing with $5+ for a gallon of gas,
Are you kidding? So far Europe has had truck drivers go on strike against fuel tax [bbc.co.uk], fuel delivery drivers go on strike for a 14% pay increase [scotsman.com], annual electricity/gas bills rising at 40%/year threatening to push a quarter of all households (5 million families) into fuel poverty [timesonline.co.uk], councils raising the cost of school meals due to the expense of transportation [northlincs.gov.uk]. Even the police are having to cut back on front line staff due to the additional expense [telegraph.co.uk]. Food bills have risen by 20% since the start of the year. [telegraph.co.uk]
The advertisements on the sides of public transport buses read "Fed up of paying fuel duty to go nowhere, take the bus instead and stop your wallet from going empty". Otherwise many people are choosing to cycle in to work, especially university staff.
All of this is predicted to send house prices down by at least 10%, and then one minister tells people that should stop being so miserable about the rising cost of living. [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. And people only part with their money when they can obtain things that they value more than the money they part with.
What's the problem again?
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really ?
Most days I part with my money because I'm trapped between two evils, and I try to pick the lesser. Telecoms, overpriced food (even staples), services done to the lowest possible standards... Greed is spiraling out of control, because those who spend wisely are impossibly outnumbered by the ravenous fools of our society.
Re:Interersing trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is still no reason not to demand value for the value you offer. In a system where fools have no safety net, which is paid for now by those who spend wisely, we wouldn't have this problem. The greed you speak of is not capitalism. The greed you speak of is the one where people want value they have no right to, and force value from those who do have it. Whither those who hold value now have come about it 'justly' or not is of little consequence to the morality of taking it from them now. That becomes a chicken and egg argument. And also indicates that if you yourself will trade in value, instead of trying to swindle, cheat and steal, the cycle may be broken. But the theft of value has become institutionalized by the welfare state. To do the most good, where do you think think we should start then? I think the government should stop stealing from us and giving to ravenous fools, plain and simple.
Re:Dollar Price is Low (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more that the price of dollars is low than that the price of oil is high. Turning every one dollar bill into a one million dollar bill won't cure world poverty either.
Size of product isn't the issue, cost is the issue (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding? You think that the product size actually matters? There is very little difference in shipping a container of refrigerators vs. a container of pens. It's a tiny fraction of fuel economy (a few percent) due to weight differences. The cost & distribution challenges come in breaking up the product at distribution centers, but that happens regardless of where the product is manufactured.
Re:Size of product isn't the issue, cost is the is (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding? You think that the product size actually matters? There is very little difference in shipping a container of refrigerators vs. a container of pens. It's a tiny fraction of fuel economy (a few percent) due to weight differences. The cost & distribution challenges come in breaking up the product at distribution centers, but that happens regardless of where the product is manufactured.
You're right in there is little difference in the cost between shipping a container of pens versus a container of refrigerators. The difference is that a container load of pens is worth more than a container load of refrigerators and the container of fridges would probably weigh less than the one filled with pens. A 40' ISO container has a maximum loaded weight of about 35 short tons. Let's take a pessimistic estimate for RR fuel consumption of 350 ton-miles per gallon (the Florida East Coast averages
There are many variables (Score:3, Insightful)
The equation is tipping back towards domestic manufacture.
Shipping costs are only one of the variables and it is inaccurate to attribute the whole shift to that.
Re:Yay, Pittsburgh (Score:5, Interesting)
my dad owns a drycleaning plant. steel hangers are one of his biggest supply expenses now. a few years ago a hanger might have been $0.10 or so, then 2 or 3 years ago it doubled overnight to $0.20, and a few weeks ago *that* doubled.
some of the larger hangers are 50 cents each. 50 cents for a metal coat hanger. he needs several hundred of these in a given week, nevermind the price of all the other supplies going up. it hurts, bad, and he has had to raise prices because of it (though not enough to actually cover the added cost)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay, Pittsburgh (Score:4, Insightful)
I completely agree. In fact, I want individual states to have tariffs. Can you imagine all the 50 states having their own chip fabs? Imagine the number of jobs created!
Why stop there? Let each city slap tariffs on products from other cities. This will mean more jobs. It could be just like the 1600s with each village making *everything* that they need locally. This way, money will not leave the village and, since money means wealth according to your theory, this will mean everyone will be much richer.
Actually, here is a great way to increase the number of jobs.
Re:Yay, Pittsburgh (Score:5, Interesting)
my dad owns a drycleaning plant. steel hangers are one of his biggest supply expenses now. a few years ago a hanger might have been $0.10 or so, then 2 or 3 years ago it doubled overnight to $0.20, and a few weeks ago *that* doubled.
some of the larger hangers are 50 cents each. 50 cents for a metal coat hanger. he needs several hundred of these in a given week, nevermind the price of all the other supplies going up. it hurts, bad, and he has had to raise prices because of it (though not enough to actually cover the added cost)
Perhaps your dad could provide a discount for customers who provide their own hangers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
several customers recycle the hangers, usually it takes work to sort through them and pick out the ones that are worth keeping (ill say ~%70 are worth keeping, of 200 or 300 that are turned in each month)
we offer discounts so that no customer has to pay the full price.punch-cards, law enforcement/military discount, state employee, senior citizen, so i dont think hed opt for offering another discount.
Value of the Dollar and cost of goods (Score:3, Informative)
Gas and oil are such global c
Re:Yay, Pittsburgh (Score:5, Insightful)
Then maybe if steel gets high enough, your dad might stop pointlessly giving away an endless supply of free hangers that end up in the trash. A principle of consuming only what you need, rather than all you possibly can. But then this sort of thing is well overdue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept of the broken window fallacy works if there aren't any external diseconomies in play. I'd contest that in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a broken window fallacy: it's simply a change in the cost of doing certain types of business. There isn't an incentive to bring, for instance, tech support from Bangalore to Pittsburgh.
Re:OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, producing locally will be more expensive than it used to be to produce externally, and yes this will result in a higher local cost(presumably your basis for the broken window theory).
However where the broken window takes something that was fine as it was and claims that by breaking it and producing work for someone else is a good thing where it actually just creates an unnecessary cost for the baker and lowers overall productivity, this isn't the same situation.
The manufacturing work was going to be done by someone regardless, all this has done is make it more economical to do it locally. It isn't unnecessary work, or lost productivity it's simply someone else doing it.
You could argue that the increase in cost will do more overall damage to the economy than bringing the jobs back home will do good, but even that's sort of immaterial, the cost increase is going to happen pretty much no matter what we do, so our net result from this move is an increase in capital flowing into our the US economy and job creation, from the perspective of the US that's a good thing, maybe not so much a good thing for China, but still a good thing.
Re:higher oil prices = higher prices = higher wage (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's a lose-lose broken window fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]
Paying for breathing air might increase the GDP, but it would only be making the world net poorer. By definition of the consumer price index (CPI) being fraudulent data, so too is the GDP fraudulent data. Double the supply of money, ceteris paribus, the GDP doubles. Twice as much money trades for the exact same things. But in the real world inflation works it way through the economy discretely and unevenly, not universally evenly. People who get the new money and new credit first, spend more on specific things first. In the late 90s it was internet stocks, from 2000-2007 it was houses, and now it's commodities like oil. The poorest (last to receive the new credit and dollars) will suffer the worst for the longest time.
Re:higher oil prices = higher prices = higher wage (Score:4, Informative)
Less energy afforded and produced makes the world net poorer exactly the same way less food afforded and produced makes the world net poorer. Decreasing the supply of drinking water by half may make the price of that water double, but that means the world is twice as worse off by definition of having half as much water.
Increasing the costs of trade is just increasing the costs of the division of labor. Would you be better off if you to make everything you have completely by yourself? Grow and harvest your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house, manufacture and build your own computer? You wouldn't have enough time and skill to do it all by yourself and thus you would be much poorer operating as an isolated autocratic individual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not at all. Economic dominance and a thriving manufacturing sector maintained our standard of living. The global economy did little to help that, and in fact has been much of why that vaunted standard of living has been dropping in the past few decades.
The number of people who qualify as "middle class" is also not so swelled anymore.