- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mansion sales and discount dining: oil rout hits Houston's rich
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:04 pm to Chicken
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:04 pm to Chicken
quote:
The people spending are helping the economy.
That doesn't make me feel bad for them if they weren't responsibly saving their earnings. These threads don't separate feelings about the people losing jobs and legitimate economic issues. I can feel bad or not feel bad for certain people while still hoping the economic part of this issue can be settled
Plus with the lower oil prices, I would imagine there will significant impacts economically in every other area. Car dealerships and manufacturers should be doing very well. Farmers should be doing better. The average American should have more money in their pocket to be spent at restaurants, movie theaters, stores, etc. The economic impact of these people losing their jobs is far more severe in local and limited markets, like mansions in Houston, vs total economy issues, like mansions nationwide. It looks worse for people in LA and Texas than the rest of the country.
I'd also add that oil is becoming closer to a free market now than it has been in the past. The people profiting off of monopolized industry are suffering, but everyone else is prospering, and eventually things will settle out to where they should be, and the market will prosper for it
Edit: to sum up, do I feel bad for people losing their jobs? Yes, I do. However, that doesn't make me feel differently about the market righting itself when sanctions are removed.
Anyone arguing for increasing oil prices to get these people their jobs back needs to ask themselves how that is different from welfare or minimum wage increases. In all the cases, you feel bad for people and want to provide them with money that the market has determined they should not be earning. All of these will be paid for by the rest of Americans as well. Welfare will be paid for by taxes, and minimum wage increases and more oil jobs will be paid for by increases in product costs and oil costs, respectively.
Adding oil jobs for the people that lost them would require oil to go back up in price significantly. Let's say that new price is 2.50/gallon total. Average American drives 12k miles per year in a 20 mpg car. Do the math and that $1 price per gallon increase costs every American $600 a year. How many of you would normally fight for all of us to pay an extra $600 a year to help unemployed people?
Edit 2: don't know how I went from summing up to doubling the size of my post
This post was edited on 2/26/16 at 1:16 pm
2
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:20 pm to RedRifle
What I saw in Katy was that if you are selling a home worth about $300K there was a lot traffic and interest still. I had >20 showings in the first 2 weeks and had a contract in week 3 for about 98% of what my home would have sold for a year ago.
Once you get up in the 500K+ range, they are sitting on the market a lot longer and there is not nearly as much traffic. I saw multiple houses that were slashing their prices anywhere from 10-20%.
Once you get up in the 500K+ range, they are sitting on the market a lot longer and there is not nearly as much traffic. I saw multiple houses that were slashing their prices anywhere from 10-20%.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:21 pm to Upperdecker
quote:who said they weren't responsibly saving their money?
hat doesn't make me feel bad for them if they weren't responsibly saving their earnings.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:34 pm to slackster
Smart man. You hit the nail on the head. The industry has gotten so efficient and supply is bountiful. It's just easy to get the stuff out of the ground and there's so much of it.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:36 pm to brgfather129
Superman to the rescue:
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:05 pm to Chicken
How many responsible people have to sell their houses and vehicles immediately after losing their jobs because they can't afford them?
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:32 pm to Quidam65
quote:
corporate housing for your admins.
go on...
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:39 pm to RedRifle
If the poors start moving into River Oaks, I'll have to relocate to my ranch in Montana.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:39 pm to member12
quote:
but I imagine a place like Katy or Sugarland will manage them better than Houston proper.
Sugar Land manages them just fine. They won't let them build them. It has to be special circumstances to get built and the citizens will protest full force. They've only allowed about 2 projects in the last 5 years and only allow one class A builder to develop.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:39 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
Adding oil jobs for the people that lost them would require oil to go back up in price significantly. Let's say that new price is 2.50/gallon total. Average American drives 12k miles per year in a 20 mpg car. Do the math and that $1 price per gallon increase costs every American $600 a year. How many of you would normally fight for all of us to pay an extra $600 a year to help unemployed people?
The idea is that the $600 saved annually by Americans is less significant than the overall negative impact by the jobs lost.
To put it in very simplistic terms, it takes 100 people saving $600/year on gas while also spending that money elsewhere to offset the economic cost of 1 person getting laid off who was making $60k/year and spending it. It obviously is not that simple, but it illustrates the point.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 2:51 pm to Cdawg
That's why I love living here.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 3:52 pm to slackster
quote:
The idea is that the $600 saved annually by Americans is less significant than the overall negative impact by the jobs lost. To put it in very simplistic terms, it takes 100 people saving $600/year on gas while also spending that money elsewhere to offset the economic cost of 1 person getting laid off who was making $60k/year and spending it. It obviously is not that simple, but it illustrates the point.
This is true, no problem there. But the number of people in the US is far more than 100X then number of people that have been laid off from the oil industry. For your argument to be worthwhile, 1% of the country would have to have been laid off, which would be the savings per person would equal the lost economic impact per job lost. 1% of the country is greater than 3 million people. I'd estimate well fewer than 1 million have lost their jobs due to the oil lay-offs
Posted on 2/26/16 at 3:57 pm to Upperdecker
Which is whyi said it isn't that simple. People are getting laid off who made well into the 6 figures. Additionally, the spending of those in the field that still have jobs has been cut drastically. Also, the people saving on gas aren't spending all of that savings.
ETA: Saving the money in your bank account doesn't help anyone economically. Spending it starts all kind of multipliers, so the impact is much farther reaching.
ETA: Saving the money in your bank account doesn't help anyone economically. Spending it starts all kind of multipliers, so the impact is much farther reaching.
This post was edited on 2/26/16 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 2/26/16 at 4:14 pm to slackster
It's time to enact a 75 cent a gallon gas tax to send $105 billion to provide the O&G extraction workers the QOL that they are accustomed to.
You could give $100k to over a million people. Those people will spend money and create even more jobs.
You could give $100k to over a million people. Those people will spend money and create even more jobs.
This post was edited on 2/26/16 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 2/26/16 at 5:32 pm to slackster
quote:
Which is whyi said it isn't that simple. People are getting laid off who made well into the 6 figures. Additionally, the spending of those in the field that still have jobs has been cut drastically. Also, the people saving on gas aren't spending all of that savings.
ETA: Saving the money in your bank account doesn't help anyone economically. Spending it starts all kind of multipliers, so the impact is much farther reaching.
Oil workers save money at the same rate the average American does I'd imagine. That's gonna cancel your argument out
Posted on 2/26/16 at 5:36 pm to Upperdecker
Actually, oil and gas extraction only employs 200,000 people in peak times so with $105b you could pay all workers $500k. Not a bad deal for 75 cents a gallon. Still better than $4 gas and destroys our coast line less.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 6:16 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
d pay all workers $500k.
They could all tote solid gold truck nutz
Posted on 2/26/16 at 6:19 pm to RedRifle
quote:
Rockov lost his job as Linn Energy LLC's (LINE.O) CFO in August.
Linn's about to go brankrupt.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 6:23 pm to RedRifle
quote:
s an SEC filing showed he involuntarily sold 239,000 shares of the company's tanking stock he had used as a collateral for a loan
So even executive oilfield baws live paycheck to paycheck?
Posted on 2/26/16 at 6:25 pm to Kafka
Kafka, I meant to upvote, my apologies
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News