5 ms·

> I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that

by IMTDb 5y ago

> I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment. > And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices. Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category. All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.

leaflets2 5y ago
Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. > Those who can't will start rioting, Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. > It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can." If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. > In practice, many people just can't do that. Seems I wasn't detailed enough. There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others. But most people aren't farmers or electricians. > Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers. Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. 1. While I acknowledge that people you talk about exist, I suspect that they're predominantly middle class, not the poor (ie. "people who can't swallow the cost"). If you don't have a baseline amount of wealth, then it's hard to have a car to go to costco to buy those 48 packs of toilet paper, and if your home is a shoebox 1bd apartment, you'll have a hard time finding place to store all the stuff you bought in advance. 2. there's only so much you can do "planning months ahead". You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. >Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. >But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 >If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. Why's that not happening right now? >I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this? >> They bought all the toilet paper > 1. While I acknowledge that [...] > 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors. >> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine > see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would. Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work. Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation? >> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > Why's that not happening right now? I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all? I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people. >> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it? I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines. Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel. (I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)

by IMTDb 5y ago

leaflets2 5y ago

Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. > Those who can't will start rioting, Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. > It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can." If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. > In practice, many people just can't do that. Seems I wasn't detailed enough. There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others. But most people aren't farmers or electricians. > Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers. Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.

gruez 5y ago
>Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. 1. While I acknowledge that people you talk about exist, I suspect that they're predominantly middle class, not the poor (ie. "people who can't swallow the cost"). If you don't have a baseline amount of wealth, then it's hard to have a car to go to costco to buy those 48 packs of toilet paper, and if your home is a shoebox 1bd apartment, you'll have a hard time finding place to store all the stuff you bought in advance. 2. there's only so much you can do "planning months ahead". You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. >Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. >But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 >If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. Why's that not happening right now? >I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this? >> They bought all the toilet paper > 1. While I acknowledge that [...] > 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors. >> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine > see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would. Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work. Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation? >> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > Why's that not happening right now? I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all? I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people. >> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it? I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines. Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel. (I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)