Truck Driving Jobs

whodat54321 · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 475 Location: Phoenix, AZ

a note about china's increasing demands.
how?

because WE sent our jobs there in exchange for their cheap labor, like the
rest of the world. turns out 'just ship it somewhere else' isn't going to be
a long term cost-effective solution for the price of living. oil gets too high
in price, the profit margins are lost in the cost of transporting goods.

i mentioned some time ago that some forward thinking companies (small
and medium sized manufacturers) are already thinking that outsourcing
has peaked and higher costs of labor here will be less of an impact than the
cost of shipping within the next decade.

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3177 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

With or without us, China's economic development will continue, as will their energy requirements.

While I have been a very vocal opponent of shipping American Jobs overseas, that in itself would not significantly alter the world-wide demand for oil. If those manufacturing jobs were still in the U.S., (where I believe they SHOULD be!!) the increased demand for fossil fuels would still be a problem, but our demand here in the U.S. would increase even more than it is increasing now.

In any event, the lack of a cohesive energy policy (or, in practical terms, ANY meaningful energy policy!!) and our lack of fortitude and vision in developing alternative fuel sources is what is hurting us more than anything else.

With alternative fuel and energy sources, the American People would be the winners, which is a good part of the reason that the political leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle, and the corporate fat cats are going to do everything in their power to keep them from being developed.

druid2874 · Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 42 Location: Tacoma, WA

Well where to start??Lets see 1st the oil problem is sort of like a very over weight person. You did not get that way over night. Thus this problem will not get fixed over night. The 1st big speech about oil and that we need to get away from it was in Nixon?s term in1974 He said "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." And he also said "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years."

Then came the only president that was not elected Ford which set back the above statements 5 years to 1985.

Then Mr. Jimmy Carter THE WORST PRESIDENT WE HAD. On April 18 1977 he said these words that achieving energy independence was the ?Moral equivalent of war? And then he started United States Department of Energy He also said in 1978 "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977?never," lol lol sorry

Reagan will put him last

Next President George H.W Naturally one of his strategy's guiding principles was "reducing our dependence on foreign oil." Which never happened

Then President Bill Clinton
In 1992, President Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax on fossil fuels to raise money to reduce the deficit. Clinton's tax proposal would have put a levy on natural gas, coal, and nuclear power of 25.7 cents per million British thermal units. Crude oil would have been taxed at 59.9 cents per million BTU to discourage dependence on foreign oil. The crude oil BTU tax would have raised the price of a barrel of oil by about $3.50, and would have cost the average family between $200 to $400 annually. In 1996, Clinton proposed a comprehensive energy plan that was completely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress

Reagan was the smart one but still did not help the USA out that much but he did something In December 1985, Reagan signed legislation dismantling the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. What happened when all these government attempts to manage our energy supply were cruelly killed? Oil prices dropped from their peak of $37 per barrel in 1981 to less than $14 per barrel in 1986.

So folks the less government puts its fingers in stuff the better it is for us.

druid2874 · Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 42 Location: Tacoma, WA

Also whodat

We do export a lot of jobs out. But we do have a lot of foreign companies come here I.E Toyota, Nissan, Bmw and the like plus many others. And the ones that get imported to here are Higher paying jobs, then the ones that are typically exported. But it seems the latter is never talked about hmmm wonder why.

One · Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 953 Location: Alabama

Nissan, BMW, Toyota...lets add monorail and most other new tech. to that list...why? Because we are way behind the ball at a lot of high tech stuff... maybe weapon tech :lol: but i dont know anything about that...the reason why those companies are here is because they make a better product!

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9864 Location: Tennessee

You all make some good points. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, we are going to be at the mercy of who ever controls the flow of oil. As we have seen in the freight business, competition keeps prices lower. Competition also makes companies operate at a more efficient level. They have to be efficient in order to be competitive. 8)

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3177 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

[quote="ben45750"]

I had read an article about that, the amount of energy it takes to make bio-diesel. To grow and plant the seeds, harvest the product, create more seeds, then refine the product to make bio-diesel.

The article said it takes more energy to make bio-diesel than what energy can be created from the bio-diesel its self. If that is the case and demand is high on bio-diesel would'nt we see the prices just as high as standard diesel? And then what affect will that have on the price of gasoline?[/quote]

Okay, the article "says"???

Here is the problem with that. Who, or what is the source of that information?? Unfortunately, many of the people who write supposedly "scientific" articles are less concerned about proper dissemination of information, and more concerned with promoting an economic or political agenda. Also remember that those figures are compiled based upon the energy production infrastructure as it is now, not as it could be. Consequently, I consider whatever numbers are being tossed about as being rather suspect.

Now, if gasoline was still $1.25 per gallon, then economic viability could be an issue in the short term, but we are now at a point where $100.00 per barrel oil is not at all an unrealistic possibility.

To answer the second part of your question:

Common logic would seem to indicate that the dramatic increases in fuel prices would have a crippling effect upon our economy. So far, our economy has absorbed and digested them, and is continuing to grow, although I do not personally believe that it is growing as well as many of the so-called "experts" would have you believe. There are still some very serious issues to be addressed, and there are some MAJOR problems facing us in the short term.

What you have to remember is that when indexed for inflation, fuel costs have not risen any faster than the cost of housing over the past thirty to fourty years; what HAS happened is that these fuel price increases have been rather drastic, and the price fluctuations have occurred in relatively
short period of time; thus, the impact has been more painful.

Even if hempoline or biodiesel wound up costing as much as fossil fuel based gas or diesel, there would still be much more satbility in terms of supply, the Oil Cartels (and terrorist groups) would have a large source of their revenue decreased, environmental concerns, including water and air quality would be addressed, and the price fluctuations over time would be dramatically reduced.

Ardmore Farms Forever · Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject:

[quote="One"]but if we spent what we spend to kidnapp suspected terrorists in Europe, we could surely build a small Bio-refinery.[/quote]

I'm not quite familiar with the terrorist we have kidnapped............please enlighten us a little bit.

One · Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 953 Location: Alabama

sure, my friend, here are some articles i found just by searching the internet... im not terribly happy with these, but from the amount of reports we can be pretty certain that such things go on....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=12017793
audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4563352

Toothpick · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 321

Quote: sure, my friend, here are some articles i found just by searching the internet... im not terribly happy with these, but from the amount of reports we can be pretty certain that such things go on....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=12017793
audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4563352

Why am I not surprised, every one of your links are to sites that specialize in anti-Americanism and demonizing America, and Israel I might add, every opportunity they get. Moreover, the reports noted that they were preliminary. In other words, it was pure leftist propaganda meant only to supplant the allegations in your mind. A very effective leftist propaganda technique used to expolit the ignorance's and emotions of the masses. In leftist propaganda, the allegations are far more important than the truth. Therefore, the strategy is to bombard your opponent with spurious allegations. Send over a constant barrage, as we have seen both with respect to the war in Iraq and the President.

The NY Times, a very leftist and propagandistic anti-American newpaper in their own right, had to suck it up recently and run a story reporting that all those investigations in Europe conducted by the different EU commissions with respect to allegations of tortue by the American government at hidden locations all came up empty as I expected. Never mind the fact that just detaining terrorists is many times considered tortue in their delusional eyes. However, the problem with all you delusional leftists is the allegations become more important than the truth, and you would rather believe a leftist politically motivated CIA mole and traitor than you would your own government who is only trying to do its level best to protect you and ensure your safety.

My advice, lay off the sites that specialize in demonizing America and otherwise corrupting your mind and learn to think with your mind instead of your emotions. It will only help you to view the world much more sanely and productively in the long run and to learn that America isn't always the monster it's made out to be.

One · Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 953 Location: Alabama

Toothpick, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about! BBC, Reuters and Npr are some of the most respected and objective news-agencies on the face of this planet! Leftist propaganda?? Anti-american? WTF r u talking about? read the article! what does the iraq war have to do with anything? and Bush? they are not the subject of those articles! :lol:

One · Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 953 Location: Alabama

Surely the Washington Post is a 'leftist propaganda' page too in your eyes :lol:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9593

yoopr · Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 12865

NPR?
Yeah right :roll:

Useless · Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 3177 Location: Canyon Lake, Tx.

[quote="yoopr"]

NPR?
Yeah right :roll:[/quote]

On this count, I must agree with Yoopr!!
I'm way too Liberal to be called a Conservative, and way too Conservative to be called a Liberal. Having said that I listen to both conservative talk radio stations, and liberal venues as well.

I listen to NPR.

Do they often present perspectives and ideas that are outside the mainstream??
Yes!!

Can you learn something by listening to NPR??
Yes!!

Does NPR have a balanced or objective format for reporting news??
NOT EVEN!!

I think that listening to both sides of an issue, and hearing argument from both sides of the political spectrum is wise and prudent. I also think that pretending that objectivity exists where it clearly does not is unwise and foolish!!

Just Another "Useless" Observation!!

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9864 Location: Tennessee

I have yet to talk to a journalist who thinks of himself as being biased when reporting a story. I have also yet to see one who isn't biased in their reporting. I am sure that some try to remain unbiased, but we all have our own view point and it is impossible to remain totally unbiased when relating a story. It is just human nature.

I like to hear both sides of an issue. Some are really out there, but it is certainly more interesting to hear views other than your own. I am conservative, but still enjoy listening to NPR and the BBC. If everyone agreed all the time, life would really be boring. :P

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com