I know: It's definitely not price gouging (insult away, BTW)

In a country that's vastly larger than any EU country. But the only reason for the world oil crisis is because of the big, bad U.S., I guess.

How does Canada's oil consumption match up with its obviously inferior neighbour?

 

And yeah, to a lot of us, $54 a month is a lot of money. Nobody is debating that journalists' pay is criminally low. But again, that's what the market will bear. If all of a sudden everybody in a newsroom who was making less than $30K a year left for a better-paying job -- and if you have a four-year college degree, you're most likely qualified for just about any better-paying job -- well, then, there's a supply-and-demand problem that might cause greedy publishers to rethink their pay scales.

But that's another thread. :-\

 

Well, I go without cable/satellite TV, a landline phone and lattes, so that part of your argument doesn't fly with me. $54 is a lot of money for those of us at small papers just starting out, and yet you insist on acting like it's not.

 

Well, my point is it already should have been done 15 to 20 years ago.

Doing it now is good, but it's a little late.

 

Damn right it should have been done 15 or 20 years ago, and in fact, there was an opportunity to do so, driven largely by government regulation. The American auto industry was dogged by a four-letter word, CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). It turned out a bunch of really crappy cars in the early '80s that few people bought, while the Japanese found ways to build good cars that met CAFE standards.

Then the auto industry caught a break -- the '87 oil market crash. Suddenly, gas was cheap again, and they could start turning out high-profit trucks and SUVs, CAFE be damned. Thanks to auto industry lobbyists, CAFE standards were relaxed ("small cars aren't safe," "farmers need trucks -- won't somebody think of the poor farmers!" "aw, nobody wants small cars anyway.")

Had the U.S. government and the auto industry stayed the CAFE course, one of two things would have happened by 2006: 1/all manufacturers would be building fleets of fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars AND have a stable of alt-fuel vehicles developed or close to it, which would have reduced demand for gasoline or 2/GM and Ford would have already died the painful deaths that they're both in the process of enduring now. You think the economy sucks now; wait until GM declares bankruptcy.

 

"Times are tough. They're tough for oilmen, and they're tough for farmers." [/bobbyewing]

 

Well, I'm kind of glad you brought that up. You may not like what I'm going to say, but . . .

If you're just starting out, things are SUPPOSED to be tough. Sorry, but they just are.

Here's how things were when I was starting out:

--- Country was still in a recession from 1982.

--- Unemployment rate was 10.5 percent (vs. 4.7 percent today).

--- Inflation was more than 10 percent.

--- Mortgage rates were more than 15 percent.

And I had my share of unexpected "issues" to deal with, too: Three flights home because of a relative dying . . . a $1,200 bill from the IRS for penalties and interest on unreported income earned as broke college student freelancing for the local newspaper.

Yes, $54 a month extra is a lot for someone "just starting out."

But we all have our crosses to bear. Even us so-called "rich" guys (if I'm so rich, why am I driving a 16-year-old car that rolled off the assembly line BEFORE Steve Spurrier took the coaching job at Florida?)

Hurricane Wilma cost me $6,000 (that's $500 a month over 12 months for those keeping score at home) . . . and I just got a $700 assessment from the homeowners association for community repairs (that's another $58 a month over the next 12 months starting in August).

 

Yeah, but Sportschick, that's only $54 for somebody who lives 35 miles from work. That's a very, very long commute.
Most people who work at small papers are in small communities and live close to their jobs. When I worked at a small paper, I lived about 5-7 miles from the office. If you live 5 miles from your office, that's 1/7th of what Oz has to pay extra per month.
Which is only about $6.
Oh, and BT? We apparently started at the same time. The interest rate on my first car: 18 percent!

 

Forget the starting-out part. It's mostly still a problem for people who don't live in major metro areas, where there isn't as much public transportation (if at all) and long drives for various reasons (usually work). That's not an age/career thing. That's a geographic thing.

Having lived in a metro area for all but the last four years of my life, I can understand why a lot of people would just not understand what it's like on the other side. Trust me, this sucks. (And I'm not living in Podunk, I'm in a mid-sized city, but it's still sucks.)

 

While I'm flattered you used me as an example, just remember this -- you never know what it's going to feel like walking in another man's shoes. I'm a copy editor, so there's no reimbursement for mileage, which hurts. Add in that raises haven't exactly kept pace with the cost of living (like, say, gas prices) and there's trouble there. So I'm trying to save for a wedding and honeymoon with little wiggle room.

In cities like Boston, New York, D.C. and Chicago, people can get by with metros. In other areas, people can get by with buses. But in the Midwest, it's too spread out for mass transit to work. If you don't have a ride to get from Point A to Point B, you're going nowhere. You have to drive. There are no other options, which is why I laugh when people say, "Well, Americans can learn to drive less. Americans can find other ways to get around." Sure, you can. If you're in a place where that's a viable option.

In my case, it isn't.