Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
There's no easy answers, but hoping that petrol gets to $10 per gallon may not be it. Because the knock-on effect on oil and natural gas means this will increase the cost of heating a home during the Northern winter to unsustainable levels.

This is a bad thing? I've always thought that lots of people living in an inhospitable climate - particularly in poorly insulated homes - was as bad as driving an SUV. It is another massive waste of fossil fuels and source of pollution that will need to be resolved.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
IMO: Higher gas taxes and use of alternative energy sources are the only useful way to address our consumption problem in the US.

Higher prices for oil based fuel should do the trick (only then will the knee jerk, poorly planned for 'alternative' fuels bandwagon be realistically jumped on with bad consequences for a decade or two until, the best/better solutions work their way through the survival of the fittest-bun not necessarily best competition, and wins out), but by then will US automakers have anything that will compare to the imports...cheap, fuel efficient imports took a big bite into their profits long ago, and yet they have learned little, putting most of their R&D into classic short-term goals, stock investor profits models, producing SUV/trucks that lemming/idiot buyers seem to be irrationally in love with. I suppose there will be a 'market' correction, with US automakers taking the biggest hit, and Clocker without an automaker job. Survival of the fittest in a dog-eat-dog world.


I heard a report on the news with analysts saying that predictions are that a gallon will hit $7 sometime next year. I see *NO* change in the driving habits of people in Los Angeles, no matter Prius or 10mpg bigarse SUV-trucks/exoticars, everyone is still accelerating from a stoplight at the same pace as when a gallon cost $2, it's now $4...diesel is $4.85-5.29/gal

By PABLO GORONDI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

Oil prices rose above $135 a barrel for the first time Thursday, with supply worries, global demand and an ever weakening U.S dollar driving crude futures up.


Also on Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the world's top energy watchdog is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast.
Light, sweet crude for July delivery rose as high as $135.09 before falling back. By the afternoon in Europe, the contract stood at $133.35 a barrel in electronic trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 18 cents on Wednesday's close of $133.17.
That settlement price, up $4.19 on Tuesday's close, marked NYMEX crude's largest one-day price advance since March 26.
Meanwhile, July Brent crude on the ICE Futures exchange in London also reached a new record of $135.14 a barrel Thursday. It retreated to $132.68 by the afternoon in Europe, a loss of 2 cents on its Wednesday close.
"Simply put, this is a market you cannot afford to be short in," said U.S. analyst and trader Stephen Schork about Brent futures in his Schork Report.
With gas and oil prices setting new records nearly every day, analysts have begun to wonder what might stop prices from rising. There are technical signals in the futures market, including price differences between near-term and longer-term contracts, that crude may soon fall. But with demand for oil growing in the developing world, and little end in sight to supply problems in producing countries such as Nigeria, few analysts are willing to call an end to crude's rally.
"The sentiment in the market is very bullish at the moment," said David Moore, commodity strategist with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. "The U.S. dollar was weaker last night, and also the U.S. EIA report showed an unexpected decline in U.S. commercial crude oil inventories, so there's a combination of factors pushing the oil prices higher."
Crude prices breezed past $130 early Wednesday, then accelerated when the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said U.S. crude inventories fell by more than 5 million barrels last week. Analysts had expected a modest increase.
Investment bank Goldman Sachs last week revised its oil price forecast for the second half of 2008 from $107 to $141 a barrel. But some analysts saw the new target becoming a reality much sooner.
"Futures are moving so fast that under the current volatility that goal could already be reached within the end of the week," said a report by Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix in Switzerland.
Some analysts say crude has been boosted in recent days by especially strong demand for diesel in China, where power plants in some areas are running desperately short of coal.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Paris-based International Energy Agency is in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world's top 400 oil fields.
For years the IEA has predicted that supplies of crude and other liquid fuels will arc gently upward to keep pace with rising demand, topping 116 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 87 million barrels a day currently.
The agency is now concerned that aging oil fields and diminished investment mean that companies could struggle to surpass 100 million barrels a day in production over the next two decades, the paper reported.
That view has been echoed by many analysts.
"The market is really structurally tight ... oil demand is not growing that fast but supply is constrained," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.
In the U.S. Energy Information Administration report, gasoline inventories also fell, which took the market by surprise. Inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose less than analysts surveyed by Platts had expected.
While the dollar gained slightly against the euro and the Japanese yen from overnight levels, it fell against the British pound and showed a new downward momentum.
The 15-nation euro bought $1.5765 in morning European trading, down from $1.5780 in late New York trading Wednesday.
The British pound bought $1.9786, up from $1.9689 late Wednesday. The dollar declined to 103.25 Japanese yen from 104.17 yen.
Investors see hard commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation and a weak dollar and pour into the crude futures market when the greenback falls. A weak dollar also makes oil less expensive to buyers dealing in other currencies.
Many investors believe the dollar's protracted decline over the past year has been the most significant factor behind oil's rise from about $66 a barrel a year ago.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 9.80 cents to $4.0064 a gallon while gasoline prices added 2.85 cents to $3.4250 a gallon. Natural gas futures rose 7 cents to $11.710 per 1,000 cubic feet.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
Right now I commute 23 miles each way (46 mile round trip) 4 days a week & telecommute the 5th. By the end of the year I hope to be telecommuting 8 of 10 days with day 9 being an 88 mile round trip and day 10 the 46 mile round trip. That would drop my commuting miles from 184 per week to an average of 67.

For non-work driving, we combine trips when possible and base more & more decisions on where to go on distance/mileage factors.

Doing the above I hope to get more years out of my car. It's already 9.5 years old and has 140K miles, but properly maintained it should last a while. I'd like to replace it but will hold off as long as I can. Hopefully by then the Volt or other E-REVs will be out.

Also, I don't drive with a lead foot. So I'm getting EPA highway mileage (Using the 2008 revised numbers) in the city. I do drive fast, but I just don't accelerate that fast to get there.

It's been reported that the Chicago area has the highest gas prices in the nation. Gas in my area went up by 20 cents a gallon overnight with the local stations running around $4.159 for regular.

I'm not sure what it'll take for people to drive in a more efficient manner. Maybe a longer-than-3-second attention span so they notice that flooring the gas pedal doesn't actually get them to their destination much (if any) faster.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
Ford's trouble: $4 gas is here to stay
Gas prices are causing consumers to shun pickups and SUVs, leading to losses at the car maker's North American auto unit.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/22/news/companies/ford/index.htm

dd: Does it really make much difference if you are north or south? If you aren't heating in the south you are using electric for a/c right? Even a fully insulated new construction house in upstate NY can cost $250 per month to heat with natural gas. And that's about 2000 sqft. I guess the delta between 90 degrees and 72 is less than 72 to 20, but we only heat for 6 months where I guess you guys are going all year round?

Interesting read:

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSN2248967220080522
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
dd: Does it really make much difference if you are north or south? If you aren't heating in the south you are using electric for a/c right? Even a fully insulated new construction house in upstate NY can cost $250 per month to heat with natural gas. And that's about 2000 sqft. I guess the delta between 90 degrees and 72 is less than 72 to 20, but we only heat for 6 months where I guess you guys are going all year round?
Actually it doesn't quite work that way. Our house naturally holds about 20 to 30 °F above the outside temperature due to solar heating, body heat, and electrical appliances. As a general rule we don't need to heat until the outside temperatures drop under about 45° to 50°F. Even if it's 20°F outside you're only fighting a delta of perhaps 30°F over where the house wants to be.

In the summer on the other hand if it's 90°F the house will hold perhaps 115° on its own. To bring it down to 70° is a 45°F delta. Add to that the energy required to dehumidify the air. It's a good thing ACs give about 3-4 watts of cooling power for every watt of electricity or electric costs to cool would be totally ridiculous. Heating in winter with a geothermal heat pump would give similar efficiency gains over straight resistance heating, but in general since you're fighting a smaller delta, it should cost less than AC in the summer.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
dd: Does it really make much difference if you are north or south? If you aren't heating in the south you are using electric for a/c right? Even a fully insulated new construction house in upstate NY can cost $250 per month to heat with natural gas. And that's about 2000 sqft. I guess the delta between 90 degrees and 72 is less than 72 to 20, but we only heat for 6 months where I guess you guys are going all year round?

Either heating or cooling year round is bad idea. We heat about 3 months of the year and cool never. Even when we do heat, it's a 10 degree difference. I'm not saying that massive amounts of insulation can't correct a big part of that, but I am saying that living in a poorly insulated house or in an inhospitable climate is the ecological equivalent to driving an inefficient vehicle or having a long commute.

I'm currently planing to build a super insulated house in a place that never gets below 40F and never above 90F. Add some thermal mass and I won't be installing central heat or air at all.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Not everyone can live in the bay area, DD. There are very few other places in the world that have that constant of a climate year round.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by an inhospitable climate. Does Chicago qualify? NYC? Toronto? Moscow?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I'm not quite sure what you mean by an inhospitable climate. Does Chicago qualify? NYC? Toronto? Moscow?

I'm not really sure either. I'm still researching the concepts of superinsulation.

If the objective is to reduce our demands for energy, specifically fossil fuels, than heating and cooling less is better than more. My time here in Moscow is making this more apparent. Here, double-pane windows mean 2 single pane windows installed with a 6-inch gap in between. Unfortunately, this does practically nothing because a gap that large allows convection to occur in the space. Because of that, massive amounts of energy are required to stop people from dying in the winter. She doesn't even own a car, doesn't have an oven, and barely uses electric lights; yet she likely pollutes more than I do with my 70k mile/year commute due to the fact that her heat comes from a coal boiler in the basement built by German POWs in 1952.

My point is that cars shouldn't get all the blame; if the problem is consumtion of fossil fuels and the resultant pollution, punish all consumers and polluters equally. It should cost a whole lot more to live in a cold climate with a poorly insulated house.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
I have an electric heat pump and 75%+ of my power comes from nuclear generation. I also drive less than 1000 miles a year. Should I get a prize?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I have an electric heat pump and 75%+ of my power comes from nuclear generation. I also drive less than 1000 miles a year. Should I get a prize?
No, you need to cut back more so people like Algore can continue to use massive amounts of energy in his mansion.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I'm not really sure either. I'm still researching the concepts of superinsulation.

Those are interesting concepts.

BTW, the energy efficiency of double paned windows is from the argon gas sealed between the panes. Convection occurs in any space and in fact a larger space would be better than a smaller space. It does distort the view more though.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I have an electric heat pump and 75%+ of my power comes from nuclear generation. I also drive less than 1000 miles a year. Should I get a prize?

Likely the prize you will receive is not having to change your lifestyle significantly when energy prices increase.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
BTW, the energy efficiency of double paned windows is from the argon gas sealed between the panes. Convection occurs in any space and in fact a larger space would be better than a smaller space.

That seems to contradict some of the research I've been doing. Can you provide some links? I'd like to make sure I have all the major opinions covered.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
"built by German POWs in 1952" ??? Do you mean 1942?

Most double inslated glass I'm familiar with has a vacuum between the glass panes.


Bozo :joker:
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
Last week I filled the gas tank in my car with gas that contained 10% ethanal. My gas millage dropped 4 MPG.
Looks like another ploy by big oil to gouge the public. The gas wasn't any cheaper and you have to by more of it.

Bozo :joker:
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
Virtually all the gas around here has had 10% Ethanol for years. Unless you normally get 40+MPG you shouldn't be losing more than 10% or so on your mileage. E85 is known to reduce mileage by 15-30%, the same as 100% Ethanol. See 2nd paragraph.

Even with the 10% Ethanol I pretty much always beat EPA estimates (both old & new/revised) for MPG for my car.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
Virtually all the gas around here has had 10% Ethanol for years. Unless you normally get 40+MPG you shouldn't be losing more than 10% or so on your mileage. E85 is known to reduce mileage by 15-30%, the same as 100% Ethanol. See 2nd paragraph.

Even with the 10% Ethanol I pretty much always beat EPA estimates (both old & new/revised) for MPG for my car.

Hmmm... I'll have to check into this further.

Bozo :joker:
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
Hopefully your first observation is just a bad data point. If the lackluster mileage continues, it could be indicative of other issues (fuel filter, etc.). Are you measuring MPG via trip computer or via miles driven on a full tamp & gallons required to refill? Trip computers are sometimes off by 0.5-2MPG.

To clarify my earlier post, my car was rated 19/27 city/highway back in '99 when it was new. The '08 revised EPA numbers are 17/24. I consistently get 24+ around town and 27-28 highway. The 24 drops to 22 on the crappy winter blend gas. I mostly drive with moderate acceleration but am not afraid to stomp the gas when I need to pass or if I just want to 'exercise' the 3L V6 a little.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
nanotech news:

http://nanotech.physorg.com/

New potential solar energy advancements, computers, etc.

Before the Memorial Day weekend here in the USA, petro/gasoline was $4.09/gal at the local station. During the weekend, they raised he price to $4.15/gal, today just one week later I noticed it's up to $4.21/gal...amazing! diesel only went up 10cents/gal to $5.10, lol. I bought a full tank 10 days ago @CostCo for $3.83/gal.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
Virtually all the gas around here has had 10% Ethanol for years. Unless you normally get 40+MPG you shouldn't be losing more than 10% or so on your mileage. E85 is known to reduce mileage by 15-30%, the same as 100% Ethanol. See 2nd paragraph.

Even with the 10% Ethanol I pretty much always beat EPA estimates (both old & new/revised) for MPG for my car.

I have been checking my millage at each fill-up. Gasolene that contains 10% ethanal gets 3-4 MPG less than a fill-up of regular. The onboard computer confirms my calculations. My wife's car is also getting less MPG when running 10% ethanal gas. (both cars are about 1 year old and have less than 16,000 miles on them. Both usually get ~28-31 MPG).
My daughter has been complaining about her car not getting good gas millage. (a 4 cyl Cobalt) She lives about a mile from a Hess station that is selling gas with 10% ethanal in it. I have a feeling she is getting her gas there, which would explain the poor gas millage.

Bozo :joker:
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
F'n'A...local gas station that was $4.21 last week, today I did my short range shopping to local supermkts, it's up to $4.35/gal, while diesel at the same place dropped from $5.10 back down to $4.99. Highest prices on the west side of LA include Beverly Hills of course, but another place in relatively modest west side business area, was $4.75/gal last week, with diesel @5.50/gal

California as of today has the highest average price of gas according to the AAA:

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp

I'm all for CAFE standards, gas guzzler tax does nothing for the limited number of vehicles it taxes. IN Europe, there are protests, yet do you see the 'market' system of competition supply the "demand" for much more fuel efficient vehicles, 2-3x that of US vehicles? No, of course not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_usage_and_pricing

according to TIME in the UK diesel is now over $11/gal

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1809900,00.html

"sources" in the OPEC membership say the price per barrel should be 1/2 what it is now:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1317363,00.html

Mean while, the UN Secretary has suggested that world food production must increase a staggering 50% to meet demand of growing populations by 2030. Once again highlighting the single biggest problem the world faces, which is the major contributor to all other problems (mostly)...ever expanding world population.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
CAFE standards are retarded. The only way to curb consumption and still give consumers the choices we are entitled to is a substantial gas tax (not just a gas guzzler tax that is charged on a vehicle purchase).

What is happening today is a perfect example. $4 per gallon gas is causing Ford and GM to close some of the plants that make big trucks and SUVs or reduce production because people want more fuel efficient vehicles now. Our dependence on oil (from gasoline use) is now shrinking with the change in sales mix and it has nothing to do with CAFE standards.

Government needs to stop trying to dictate consumer choice in this area.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
My argument would be that CAFE standards are useless; the auto industry and our very business-friendly administration set the goal so low that free market pressures (as Clocker described) will prevent them from ever being a ceiling.

A law that won't affect anything shouldn't be a big deal, but consider the amount of tax money going into writing, implementing, and enforcing this law. That makes me unhappy.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
My argument would be that CAFE standards are useless; the auto industry and our very business-friendly administration set the goal so low that free market pressures (as Clocker described) will prevent them from ever being a ceiling.
Actually they're unrealistically high, or they will be when they start changing in the next few years.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
What consumer choice exists in the marketplace in the fuel economy area? There are a limited number of manufacturers and fuel economy across any given vehicle category does not differ by all that much. Example: Compare the 2008 Malibu, Sebring, Accord, Sonata, and Camry. Equip each with a 4 cyl engine and an automatic trans - the most common choice for an American family sedan. The EPA city mileage ranges from 21-22 and highway from 30-31. Not much differentiation there. In fact it looks like the manufacturers - all of them - did what was needed to meet the old CAFE and not much of anything beyond.

I see CAFE as a regulatory tool to drive manufacturers to improve powertrain efficiency. But as implemented it falls short. For instance, to help boost the truck fleet fuel numbers Chrysler had the PT Cruiser, which was nothing but a Neon station wagon, classified as a truck. Another fault was that the efficiency goal was flat. Once a manufacturer achieved CAFE compliance they were done. To be effective it needs to be realistically applied (eliminate the PT Cruiser loophole) and have ever-improving goals.

Given traditional product lifecycles, which run 4-7 years, occasionally longer, I'd say a 5% efficiency improvement every 6 years is realistic. At least for the next 20-30 years.

As to fuel taxes, sure they can curb consumption. But so does higher efficiency. Either one on its own can reduce the demand for refined dino juice. A potential problem arises where increased efficiency offsets the 'pain at the pump' from the higher prices (including taxes). So while either regulation can work on it's own, together they can be at odds with one another.

Right now the market is demonstrating that higher fuel prices will drive consumers to move to more efficient vehicles. But it's a slow migration and individual gains are small unless people radically jump categories, like Expedition to Yaris. I've already noted that it's basically not worth it for me to buy a more fuel efficient car; the cars in the category I'm interested in are barely more efficient than my 9 year old car.

One problem with fuel taxes is that society can only go so far with curbing consumption. Once people have made their lives as fuel efficient as they can they can do no more and must suffer the tax. With efficiency gains people can continue to reduce their consumption.

Ultimately I think we need both. A properly designed CAFE to drive the industry towards continual improvement and fuel taxes to drive consumers to reduce consumption.
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
CAFE is a fleet average ("Corporate Average Fuel Economy") so you can still have 10MPG guzzlers as long as there are enough sippers to make up for it. And lets face it, there will always be demand for vehicles like the Suburban. Something that has a good tow rating and passenger/cargo space.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
With the oil companies screwing the public already, what we don't need is more taxes on gas. It just makes it mean for the working person. Already some people are having a hard enough time buying enough gas to go to work, let alone adding more taxes to it. Our local food banks are getting more and more calls for dog food already. The workers at these food banks belive that people are eating this dog food. A 50lb bag of dog food goes a lot farther than 6 cans of vegies and some balona.

How do you expect someone who gets $900 a month social security and works 20 hours a week at minimum wage to survive???? More taxes???

Bozo :joker:
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
With the oil companies screwing the public already, what we don't need is more taxes on gas. It just makes it mean for the working person. Already some people are having a hard enough time buying enough gas to go to work, let alone adding more taxes to it. Our local food banks are getting more and more calls for dog food already. The workers at these food banks belive that people are eating this dog food. A 50lb bag of dog food goes a lot farther than 6 cans of vegies and some balona.

How do you expect someone who gets $900 a month social security and works 20 hours a week at minimum wage to survive???? More taxes???

Bozo :joker:

How many of these people have cars? The only people around here who complain of gas prices are those who made stupid purchasing decisions. Trucks and (particularly) SUVs are a luxury item.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
How many of these people have cars? The only people around here who complain of gas prices are those who made stupid purchasing decisions. Trucks and (particularly) SUVs are a luxury item.

I think a better question is how many of those people should own any vehicle at all? A car is a serious expense. Even a used car costs thousands of dollars a year. There are better alternatives if your monthly income is that low.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
How many of these people have cars? The only people around here who complain of gas prices are those who made stupid purchasing decisions. Trucks and (particularly) SUVs are a luxury item.
Most of these people have the same car they retired with. They are not driving SUVs.
And, with no public transportation, how do you expect them to get to work? Or the grocery store. Or the food bank?
Most of their driving is within 15 miles of their homes.
If they are driving SUVs or trucks, it is because when their 20 year old car died, the only thing they could afford was a 10 year old car or truck.

I guess most of you live in a large city.

Bozo :joker:
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
the only thing they could afford was a 10 year old car or truck.

I'm sure you thought of this when you wrote it, but one of the things they certainly couldn't afford was a 10 year old car or truck. My grandmother lives on a very modest fixed income in a very small town. She was given the opportunity to sell her house and move into a less expensive managed apartment complex. The primary reason she declined was that it was too far to walk from the grocery store and her doctor.

Owning a car is a luxury. Living far enough from downtown that you need a car is a luxury. Every city I've been to in the world has a lower-class section right in the middle.

Owning/operating a car is not a right, nor is owning a color TV or internet access or many other things that seem to be slipping into the "deserved" category.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
I'm sure you thought of this when you wrote it, but one of the things they certainly couldn't afford was a 10 year old car or truck. My grandmother lives on a very modest fixed income in a very small town. She was given the opportunity to sell her house and move into a less expensive managed apartment complex. The primary reason she declined was that it was too far to walk from the grocery store and her doctor.

Owning a car is a luxury. Living far enough from downtown that you need a car is a luxury. Every city I've been to in the world has a lower-class section right in the middle.

Owning/operating a car is not a right, nor is owning a color TV or internet access or many other things that seem to be slipping into the "deserved" category.

LOL, speaking of 'deserved' category, it seems we have grown a generation of youth that does not understand the world before cell phones. Even the Hispanic maids waiting for the bus I see all the time, talking on their cell phones, cell phone use is epidemic on buses now. Seems like *all* high-school teens I see riding the buses have them. I still have my Dec. 2000 Sanyo bulky cellphone, never replaced the Li-Ion battery, still going, albeit reduced runtime, still using the lowest priced monthly service ever offered. No text message charges, no internet access, no video or other high bandwidth data services, no Blackberry, no iPhone, nothing...I feel so underprivileged :D

One of these days I'll get an upgrade to a video/cam phone with Bluetooth headset capability, w00t (it's the law in Calif soon, must use hands-free while driving...lol, the fines are less than the proposed idiotic water rationing proposal by our idiotic Hispanic mayor, can't water the lawn between 9-4 daily, 15min only for auto sprinklers, $100 fines double for subsequent violations...talk about nanny state, why don't they just have a surcharge for those who use x amount of water over certain minimums, let the rest of us decide whenTF we *need* to water dying plants!).
 
Top