MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 44.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

going up?.....gas prices, that is...

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Postby Mike S. » Tue May 01, 2007 7:40 am

Darthcrank wrote:Nearly all of the people I know who relocated out to the boonies did so because driving was cheaper than housing, and they could have things like peace and quiet, and a yard, for the same or less money than living in a condo in town.


What's so frustrating is that when you try to get people to crack down on noise pollution, even the worst grinding machinery that runs all the time, they treat you like you're some kind of nut for caring. Then every once in a while you read that the whole economy is sinking by people fleeing to the furthest corner of the earth for the "right to peace and quiet" that they don't have. It would not be difficult to engineer for and enforce a quiet, natural environment even in the middle of town, if people had the resolve to actually do so.
Mike S.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:34 pm

Postby Chuck_Schick » Tue May 01, 2007 9:06 am

RockHopper wrote:Believe me, I have tried the How to win friends and influence people route for many years.

Believe me, it's painfully obvious you suck at it and not at all surprising you failed in your personal crusade.

Guess what: motorists don't care.

It's blanket statements like this that totally undermine your argument. A lot of motorists do care, which is why I see a Prius on the road virtually every time I hit the road. But they also care about things like making the rent each month, feeding their family on a budget, and being able to transport their children in their government-mandated car seats in a single vehicle.

Guess what else? Motorists are still complaining about gas prices.

Well, this motorist is more likely to bitch about the fact that the government is more interested in fighting hideously expensive wars for oil than in investing in alternative energy sources. Or that Big Oil reaps huge government tax breaks and subsidies while posting record profits each quarter, with no provision that they pony up some dough for research and development toward the aim of energy independence.

But I guess if it dribbles from your lips, it must be Truth, huh?

At least I am offering solutions to the problem.

Sounds to me more like you're just bitching back and taking shots at an easy target rather than taking a big picture perspective.

And mind you, they are not simple minded.

Neither are they new or novel. You're not the radical thinker you think you are. Get over yourself already, bike jockey.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby TheBookPolice » Tue May 01, 2007 9:53 am

RockHopper wrote:I know it is annoying as hell to hear me tell you how badly you have screwed yourself by relying on oil...


You might know, but you have no idea how much.

RockHopper wrote:refuse to purchase housing in isolated areas

refuse to buy gas hogs

stop buying oil-based energy products.

demand that your local transit authority provide a convenient route for your area - and ride the damn bus!


And what do We (I will capitalize meaninglessly since you have a penchant for the same) do in the meantime? Petulant refusals and demands don't get my ass to work, now do they? Sternly worded letters don't heat my water. What's the interim solution?

RockHopper wrote:You bet it is your fault. Now get over your denial and fix the problem yourself!


So, is it a collective responsibility of Motorists? Or is it a "one man vs. the world"-type scenario, where I can make a difference all by myself?

RockHopper wrote:The majority of Safety problems are caused by motorists failing to abide by the rules of the road.


Wait a minute.... are you a bike advocate who has an ulterior motive in railing against capital-M Motorists?

RockHopper wrote:When motorists stop acting like babies - expecting the world to conform around their poor lifestyle choices - all the issues you bring up will get addressed.


Yes! Yes you are!! DINGDINGDINGDING!!! When everyone else stops screwing up and does what I tell them to do, everything will be better!

Well, shit, Rock! Why haven't you come along sooner? We could really use your sagely assistance in the housing market, where it costs $230,000 to buy a 1,200 sq. ft. single level house in a fucking cornfield! Or in urban planning, where it seems that Madison was built upon (and hold your seat, 'cause this is crazy) an isthmus! So there's only so much land to go around! It's like the developers of this city wanted people to spread out into outlying areas!

Fucking peckerwood. Take care of your own shit before you tell everyone else how to live. You have no fucking clue.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8374
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Postby RockHopper » Tue May 01, 2007 9:55 am

aaron wrote:Lifestyle choices certainly play a part, but it is hard to fault people for seeking an affordable home with the kind of amenities they would not have living in a downtown condo.

Unfortunately, a high percentage of those people are clueless when it comes to the costs of their choices. Recent research is showing that more and more, living in a more expensive home, closer to an urban area is actually cheaper than living in a comparable home in a suburb. There are plenty of other options for living downtown besides condos if that isn't your particular cup-o-tea.

The main source of the problem is a culture that is ignorant of options outside of the suburban-sprawl, large yard, quiet neighborhood mentality. Research has shown that homebuyers spend an average of 20 minutes evaluating their home purchase (and that average is for the home they bought, not the ones they didn't). 20 minutes is not enough time to carefully weigh the various costs of their lifestyle choice. Therefore, the argument that "consumers are just making choices in their best economic interest" doesn't hold water.

I would encourage people to read this report:

http://www.nhc.org/pdf/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf

and especially take a look at the graph on page 5 which clearly illustrates that the minimum overall cost point is for families living at about a 2-mile commute distance. Also note that living more than 7 miles or further away from work is more expensive than living right next to work.
RockHopper
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas

Postby aaron » Tue May 01, 2007 10:12 am

RockHopper wrote:
aaron wrote:Lifestyle choices certainly play a part, but it is hard to fault people for seeking an affordable home with the kind of amenities they would not have living in a downtown condo.

Unfortunately, a high percentage of those people are clueless when it comes to the costs of their choices. Recent research is showing that more and more, living in a more expensive home, closer to an urban area is actually cheaper than living in a comparable home in a suburb. There are plenty of other options for living downtown besides condos if that isn't your particular cup-o-tea.

The main source of the problem is a culture that is ignorant of options outside of the suburban-sprawl, large yard, quiet neighborhood mentality. Research has shown that homebuyers spend an average of 20 minutes evaluating their home purchase (and that average is for the home they bought, not the ones they didn't). 20 minutes is not enough time to carefully weigh the various costs of their lifestyle choice. Therefore, the argument that "consumers are just making choices in their best economic interest" doesn't hold water.

I would encourage people to read this report:

http://www.nhc.org/pdf/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf

and especially take a look at the graph on page 5 which clearly illustrates that the minimum overall cost point is for families living at about a 2-mile commute distance. Also note that living more than 7 miles or further away from work is more expensive than living right next to work.


I don't doubt for a second that this is all true. However, think about it: There are only "X" number of jobs downtown. More and more companies have opted to re-locate to these god-awful business parks on the fringes of the city. When this happens, current employees (or new ones, for that matter) pretty much have to go where the company goes. As a result, I know people now who have to commute from the far west side of Madison to the far east side or vice versa.
When factoring traffic through town (even on the beltline), the time spent commuting from east to west, west to east is often not much less than commuting from, say, Oregon or Belleville.
aaron
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:30 pm

Postby Chuck_Schick » Tue May 01, 2007 10:40 am

aaron wrote:More and more companies have opted to re-locate to these god-awful business parks on the fringes of the city. When this happens, current employees (or new ones, for that matter) pretty much have to go where the company goes.

Bullshit! Fuck 'em! They can flip burgers in some minimum wage hellhole within two miles from home if their employer relocates.

Choices, people!

Holier-than-thou jackasses like ClodHopper here need to make the conscious choice not to undermine the more sensible environmental advocates with their shrill, ill-informed invective and finger pointing. Idiots like this give idiots like Flanders an excuse to paint all of us who are trying to make a difference (in whatever way we can) as foaming-at-the-mouth loonballs.

So ... thanks for nothing, dumbass.
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby RockHopper » Tue May 01, 2007 10:58 am

aaron wrote: However, think about it: There are only "X" number of jobs downtown. More and more companies have opted to re-locate to these god-awful business parks on the fringes of the city. When this happens, current employees (or new ones, for that matter) pretty much have to go where the company goes. As a result, I know people now who have to commute from the far west side of Madison to the far east side or vice versa.
When factoring traffic through town (even on the beltline), the time spent commuting from east to west, west to east is often not much less than commuting from, say, Oregon or Belleville.

Ahh, but according to the MPO it turns out fifty-nine percent of the county’s new jobs are expected to be created in the City of Madison. So your "X" is not a fixed number, in fact, more new jobs are being created in Madison than elsewhere in the Dane County.

[ Last paragraph, page 19 ]
http://www.madisonareampo.org/Plan%20Elements/socio.pdf

However, even in the case where an employer moves, it is in the employee's financial best interests to reassess the benefits of their current living situation. I will bet in many cases, a job-change or a move would result in a better financial situation for the employee. In those cases, employees are insulating themselves from gas price spikes.
RockHopper
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas

Postby The Tolerator » Tue May 01, 2007 11:08 am

This thread provide additional insight into the liberal mind.

The following communist principles are illustrated in Rockhoppers desire to:

Control commerical development
Control how and where people go to work
Look to government to provide employment

Rockhopper would have us all living in housing projects and working for government departments in windowless highrise building in urban locales.

These principles go hand in hand with the rest of the liberal ideology which is all about power and control over peoples lives through taxes and laws that restrict basic freedoms.
The Tolerator
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby aaron » Tue May 01, 2007 11:08 am

"However, even in the case where an employer moves, it is in the employee's financial best interests to reassess the benefits of their current living situation. I will bet in many cases, a job-change or a move would result in a better financial situation for the employee. In those cases, employees are insulating themselves from gas price spikes."

Oh, please, get real. An employee of, say, 8-10 years, with vacation time accrued and a good solid growth path with a company is just going to up and quit if the company moves across town?

Uh...I hardly think so.
aaron
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:30 pm

Postby e40-asel » Tue May 01, 2007 11:21 am

aaron wrote:I saw the writing on the wall a couple of years ago and traded in my "small" SUV for a very "plain jane" 4-cylinder sedan that gets an average of 34-36 mpg. There is no reason others can't do the same.


I did the same around this time last year. My daily driver was my rusty '89 Toyota, which gets 18mpg. Since it's not worth much for re-sale, I just kept it and use it occasionally for a Menards run, and loaning it to friends who are moving, etc.

I now drive an Audi sedan that gets 28 mpg commuting from Waunakee. I put 18000 miles on it over the last 12 months, so that's about 350 gallons of fuel saved. The car takes premium fuel, but even with that, it's still a $500 savings. My next vehicle will be a VW diesel.
e40-asel
Senior Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 9:03 am

Postby RockHopper » Tue May 01, 2007 12:23 pm

The Tolerator wrote:This thread provide additional insight into the liberal mind.

The following communist principles are illustrated in Rockhoppers desire to:

Control commerical development
Control how and where people go to work
Look to government to provide employment

Rockhopper would have us all living in housing projects and working for government departments in windowless highrise building in urban locales.

These principles go hand in hand with the rest of the liberal ideology which is all about power and control over peoples lives through taxes and laws that restrict basic freedoms.

Tolerator,

Thanks a lot for providing this interesting interpretation of my motivations. It is however, entirely untrue, and illustrates that conservative ideology is largely based on false assumptions.

It has perplexed me as to why so-called conservatives don’t see that “Big Roads = Big Governmentâ€Â
RockHopper
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas

Postby RockHopper » Tue May 01, 2007 12:38 pm

aaron wrote:Oh, please, get real. An employee of, say, 8-10 years, with vacation time accrued and a good solid growth path with a company is just going to up and quit if the company moves across town?

Uh...I hardly think so.

No, I do not foresee them up and quitting. I see them sending their resume out to other prospective employers in the area. I see them insisting on a benefits package that is comparable to what they had at their old company. And in the event they get a job offer from a prospective new company, they carefully evaluate all the costs and benefits of working at each company.

What good is an extra week of vacation if you end up spending an extra week and a half per year commuting to your current employer’s new location?
RockHopper
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas

Postby Fat.The.Gangster » Tue May 01, 2007 12:42 pm

The Tolerator wrote:These principles go hand in hand with the rest of the liberal ideology which is all about power and control over peoples lives through taxes and laws that restrict basic freedoms.


Laws that restrict basic freedoms, huh? You mean basic freedoms like reproductive rights? Or did you mean other basic fredooms like the ability to marry someone of your choosing?
Fat.The.Gangster
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Easy Street

Postby Fat.The.Gangster » Tue May 01, 2007 12:45 pm

[quote="RockHopper"]It has perplexed me as to why so-called conservatives don’t see that “Big Roads = Big Governmentâ€Â
Fat.The.Gangster
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Easy Street

Postby Chuck_Schick » Tue May 01, 2007 1:14 pm

RockHopper wrote:It is however, entirely untrue, and illustrates that conservative ideology is largely based on false assumptions.

Says the idiot whose first contribution to this thread was a huge sweeping generalization chock full of such assumptions. I hope you conserve energy better than you argue, jackass.

What I am advocating for here is something that until recently, I believed was a core conservative value: personal responsibility.

So you're not just an annoying simpleton, you're gullible too. Hit the trifecta there, didn't ya?

[quote]As Newt Gingrich put it:

This problem is caused by a “failure of citizenship.â€Â
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar