Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Article Poll

Poll At what gas price would you telecommute?
I already do
$3/gal.
$4/gal.
$5/gal.
$6/gal.
Nothing separates me from my Hummer
[ Results | Polls ]
Comments:512 | Votes:674

US Gasoline Prices Spur Telework

Posted by kdawson on Sat May 19, 2007 12:36 PM
from the moving-bits-not-atoms dept.
coondoggie writes "The price of gasoline may finally be changing the way many people commute and communicate. Anecdotal evidence says teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving. The article links a survey indicating that in Q1 2007 the 19 largest US cable and telephone providers (representing about 94% of the market) acquired over 2.9 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers, to a total of about 56.2 million. That can be attributed in part to more employees taking advantage of telework programs, experts say. Just this week the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust task force opened the first of a series of hearings on the oil industry. Its chairman noted that gasoline prices have soared well above $3 a gallon and asked, 'How did we get into this mess?'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • How? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dj245 (732906) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:40PM (#19191701) Homepage
    Urban sprawl, SUV's, and lack of MPG targets for manufacturers. Average MPG hasn't changed much since the 70's. I also haven't noticed any change in peoples driving habits. People still tailgate, race to the next light (even though it is red) etc. I guess they have money to burn.

    There is no good fix for the sprawl. The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing.
    • Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thule (9041) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:49PM (#19191773) Homepage
      Don't forget there has not been any refineries built in 30 years, even though there has been more types of gas that the states have required. Don't forget that not only has our demand for oil continued to grow, but the world demand has also continued to grow.
      • Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)

        by BakaHoushi (786009) <Goss.Sean@NoSpam.gmail.com> on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:24PM (#19192047) Homepage
        Wait, wait, wait...

        So... you're telling me, there are other countries in the world? And that these other countries have economies? And these economies change, which, in turn, requires a shift in the required natural resources, including the amount of oil they require?

        I'm sorry, but I find that a little hard to believe.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Don't forget there has not been any refineries built in 30 years,
        So why don't we import refined gasoline instead of crude? I'm sure we could have it made to whatever specification is required.
        • Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by j79zlr (930600) on Saturday May 19 2007, @02:35PM (#19192607) Homepage
          Obviously it is less expensive to refine it here. Market dictates. Thats the whole point. The environmental restrictions in place make it impossible to build a new refinery, but that doesn't help the environment. The fact that 30+ year old refineries are allowed to continue production under inefficient and environmentally unfriendly practices which cost us instead of building newer, more efficient refineries, that produce less harmful contaminants and more gasoline because they aren't grandfathered in, is ridiculous.
    • Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MyLongNickName (822545) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:49PM (#19191785) Journal
      lack of MPG targets for manufacturers
      The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing.

      A more sane way of solving the problem is to have the consumer pay the true cost of energy. Does the gasoline you buy require us to import from unstable governments, resulting in a higher defense bill when we are in more conflicts over it? Put a tax on gas to foot the bill. Does gasoline hurt the environment? Put a tax on it to cover the cost.

      Worried about tax payer backlash? Give out a refund check to cover the average cost. Those who buy the fuel efficient car or choose not to live an hour from work will make a killing. Those who don't will get killed. I bet you'd see habits change REAL quick.

      In
        • Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday May 19 2007, @03:25PM (#19193001) Homepage Journal

          What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?
          It's not connected to the amount of petrol you consume. There is no incentive to cut usage if you are paying a flat rate. Worse, a lot of the cost of using petrol isn't even being paid at the moment, it's being deferred. Which would be more likely to make you consume less petrol:
          1. Having it cost twice as much at the pump, or
          2. Having the cost of the increase added to your other taxes?
          If petrol cost the same in the USA as it does in much of the rest of the world (well over $5/gallon), then you would almost certainly see a drop in demand.
        • Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drsquare (530038) on Saturday May 19 2007, @11:37PM (#19195821)

          Don't we already?
          No, you pay a token amount of tax. The amount you pay doesn't come close to the true costs of that oil. Take the costs of the defence budget for the middle east, plus the cost of the environmental damage from the gas being used in America, and divide that by the amount of gas sold in America in gallons, and you have the amount you need to tax gas per gallon. Then oil would pay for itself.
    • by reporter (666905) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:59PM (#19191863) Homepage
      Gas prices in the USA are not particularly high -- even at $3.50 per gallon. Gas in Europe [toledoblade.com] costs $10 per gallon.

      Such high prices in Europe does not hurt the European standard of living because many Europeans use public transportation; bus and trains are relatively cheap to ride. In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. In my neck of the woods, about 80% of the passengers on the bus is either impoverished Americans (from ghetto neighborhoods) or illegal aliens from Mexico. The occupancy of the buses is about 50% during most of the day. Meanwhile, the freeways are packed with late-model cars driven by the wealthier class.

      Frankly, even if gas prices increased to $10 per gallon in the USA, Americans would not necessarily experience a decline in their standard of living -- if they use public transportation. It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.

      Note that American politicians never compare European gas prices to American gas prices. The politicians just tell Americans what they want to hear: "Gas at $3.50 is too expensive. We Americans are a sad, pathetic victim of the greedy oil companies. We should force them to lower gas prices back to $1.50 per gallon so we can enjoy your monster SUV."

      These are the same Americans who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Exactly. Everytime someone from the US says how high their gas prices are, I just laugh. $3 per gallon is cheap. Very cheap.

        Bob
      • by notamisfit (995619) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:12PM (#19191975)
        You know, I don't think we've seen so much as a drop of oil out of Iraq. From what I've heard, China and Vietnam are the ones getting the contracts. Not that I really care; most of the Middle Eastern oilfields were illegally nationalized from US or British companies anyways. (If it wasn't for the West, they'd still be driving camels on top of the world's richest oil deposits.) That's the _really_ scary thing about Iraq; Bush honestly seems to believe that letting Iraq vote itself into another Islamic Republic is going to be the thing that brings peace and stability to the region.

        As for public transportation, it's feasible -- in the metropolitan areas. Out here in farm country, it's a lost cause (and the lower property taxes and intangibles like better schools probably make up for the extra money spent on fuel).
        • I agree, except I think you're giving Bush way too much credit. He probably believed that Iraq would turn itself into a liberal democracy as soon as the tyrant at the top was removed. ( It's not surprising that he should have that view; it will probably work in his own country...)
      • by koreth (409849) * on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:27PM (#19192079)

        In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

        In much the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation because they want to get to work in a half-hour rather than spending four hours hopping from bus to bus to train to bus. That is certainly the situation in the San Francisco Bay Area. I am not exaggerating those times, either; a few years ago, I had a contract in Pleasanton, about 35 minutes by car from my home in Sunnyvale. My car needed to be in the shop for a few days so I decided to take public transit. How bad could it be, right? Pretty damned bad, [511.org] is the answer. (The bus stop at the start of that route is about a 10-minute walk from my house; there are none closer. And note the price, too, though a monthly transit pass would cut that way down for a regular user.)

        Who I was sitting next to was not the issue; the issue was that it took so damned long to get to the office that, if I had to do that every day, I'd be doing literally nothing but riding the bus/train, working, and sleeping. That's why you mostly see poor people on the bus: people with enough money to buy and operate a car would rather spend several extra hours a day with their families.

        One root cause, in this area at least, is idiotic zoning policy that makes it illegal for most people to live close to where they work. The cities around here are divided into residential areas with the occasional convenience store or restaurant, and industrial/commercial areas with no housing other than the occasional programmer sleeping under his desk after an all-nighter. As a result, there is very little of interest within walking distance from most people's homes. And since those same zoning laws generally prohibit buildings more than a couple floors high even in the commercial areas, everything is spread out so far and wide that it's utterly impossible to design good public transit systems like those of higher-density cities. (Well, you *could* design one, but it would cost so much to operate that people would find it cheaper to drive their own cars.)

      • In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

        I don't think so. Here (Minneapolis, MN) many people do use the bus to commute, and I'd think a lot more would if only the buses would go to their workplaces at the times they work. You see, the transit system here assumes that everyone works from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. in downtown. Work in another suburb? You're outta luck. Don't hold to the traditional 9-5 schedule? Again, no buses for you.

        I'm a student living at home.

        • by tempestdata (457317) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:30PM (#19192105)
          I live in Los Angeles, the second biggest American city and I can tell you first hand that the public transport system here SUCKS! I HAD to buy a car.. Absolutely HAD to, even when I was a flat broke student living in a room the size of the car I bought. Yes it was a used old banger, but I was actually able to get around! To build a functioning public transport system you need money. I wouldn't mind taking twice the time to get to/from work everyday using public transport just so I dont have to drive, but the way the public transport system is. It would end up taking 3 times as much (An 1 hour and 30 minutes!) and that is just absurd.
          If only our government would spend more of the money they take from us, and spend it back on us. Instead, what I see is them taking my money so they can go bomb some people. The worst part is? I have to live with the knowledge, that I, for my part, am working hard every day to help pay for those weapons.

          Gas is too expensive at $3? HA! Lower the damn income tax rate, and tax the gas consumption. A responsible government would do this. Unfortunately, if there are heavier taxes brought on gas, our income tax wont fall to compensate, we'll just be paying for more missiles, and guns.

          Just imagine. For a minute.. impossible as it may seem. If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.
        • Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.
          Without resorting to significant subsidies (which most Americans loathe, even though they aren't aware of just how many subsidies already exist), what you've just stated is a vicious cycle. Without a significant number of people riding public transportation, there is inadequate funds to improve public transportation. Until public transportation is improved, you won't have a significant number of people riding it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            And that's why a pure market economy does not work. My country developed something akin to "social market economy". We're moving away from it (read: it gets worse), but for a long time we had basic economy in governmental hands (power, water, natural gas (not fuel), sewage, even phone and postal service), and also the public transport. I.e. they provided the foundation for you to build a business on top of it. It worked, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but it was reliably good or bad.

            Yes, we paid more ba
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Without resorting to significant subsidies...

            I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The road system in America is significantly subsidized, yet the rail system and public transportation systems are expected to make a profit! What. The. Fuck?!

              • No, if Americans had to pay for the roads they would be forced to quit their jobs or not eat. There is no public transportation for most of us. What we do have is slow, dirty, and doesn't go outside of urban areas. You've really only mastered one aspect of our economic dependence on the road system. A lot of us would turn to public transportation if only it existed. I would be happy to pay tax on it as a student. The problem is our government doesn't see what a wise investment it will be in a few years.
        • Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.

          Its non-existence in most places is a pretty good deterrent. I would much rather use public transportation than own my own vehicle. I hate driving, dealing with other drivers, paying for insurance & vehicle maintenance & gasoline, making the yearly donation to the DMV to keep it registered, and still having it break down from time to time. A lot of people consider the automobile as symbol
        • by epee1221 (873140) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:40PM (#19192201)

          In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.
          Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.
          Exactly. I don't avoid public transportation here because of snobbery. I avoid it because it is of low quality. With my car, I can roll out of bed at 8 and be at work before 8:30 minutes. If I had to take the bus, I would have to get up around 6:30, walk a mile and a half, get on one bus, ride to the middle of town, change buses (and hope everything's on schedule), ride out to work, and get there around 9. I would also likely have to get off work early in order to be able to take the bus back to where I got on (a mile and a half from home).
          On top of all that, once I already have a car, it's cheaper to use it drive myself to work than to pay for the bus fare. (It's about $3 for a day's driving, $4 for a day's busing -- $6 for the bus if I pay for each ride individually)
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:06PM (#19191921)
      I disagree:

      http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/ [personalrapidtransit.com]

       
      • Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)

        I think it's to maintain the perception of control. Despite the fact that 99% of the work I do can be done remotely and I am more productive when I don't need to travel 3 hours per day to and from my school, my advisor still insists that I show up at the lab routinely "so he can communicate with me if he needs to"... not that he does unless I specifically schedule a time to meet with him.
        • Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)

          by HUADPE (903765) on Saturday May 19 2007, @02:16PM (#19192511) Homepage
          Grade school as it may seem, this IS "supply and demand." Demand-pull inflation to be precise. Demand for petroleum products has increased (see SUVs and China...mostly China). Price has gone up so rapidly because the short term elasticity is so low. People need to get to work, and in the car they have now. In the short term, people won't respond to a $.05 change in gas prices. Prices have spiked because we hit the wall of refining capacity and the supply curve got steep. Prices needed to go up to push demand down.
            • Re:How? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Afrosheen (42464) on Saturday May 19 2007, @02:46PM (#19192709)
              *golf clap*

              It's nice to see when someone really gets it. Gasoline, around the globe, isn't a supply and demand-priced commodity. Demand will always be there and as the worldwide population increases, it will only continue to rise. I give it about 20 years before we see a paradigm shift to alternative fuels like hydrogen really take hold. Even then, US corporations will prevent adoption until the last drop of oil is extracted from a previously protected wildlife reserve. NOW is the time that major infrastructure changes should be made, but instead of spending record profits on upgrading infrastructure, it's just going straight into the bank.

                Don't be fooled by what CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal or anyone else tells you about the cause of oil prices. There are a hundred excuses at any given time and they are all lies. During Katrina, when we saw a huge spike, it was because Gulf refineries were damaged. Another week and it's trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria. Another week and it's failures in Iraq. None of it has any direct implications for Exxon and friends, because if it did, then they wouldn't be making huge profits...profits would be flat. The opposite is actually true and the current US administration is complacent on letting big oil do their thing.

                However there has to be a limit. The more people spend on fuel, the less disposable income they have for other goods and services or even mortgages. Gas prices simply cannot continue to skyrocket while the economy limps along with GDP increases of 1.5% or less annually. Eventually it will become so expensive that people will trade in their Hummers for a Prius or start taking advantage of public transport (where available).

                I really hate to even think of the US economy and fuel prices because the system is so corrupt there's not much you can do to influence change at this point. Just pray that we get a better administration in 2008.
            • Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)

              by bberens (965711) on Saturday May 19 2007, @03:14PM (#19192899)

              Yet demand never has gone down. This further illustrates (and debunks) the complete idiocy with which people attempt to apply supply/demand/price explanations to a major global real world market. It may work for apples and oranges in the classroom, it may work for five cent lemonade stands in the streets, but it damn sure doesn't work that simply within a socially stratified society.
              Actually, when oil prices spiked to $70/barrel in the 1970s global consumption of oil DID decrease as represented in this chart [readinglitho.co.uk]. The price cannot go infinitely high or there will be no demand. The price/demand curve just isn't where we're comfortable with it being. That doesn't discount your theory about sinister minds working the market. It just means that it is unlikely to go on forever.
  • TFA says"teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving."
    Yep, now I never have to leave my Mom's basement except for trips to 7-11 to restock the fridge.

    Ohhh! You meant the number of teleworkers?? Oops. Never mind.
  • by geek (5680) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:48PM (#19191771)
    I always preferred walking or riding but the gas prices are what finally drove me over the edge. I live in CA and it's pushing 4$ a gallon right now, in some places it's gone over 4. So I just ride my bike, everything I need is in riding distance. If I do have to go further I have my car, which is a rather fuel efficient Saturn. I think I've put all of 60$ in the tank this year total. To me that's how it should be.

    I blame a lot of the fuel efficiency problems on city planers. The layouts of our cities are really bad for fuel economy, especially place like San Francisco and Los Angeles. California also suffers badly from a lack of a good public transit system. We have buses but it's not good enough.

    Part of the problem is also social. People want their big tanks (Hummer, Suburban etc) because they feel safe in them. For whatever reason people equate size with safety even though it's not the actual case.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It isn't so much the size that makes SUVs less safe, but their high center of gravity, which makes them more prone to rollovers. In the winter, we see SUVs flipped over in the ditch all the time. They'll hit a slippery patch, their tires will catch on a ridge on the side of the road, and away they go.

        I think they should create a NASCAR-like race using SUVs. Then people would really see the difference in handling between them and a low-slung car.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            They're only really in more danger because of the SUVs...

            The SUV carries a great deal more mass, which makes collisions with it more energetic. Now, the SUV can expend some of that mass as extra "armor", which makes them safer for their occupants.

            If everyone drove the modern day equivalent of the bubble car [wikipedia.org], with modern materials they'd be very safe - and the pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, etc, would be much safer too. Oh, and they'd save craploads of gas. Of course, this is impractical for everyone
  • Congress! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:49PM (#19191777) Homepage

    How did we get into this mess?

    Congress!

    Let's see what congress HASN'T done...

    • Made it easier to construct refineries to avoid the problems right after Katrina
    • Allow drilling in ANOIR
    • Allow drilling off the continental shelf in the gulf
    • Set federal gasoline standards so gas could be used anywhere, instead of each state requiring different blends and ruining some of the economy of scale we could have
    • Raise CAFE standards more than once ever 20 years, and then only by like 3 gallons. Every car should be getting 30+ at this point, every truck/SUV 20. We can do it.
    • Use Iraqi oil for reconstruction and running our equipment. In a rush to avoid looking like the war (which I support) was for oil (which everyone thought anyway) we've wasted tons of money and oil that could be shipped to the US, the savings put towards gas tax reductions or rebates, etc.
    • Working to make diesel more common here now that we have relatively clean and efficient diesels. Europe has them. We should too.

    What, exactly HAS congress done to lower gas prices? Ethanol subsidies? Hydrogen research? Those haven't done much, have they? I remember 7 years ago when I saw a station out of town with gas for 99 cents a gallon. I'd be very surprised to find a station right now in my area at triple that. Ok, I know, they passed tax rebates when you buy a hybrid. But they passed them when hybrids were very hard to get and the expire this year as hybrids are getting easier to get. Oops.

    • Re:Congress! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:11PM (#19191971)
      That's ANWR, not "ANOIR".

      The big problem this summer is refining capacity. We've already seen the spike in oil prices into the $60/bbl range caused by increased Chinese demand for oil, and that hasn't really budged a whole lot since last year. Oil inventories have been good since then. The reason prices are so high right now is because of gasoline supply concerns, i.e., post-refining, and while I'm in favor of expanding drilling operations into both the eastern Gulf of Mexico and ANWR to offset worldwide demand increases (and thereby obtain price relief from increases over the last couple of years), this year's gasoline increases have nothing to do with that.

      There were already a number of scheduled refinery maintenance shutdowns, and then BP had a major refinery go down for "unscheduled maintenance". Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of any unscheduled refinery maintenance. One of Enron's tactics to manipulate the electricity market was to create artificial shortages by calling up power plants and asking them to shut down temporarily. Hopefully, that's what Congressional hearings will be looking into. If there are no shenanigans going on at that level, then really there's nothing punitive they can do about it. What you're seeing is simple supply and demand combined with smart moves by speculators who bought gasoline low and are now selling it high. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some gasoline retailers are buying a small portion of their supply at higher-than-retail just to keep their gas stations in stock.

      Refiners are stuck with expanding current operations, which is generally limited to technology updates and expanding into whatever surrounding land they have available. Unfortunately, it's late enough in the game now that refiners are going to resist the urge to build new large-scale refining capacity even if they could get a license to, because ethanol is starting to gear up, and by the time the refiners could actually get a new plant built (including the years upon years of environmental impact studies), the demand for gasoline will already be dropping in favor of alternative fuels (probably increased ethanol-gasoline blends, but that's still less gasoline being needed).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Regarding above points:

      Industry also had little incentive or desire to build refineries. And it's
      better to use less gasoline as well. And refineries have had capacity
      expansion equivalent to 10 new refineries.

      There are some annoying problems with clean air standards raising prices,
      but one of the principal ones comes from Federal political interference.

      In California, the refiners are FORCED, against their desire, to use
      ethanol imported expensively (and not compatible with cheap pipelines)
      from politically po
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      At some point, one has to take responsibility for one's own actions, and responsibility for one's own life. Not only that, but in times of long conflict, when our soldiers are dying on foriegn soil, it is often traditional to support those troops by making sacrifices, rather than complaining that one can't have honey and ice cream every day.

      So here we are with a very predictable rise in gasoline. Do people take responsiblity for thier choices? No they complain that the government is not giving handouts

  • We were warned. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oddaddresstrap (702574) on Saturday May 19 2007, @12:51PM (#19191795)
    How did we get into this mess?
    We were given a whack in the head about thirty years ago. We got up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened.
  • by 26199 (577806) * on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:01PM (#19191881) Homepage

    Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low?

    Either that or our (UK here, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere in Europe) tax is ridiculously high. Hmmmmm.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low [compared with Europe]?

      The problem is that unlike Europe, most of the United States doesn't have a viable public transportation system. Unless you live in a major city, you're pretty much stuck driving - the closest bus stop to my house is about 10 miles away, and I live in one of the more densely populated suburban areas in the country.

      In Europe, driving is a luxury, but in most of the US, it's a necessity. I could understand places like NYC imposing a high gasoline tax, but in much of the country, it would be an unfair burden

    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Saturday May 19 2007, @02:10PM (#19192467)

      Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low?

      Because, unlike in Europe, our cities are new enough to have been (stupidly) designed for cars instead of people. Now we're screwed, and have to have artificially low prices on gas to compensate.

  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:02PM (#19191893)
    Human nature. Consume while it's cheap. You see it in every aspect of human behaviour.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common s [wikipedia.org]

    This is why socialism doesn't work and why market economics does.

     
    • by mvdwege (243851) <mvdwege@mail.com> on Saturday May 19 2007, @06:06PM (#19194113) Homepage

      Dude, go take Economics 101 before you spout off nonsense in public, it might save you the embarassment.

      The Tragedy of the Commons is a problem with a free market system, because the Commons is an externality: the users of the Commons don't pay the cost of the maintenance equally to the profit they gain from exploiting it, therefore they have an incentive to exhaust the Commons.

      Collective action, either by taxation (so that the externality is reflected in the costs) or by outright rationing access to the Commons is the only thing that can stop the Tragedy occuring. And collective action to regulate access to a Commons is one of the defining characteristics of Socialism. Depending on how this is implemented it may be either old-fashioned authoritarian Socialism, Libertarian Socalism, or a mixed model like European-style Social Democracy, but the free market is definitely no solution here.

      Mart
  • Positive change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Simon80 (874052) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:06PM (#19191925)
    I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes. I find it wrong that there is such a huge flow of cars going back and forth every single day.
  • I hope soestion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:07PM (#19191929)
    I really hope it takes off.

    I don't even drive.. I have a 50 mile train journey each day, which takes 2 hours either way (if I'm lucky). I could obviously drive that distance much faster if it wasn't for the ludicrous congestion at either end of the trip. I did the math and even with my teensy little 796cc engine it still costs me less on the train (even if they did raise the fare by a full 13% this year), what with parking. And on the train I can read, or even work sometimes.

    But even so, I'd prefer to be able to get up an hour later in the morning, I'd even work an extra hour! A nice comfy purpose-built office space at home would be infinitely superior to the ridiculous battery-hen office where everyone gabbles and cackles and holds meetings around my desk. I can't be expected to perform duties that are based on the conjunction of creativity and focus in that environment. Even cubes would be preferable to a totally open-plan office... thank heavens for my Etymotic earplug-phones or I'd never get anything done at all.

    So anyway, my point is, that the public transport in this country sucks. The typical response of the rail company to an increase in passenger numbers is to raise prices. If the price of fuel drives people off the roads (and our fuel taxes here make our gasoline roughly double the price it is in 'merca), then the trains simultaneously get more crowded, late, and expensive. The last remaining palatable option is teleworking - may everyone embrace it.

    Not only that, it's the most environmentally friendly option.
  • by fyrwurxx (907932) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:12PM (#19191977)
    "The higher prices reflect an imbalance between supply and demand"

    Yeah, and I'm sure your profit margin has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    As an environment-conscious individual, I relish higher gas prices. $3 a gallon? Why not $5 or $10? I truly believe hitting people in the wallet is the *only* way to incite change in habits as deeply-rooted as our gasoline addiction. People need to realize that carpooling, investing in very fuel-efficient vehicles (for example, I drive a manual transmission Saturn--I average 30mpg city) or looking toward hybrid/bio-diesel options is not just a fanciful dream but a necessary reality. Alternative fuel vehicles are a reality, but the only way we will leverage them into the mainstream is through the power of our collective consumer's almighty dollar (and pound, and yen... ;)
  • by noidentity (188756) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:34PM (#19192131)
    "[...] teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving"

    I guess that walk to the car and back each day was keeping them slim.
  • by jfruhlinger (470035) on Saturday May 19 2007, @01:40PM (#19192199) Homepage
    I happened to be updating my money info in Quicken when this story popped up, so I thought I'd see how much gas prices really hit my pocketbook.

    In the past 12 months, gas has constituted 0.81% of our family spending. For the 12 months before that, it was 0.66%. A good-sized bump in relative terms, I suppose, but one that can be absorbed without pain in relative terms because the number was so small to begin with.

    My wife's office is only about five miles away from our house, but on the other hand, she does have to do a fair amount of driving for work-related reasons during the day, so I imagine her work-related driving isn't terribly outside the norm. I do work at home, though for non-gas-related reasons, but even if you double our gas spending to get to the more typical two-commute family, we'd still be at less than 2 percent of our family budget -- certainly not something that would put us in the poorhouse. And while we're not hurting for cash, we're certainly not wealthy -- between the two of us we make less than $100K a year, less than a lot of IT folks make with one salary.

    My question is, are we some kind of freaks when it comes to gas use compared to most Americans? We live in a city neighborhood where we can walk to places for some basic errands and our grocery store is two-minute drive away; on the other hand, the city we live has a pretty lousy public transit system, so if we're doing things outside our neighborhood, we invariably drive. We don't drive a big SUV, but we don't drive a hybrid either: and our sedan is 13 years old, so I imagine it's not particularly fuel efficient when compared to new cars of the same size. Yet I feel like gas prices would have to triple before we'd be really forced to reorder our priorities to feed our car. Are we really so far outside the American norm when it comes to gas use? Or are gas prices just one of those things that you see two or three times a month and so you really notice when they go up, but it doesn't realy have as much of an impact on your life as you think?
    • It isn't just what we personally spend on gasoline. I've noticed prices on fresh produce and other things in the grocery store are up too. High fuel prices affect the price of everything. Almost everything in the store came by ship, truck, or train. That takes fuel and higher fuel costs are passed on to consumers. High fuel prices are costing you more than a 0.15% household budget increase. Some families have to do more driving than you do so the direct costs for others is higher as well. That means many people stay home more and spend less when they are out. That will ripple through the economy as well.

      This is a much larger issue than your monthly gasoline bill.
  • Size does matter! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 3seas (184403) on Saturday May 19 2007, @03:10PM (#19192869) Homepage Journal
    For those comparing the EU gas prices to that of the US....

    I found the public transportation system of Europe to be wonderful.
    But the US is just bigger and that means its more difficult to create and maintain a public transportation system.

    I live in Atlanta GA close to I-285 which is 60 miles full circle.
    As slow as traffic can be, I'd prefer public transportation, if it only existed close enough to where I work, but it doesn't.

    Perhaps the real problem is that of figuring out a better public transportation system. One that can handle the size problem yet help to keep traffic congestion to a minimum whele itself having low fuel cost.

    Oh I know.....Teleportation........ hmmmm.... of work, not people (until that gets figured out....)