114
I'm happy that oil prices are going up (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
locked 155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 99 points 7 months ago (76 children)

You know whose hurt by high prices? Poor people. Guess whose not hurt by them? Rich people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 76 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    A lot of people in the US still have states that don't allow mail-in voting, and can't get off work to vote. Those people are poor.

    A lot of poor people voted against this. Didn't matter- they still got it.

    They're going to suffer heavily. We can all try to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but consumers have not had enough power to do anything meaningful at any point in my lifetime.

    Rich people will still technically be affected, but yeah they aren't going to go hungry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    I'm hoping some of the poor people start to realize how dependent they are on gas though. They've been too comfortable with subsidized gas for too long, with us taxpayers all paying to lower gas prices artificially. It's time they notice and start thinking that maybe it's time to think about carpooling or buying smaller cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (63 children)

    Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP's other responses, OP is basically saying "I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money" (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).

    So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 63 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 13 points 7 months ago (23 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    This might be true in some European countries, but it's not in the US. You don't have to be rural to not have public transportation options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    80% sounds very high. Do you have any data to support that? I see rough estimates closer to 50/50. Mass transit isn't viable outside of Metro areas and a lot of people live far from big cities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html

    Despite the increase in the urban population, urban areas, defined as densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas, now account for 80.0% of the U.S. population, down from 80.7% in 2010. This small decline was largely the result of changes to the criteria for defining urban areas implemented by the Census Bureau, including raising the minimum population threshold for qualification from 2,500 to 5,000. The rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as urban — increased as a percentage of the national population from 19.3% in 2010 to 20.0% in 2020.

    They've even tried to prop up the rural population counts by changing the definition, but it still only manages to be 20% anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You can live in a densely populated city and still need to travel long distances regularly though.. Especially if you're poor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I work in many different locations. Some of them remote. I often bring large equipment with me. More than that, my work days tend to be anywhere from 10 hours to 16 hours long, typically with a lot of manual labor included. Some of my commutes can be 2 hours one way. I've worked plenty of those 16 hour days with 4 hours of driving added on top. The thought of riding a bike or running the public transit gauntlet (which, will typically double or quadruple the commute times in my area) is repulsive.

    I think you're massively over-simplifying this issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    45% of Americans have no access to public transportation at all, particularly in rural and outer suburban areas.

    And the primary reason for this is that gas is cheap and that there's little political demand for public transport. Public transport sucks because only the poorest of the poor use it. In places where the working and middle class use it, it actually provides decent service.

    Good public transport and low gas prices are mutually exclusive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Its true! I strongly believe in public transport. Particularly the transport that is also dependent on oil... Where I live though, if I wanted to get to work without my car it would change my trip time from 45m - 1.5h to about 2h-3h. Each way. I don't feel like spending 6h travelling so it's not really a choice for many of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    When I started my job last year they straight up told us Uber doesn't come out there cause it's too rural and Google Maps still hasn't bothered updating to list the street the building was built on last year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Well, in a high gas price environment, workplaces are forced to stop requiring their employees to commute to bumfuck nowhere simply because they can buy land cheap there. Companies that insist on building factories or facilities without any respect for their employees' commuting needs will simply go bankrupt, fools and their money being soon parted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Are car brained people going to be the only ones affected by rising food prices due to an increase in transportation costs? How about those that don't have any other means but to drive to work to make a living because public transportation isn't available and buying an EV isn't an option?

    It's not just an issue for car brained people, it's also an issue for narrow minded people, such as yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    It's a problem right now and getting worse. Long term goals for change are good, but in the best circumstances that takes years of planning and implementation.

    People can cut personal costs, but that shouldn't have to be done. That's simply a work around for people to survive, but we're here to live. I could turn my heat down to 50° in the house, but I shouldn't have to live in discomfort to make ends meet. I could eat just rice and beans but I should be able to afford a balanced diet. Some of us can't just cut costs on transportation because there aren't any other options. Saying to just costs is a lot like victim blaming.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    No, there aren't.

    Plenty of places have no other option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    You're just being pedantic.

    Obviously, the first sentence was meant as a rhetorical refutation.

    Mimicking poor reading skills to make a point smacks of desperation.

    And you're being willfully ignorant when you ignore the main point, that for many drivers there are no good options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    have no other option yet

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    People like you remind me of evangelical Christians.

    You are all perfectly content to have other people suffer in hopes that a wonderful future will emerge.

    If you want to suffer, go right ahead. Don't expect other people to be miserable so you can feel superior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    yeah, let's keep things just the way they are and stop hoping that societal changes can be a motor for improvement

    all I'm saying is there aren't alternatives YET, but situations like this could create a positive change in mindset and eventually infrastructure as well. fine by me if you want to be a glass-half-empty kind of person

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren't very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.

    Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don't think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it's not something they'd use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that's virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can't fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars.

    First of all, American cities also existed before cars.

    Second, many European cities were rebuilt from rubble after WWII to accommodate cars.

    That factor is not nearly the excuse you think it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Building a city wrong doesn't mean "alternative forms of transport aren't very viable;" it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.

    And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they'd fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive -- at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.

    because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind.

    This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities -- including "newer" sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta -- were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, in a major metropolitan area.

    Trains are cool! There's like two train tracks that go through town and they only carry freight. There are no passenger trains anywhere around here.

    We also have buses. They don't come within 5 miles of me. Also a non-starter.

    I guess it's cool to hate cars if you live with your parents, but for those of us with bills to pay, we gotta go get that bread. But uh, have fun with your online gaming or whatever. It's just not sustainable for most of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Unless you drive a much bigger car than you need to (i.e. that guy who drives a ford 350 to the office), there's probably not much to save on engine efficiency. Maybe a liter/100km

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] [S] 7 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    You know who could hurt rich people? Poor people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    That's what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.

    Slavery wasn't ended until the nation was ready for civil war.

    Global fascism wasn't stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.

    Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your "tribe", but they don't directly change anything.

    That's why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That's why we see headlines like "Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats". Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.

    But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think. I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc. A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this. The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.

    How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ? I'd assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.

    People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We'd also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.

    If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren't they changing ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Things aren't bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.

    Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?

    You've been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It's always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can't get enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)