Suburban commuters may not enjoy paying an average of $4 a gallon for gas, but the rural US, where income levels are low and dependence on large vehicles is high, is getting hit the hardest says the New York Times.
The paper put together a gas impact heat map that shows the percentage of income that’s being spent on gasoline. Some regions with “higher” gas prices still only spend 2% of their median income on gas, while the percentage is as high as 16% in Wilcox County, Alabama.
The local price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was roughly $3.85 last week, slightly below the national average, but the median family income in Holmes County is about $18,500.
Nationwide, regular unleaded gasoline reached an average of $4.005 on Sunday, according to the American Automobile Association. That is the highest price ever and about a dollar higher than at the start of the year.
While looking to cut workers at his fish processing plant in nearby Isola, Miss., Dick Stevens, president of Consolidated Catfish Producers, said that 10 workers walked into his office last week and volunteered to take a buyout rather than continue commuting from Charleston, Miss., 65 miles away. “The gas ate them alive,” he said.
Interactive Gas Impact Heat Map [NYT]
Rural U.S. Takes Worst Hit as Gas Tops $4 Average [NYT]
(Photo: on2wheelz )
More From Consumerist
-
TomTom’s Top Gear-Branded GPS Is Absolute Rubbish
-
California Relaxes Smog Controls In Effort To Bring Down Gas Prices
-
Sandy Prompts Panic At The Gas Pump, Things Get Heated As Customers Rush To Fill Up
-
See All The Pink On This Map? Those Are The 19 Million Americans Without Broadband Access
-
Georgia Law Would Ban Public Broadband Service If Just One Person Has So-So Internet Access
@Trai_Dep: Dang y0, you just got t0r3 up. lol
@johnva: How would you explain the ability for societies to take care of themselves before Social Security? In the centuries before this program, people were forced to make responsible financial decisions to save for living costs after they were no longer able to work, which would include individual savings, pension plans, and the possible reliance on their own children or community groups (churches, charities, etc.). With the modern stock market and other vehicles for investment, even more options are available. Of course I think we should encourage our society to care for its eldest members, I just think that Social Security is a terrible way to do it, and that it inserted a government responsibility where a personal one once worked. At the time it was conceived, it may have been warranted due to extreme and unprecedented economic crises, but it should have been sunsetted so that we could return to the former natural social system. All attempts to do so have been resisted with a vehemence that I wish our politicians could muster against our real enemies.
Vis the Cold War, I think you’ve got your causation mixed up. Soviets become aggressive menace -> US raises economic price of sustaining this menace -> Soviets match spending, massively straining their inferior economy -> Soviet Union collapses -> Cold War ends. As for your question: WHY are we spending to defend rich nations? Your guess is as good as mine. They should be shouldering these costs. Maybe they don’t want to divert the money from social programs, for fear that the populations will kick all the pols out of office? I really don’t know. That said, I wouldn’t support the defense spending cut your propose, just a reallocation of current expenditures.
GAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! I’M RIGHT; YOU’RE ALL WRONG!!!!!
There, now I feel like a part of this conversation.
Ah. The Western Europe having better quality of life, living standards, health, education and teen pregnancy stats than the US. And the fact that the currency markets – hardly sentimental, irrational beasts – have decisively voted that Western Europe has a much better prognosis than what resulted after total Republican control of the Federal government for nearly two Presidential terms.
Okay, the GOP ran things. They mollified the press, shouted “TERRORIST” at any Dems that raised issues of Checks & Balances, oversight or metrics. They won. They got their way. Ta da!
So why is it that our stats are worse than Western Europe’s? The EU has shown it’s possible to successfully balance the various inputs in a fiscally responsible fashion – if there’s the will.
Why are their metrics of the important things so high, their fiscal policies so resoundingly approved of by the global capital markets, while the unfettered GOP’s vision and implementation such a relative failure?
More colorfully, in the era of the Permanent Republican Majority, why weren’t knocked-up schoolchildren, torture, unhealthy societies and crippled economies addressed?
Too busy saving Terry Schiavo? Too many Congressional pages to boink? Too many no-bid contracts to write? Too many Oil Industry checks to cash?
Is it that they (you) don’t care, or they (you) are incompetent?
@ Bladefist & AtomicPlayboy:
Stay positive; don’t get dragged down into the name-calling and trash-talking. Hammer the facts and some folks will eventually come around.
@MsClear: You gotta give in somewhere. Cold fusion is not knocking on our door.
Our problem is we have a pretty big pill of bad, bad medicine to swallow. And everybody is not sure of what the actual cure will be. People, pundits, and interest groups are all prescribing different treatments that may or may not treat the actual illness.
The fact is we use to much oil. Much of this has come by happenstance and a “take it as we go” mentality.
Fact: We are the world’s largest economy, our country composes one of the largest land masses in the world. We are one of the most populous countries in the world.
Fact: We are the world’s only hyperpower with all the responsibilities implied, assumed, inferred or whatever.
Fact: We are the largest polluter in the world.
So, global warming and climate change are uniquely ‘our own problems’ that we have to solve. Do you think that any other individual first world country has such an impact on the planet as whole…? If the UK, Germany, France and Japan all went to zero emissions would that stop it? Would it lower oil prices? Would they have the gravitas to convince India and China to think about environmental issues?
Only if we start addressing issues now, will it work for the benefit of us and the planet.
Here in MA, it is a friggin’ microcosm of all the problems…
1) Alternative energy– Ted Kennedy of Hyannis and His Friends on The Islands have pretty much put the kibosh on The Cape Winds Project that would supply up to 75% of the electricity needs of the Cape and the Islands. Why? Oh, because on a very clear day, on the horizon (from Hyannis)you would see white towers about an inch and a quarter high. Oh, and at night, you’d see aviation marker lights bespoiling your privileged view. You’d think these ‘liberal’ movers and shakers would take the hit. But it’s NIMBY all the way.
2) Rail– If you looked at any MBTA map until 2006 you would see a very curious ommission. The South Shore suburbs of Boston have no commuter rail. You would think that some of the richest, liberal towns full of CEOs and the like would want a commuter rail line…?! Oh Noes. Not that. It’s so bad that the town of Hingham demanded and underground tunnel so their ‘historic’ downtown would be safer and in tune with it’s history. Yeh, like that TCBY around the corner from the CVS and Benjamin Moore store have been here since colonial times? The cost: $90 million. The haughty in Hingham had the nerve to call it, “The Little Dig”. Barf. That 90 million, I believe is fully 1/4 or 1/5 of the TOTAL BUDGET for the line.
I think all options should be on the table. And not the ones, that necessarily enable our continued dependencies.
@Trai_Dep:
You, sir, are a Socialist. That probably doesn’t hurt your feelings. Sad.
@mgomega: Yea thanks for the reminder. I got a little frustrated on this debate.
@mgomega: Yeah, trying to do so. It helps when the responses are so breathlessly nonsensical that they seem like self-parody. It’s like judo sometimes.
@AtomicPlayboy: It’s telling that you chose to critique a point that I already ceded was rash.
That’s the fun of it for us: exchanging ideas and learning. Not throwing shop-worn slogans at each other.
Which brings another point. We say things, supported by facts, listen to others’ supported opinions, evaluate and either counter with other reliable fact-based opinions or accept the other’s point. Graciously, we hope.
I viewed things thru a Red vs Blue State prism regarding gas costs relative to income. Then fizzyg graciously pointed out a better way of looking at things. I slapped my forehead, realized his facts beat mine, his point beat mine, ceded the point to him and we’re both better men because of it.
This was a good morning because I learned something today.
You guys don’t get that. More’s the pity. You should try, though. You’ll have a happier, more fulfilling life. (shrug)
@mgomega: Cute. Case in point proven in under 2 comments. Excellent!
So, you don’t think the metrics are important? Or you simply think slogans trump finding optimal solutions to building a better America?
I’m not sure at this point if the bad taste in my mouth at the moment is because of all of the disinformation and republican/democrat posturing in this discussion, or if it is from trying to siphon the gas out of my lawnmower this morning so I could get to work today.
Either way, it still costs me less per month (even with current gas prices) to drive to work with my husband than for both of us to purchase monthly passes for mass transit.
@xanax25mg: Hmm…it may have something to do with the guy being a borderline Marxist as well. Sorry, I pay enough taxes as it is to support an already bloated federal government. I don’t want more of both, which is all that man promises for anyone who really works for a living.
Mass transit in the United States, independant of the major cities whose transit systems were being implemented at the turn of the 20th century are unworkable in the US. Look at any relativley new mass transit attempt, specifically above/below ground trains, attempted in the US within the last 30 years. They are dismal failures that cost far above what they were promised, don’t deliver on any of the ridership statistics initially cited, and have done nothing but line the pockets of politicians and developers.
I bet most people living in LA don’t even realize that it has a subway. Probably because it doesn’t even begin to serve the populations transportation needs. For a city with a major budgetary disaster looming, blowing 80 million on turnstiles for the redline doesn’t se… Then again, they don’t call it la la land for nothing.
America is not Europe. We are not condensed into city-states with staggering population densities that support the kind of mass transit that is utilized there.
@Wormfather: Oh I also should mention that every state has a different formula for the gas that can be sold in their respective states. That means that production needs to be stopped, things adjusted and started up again. That costs tons of money. I belive that the federal government needs to step in and mandate a single standard for the nation. That would knock prices down at least 5%.
Say wha? Gas blending is done in tanks, not as part of the refining process itself. And these tanks don’t exist just for that purpose — a whole range of different fuels and chemicals are produced through the refining process, not just gasoline. And it’s the rare refinery that sells to more than a handful of states — that’s why they’re located all throughout our country.
@stevegoz: I’m not an expert on this, but what wormfather said is what I’ve always heard as well.
@Trai_Dep: You continue to miss (or perhaps disregard) my overarching point: _Think_ before you post. If something is “rash”, it should hit your own internal bullshit filter before you expend the effort to write it in a forum. But it’s obvious that your schadenfreude for the plight of the red-stater couldn’t be contained.
Are you ready to cede _my_ point that your statement “I guess Republicans simply like knocked up schoolchildren, torture, unhealthy societies and economies” is completely idiotic, or are you so wed to that Leftist narrative that you can’t see why others may regard you as a little unbalanced for making such a proclamation? Snark is not a substitute for reasoned persuasion, at least it’s not outside the far Left echo chamber in which you seem to dwell. Perhaps that could be another lesson for the day to aid in your pursuit of fulfillment?
@Wormfather:
Actually, five years ago, the price of oil was expected to drop following the conclusion of OIF and the rebuilding/restarting of a number of wells and production facilities closed since the late 1990s.
Furthermore, what I was talking about is the increasing concern that the U.S. will launch a preemptive campaign against Iran and/or the possibility of an exchange between Iran and Israel, which could cut off Kuwait and all shipments through the Straits of Hormuz, a la the tanker war. That, and production cuts by Venezuela.
Yeah, I mentioned 50 state gas/diesel in my original post. The state-by-state, seasonal blends are nutty.
Wrong, OPEC has had a vital interest in our economy due to the fact that crude is priced, by law, in US dollars, no matter which market its sold in. If the dollar drops (which it has, to say the least), they take a major hit. China is able to keep demand high by subsidizing the cost of gasoline, which is funded at a rate of about 40% by Beijing. Where’d they get the money to fund the subsidies, you ask? Why, they buy our debt and reap the benefits of our massive interest payments.
As a person who lives in the midwest but didnt vote for Bush either time I have just accepted the fact that I will pay for gas whatever they ask. Have to own a pickup because of the feet of snow we get each year. Only live 3 miles from work, but yeah I drive home for lunch everyday because time with my family means more to me than saving a few dollars.
Bottom line, if you are that upset, do something about it, or shut up and live with it.
@AtomicPlayboy: Facts trump facts.
Show me reliable stats indicating EU has worse metrics on a broad range things that matter and that GOP policies were responsible, or you’ve lost the argument. Dead man walking, as it were.
That’s how grown-ups discuss things. Try it sometime.
And for the love of gods: learn The Elements of Style. Please?
@Bladefist: @Bladefist: @mgomega: @AtomicPlayboy: Aww, I thought Fleshbot hosted the Monday circle-jerk. Did I not get that memo?
@Trai_Dep: You do this every single time. You make statements, then when someone debates you, you tell them to go find facts. How about you do the leg work for once? Lets see your western europe cheat sheet that you use for the basis for all your arguments.
Saying “go find me 20 links to prove me wrong” doesn’t make you right. Maybe in your world. No body wants to read your book man. Based on the title alone, I would say you need to read it again.
I only skimmed the comments but it looks like most of the arguing is over whether or not the high gas prices are the fault of President Bush, Republicans, or the federal government as a whole.
Frankly, I’m just upset that everything down here has to be spaced so far apart without decent transportation alternatives (if they exist at all). Maybe we wouldn’t have to spend so much our income on gas if everything wasn’t 20+ miles away or there was a bus or a train that could get you there.
The city I live in now does have bus service, thank goodness, but not even taxis will go to the neighborhood I grew up in anymore (because too many people just wanted to get to the grocery store and they weren’t making enough money). Back home if you’re not driving, you’re not getting there.
@Trai_Dep: So it’s a “fact” that “Republicans simply like knocked up schoolchildren, torture, unhealthy societies and economies”? And this is also an example of how grown-ups discuss things? Perhaps this is the approach outlined in this “Elements of Style” you keep pushing? Does this guide help you produce such rhetorical genius as: “Okay, the GOP ran things. They mollified the press, shouted “TERRORIST” at any Dems that raised issues of Checks & Balances, oversight or metrics. They won. They got their way. Ta da!”? I’ll have to give all of this a try, as my attempts to advance a thoughtful argument through articulate language seem to be losing you.
I haven’t lost an argument because you haven’t even started one. You’ve simply loaded a shotgun with Leftist talking points and shot it into the crowd. If you really want to argue about the relative state of the US vs. EU, and Republican culpability for the degradation you posit, you’ll need to do better than proclaim that the social metrics you cite are a.) relevant to the discussion at hand, and b.) indicative that the EU is somehow superior to the US in a significant way. I don’t see how a relatively higher rate of teenage pregnancy, the lack of universal health coverage, or the lower scores on standardized tests have prevented the US from being the greatest, if imperfect, engine of industrial, scientific, and peaceful progress the world has ever seen. Nor do I see the connection to gas prices.
If you need specific facts (home ownership rates, life expectancy, ease of new business start-up, etc.) to support the assessment of the US I’ve given, I suppose you’ll also be needing facts to support the contention that the world is round or that the sky is blue. Under those rules, I’ll be happy to “lose” the argument, thanks.
@drjayphd: Sorry, did you show up expecting the fecalphiliac symposium? I think they moved that.
To defend my earlier statement, I was naming the Iraq War as a large cause of price increases in oil.
While it is true the war itself may not be DIRECTLY responsible for the high prices, it did provide a convenient scapegoat for the oil industry to blame high prices on, prices that would never have gotten so high if there was not an easy excuse available to explain why.
@dragonfire81
Have the oil companies blamed Iraq for the high price? If they have, I’ve never heard about it. I as have others, continue to expound upon the real reasons for high prices of fuel/oil. Higher demand from other nations such as China which has seen oil demand skyrocket over the last 8 years. China which is the second largest consumer of oil at around 7mm barrels per day, whose economy continues to grow by 10% a year, and which has a population 4 times that of the US will be the major source of oil demand for the forseeable future. Their impact on worldwide consumption is probably the biggest single factor influencing oil prices today, other than the weakening of the US dollar for which oil is traded.
Over the last two years, China and India accounted for about 70 percent of the increase in energy demand, thus one could deduct that the price has corresponded with that increase, thus we have a doubling of price for crude over the last year. These are IAE estimates, which are proving to be drastcially low in the face of recent events.
@MrDo: actually, the ctfc has talked about investigating manipulation in futures trading – specifically in regards to oil futures. now this could all be political hogwash, or it could prove manipulation.
here’s a link to the story –> [money.cnn.com]
or if you prefer –> [www.bloomberg.com]
& here –> [www.foxnews.com]
@MrDo: & another possible cause could be the vertical integration of the marketplace. when are we going to require oil companies to divest their holdings like we did with the movie industry & the paramount decrees?
I’m commenting from the sidelines today, although I was amused by the timeliness of The Good American and Monsieur Obama [NYT] (warning, not safe for Republicans).
@Trai_Dep: I’ve read the Elements of Style. It’s a load of crap, outdated, and stuffy. The similarly titled Elements of Typographic Style, however, is a beautiful book.
@AtomicPlayboy: I haven’t lost an argument because you haven’t even started one. You’ve simply loaded a shotgun with Leftist talking points and shot it into the crowd.
I gotta give you some respect for that line.
Those that drive their Hummer 2 blocks to Starbucks for a $5.00 sugar laden , coffee shake are rather hard to feel sorry for.
@Michael Belisle: Starting to like you more and more.
I read your first link, you’re right, not republican safe. I almost puked.
@AtomicPlayboy: Fun fact: Bladefist, MrDo, etc. can debate without resorting to ad hominems. Try to be more like them.
All else fails, we can just collectively roll our eyes at @LosersHaveCreditCardDebt‘s oh-so-topical drive-by…
It’s really a shame that higher oil prices are now starting to trickle down to the rural areas and to an extent, for the people that help feed and run a good part of the economy of this country.
If anything, the cost for the consumer is only going to get higher until we get used to it or there’s some nice solution to all this (deus ex machina LOL). Ah well, nothing’s ever perfect forever.
@drjayphd: Thanks for the tip, but I think I’ll continue to smack someone down now and again when I see him smear intellectual excrement all over his crib.
@johnva: See, you fall into the false hope that Beast will be wished away. People have been fighting the devil for thousands of years and he rears his ugly head time and again through history.
You can wish it away or you can be the grownup and be prepared and take action if necessary. You can talk to rattlesnakes and wolves all you want but they will never turn to doves and lambs.
Carthago delenda est.
@xanax25mg:
The differences between Republican policies and DFL policies is that the increase in gas prices under a DFL administration would come from higher taxes on the gas to provide for “social programs”. It’s all about where you want to get hit, and I for one would rather get it in a fashion I can control, rather than one that will need to be “re-evaluated” if America does change it’s fuel-consumption habits.
@Bladefist: Here’s the thing. When one cites a commonly known fact (EU vs US metrics pointing the way I’ve said, or Big Oil contributing to the GOP more than Dems as we had to pound into your brain a few days ago), that person doesn’t have to cite sources.
If your media diet is so poor that you’re not aware what the consensus is, it’s not the responsibility of those with broader, meatier diets to school you. It’s the person making counter-intuitive claims that needs to cite. US teen pregnancy rates being lower than many European ones, or Oil Companies contributing to both parties equally, as you claimed previously, isn’t the consensus view. The onus is on you. Sorry but it’s not my job.
But – c’mon, admit it – facts won’t change your mind. Still think Big Oil favors Dems & Repubs equally, right? In spite of us proving otherwise?
Ball’s still in your court, kids. Middle school debate stunts aside, you’re both dodging. Address the points raised or slink off.
@Michael Belisle: I’d agree. I haven’t read Strunk since 9th grade? The difference is Atomic still thinks that baroque is “smarter”. For him, it’s a step up.
It’s hard here in the Midwest. I live in a rural farming community and there is no public transportation even in the suburbs of St. Louis because of the fear of “city people” coming into their communities. Here, most people are employed in house-maintenance trades or farm the land. Both require a lot of fuel. My husband’s company is 20 miles from home (and chosen for a reason) but they contracted him out for an additional 15 miles a trip. We have older cars with good mileage and did some maintenance to cut our monthly gas down $50/month but it adds up here. Not to mention the flooding here is killing the crop potential for soybeans, sod and corn.
it’s not the president, it’s congress who has passed so many regulations/taxes on oil companies. there are only so few places we can drill before we need more oil.