Hacker News Reader

Comment by huitzitziltzin | Hacker News Reader

Economist here.

For what it’s worth I cannot find evidence that this paper was ever published, so I think it’s safe to say they did not convince the rest of the profession that this was the (or even a) trigger.

I’m sure it’s being shared to suggest that high current gas prices will do the same now. I doubt anyone has any good reason to be confident in such a suggestion.

View on HN

Hi, I’m the OP. I shared this because from a practical perspective it seems that filling a car’s fuel tank is one of the most volatile and essential line items in a typical household budget, and when expensive housing (owned or rented) stretches household budgets, prolonged increases in gas prices could feasibly be a “straw that breaks the camel’s back”, as another commenter mentioned. I appreciate the far more educated perspectives available on HN, so given some of the current parallels (expensive housing, rising prices) and some of the much more unfortunate new variables (war, inflation, supply chain), I wanted to raise the topic for discussion.

I personally think that trends like increased EV/hybrid ownership and WFH could mitigate this issue in particular, but I don’t think these are trends that apply to all Americans equally (especially those with more precarious finances).

Then why not post this as a text post instead of trying to promote your worldview with an unfounded paper? This is extremely dishonest.

I actually felt that sharing this provided a more credible starting point for the discussion than my own viewpoint. I did not think to confirm whether the paper had been published so I’ve learned my lesson on that.

To be honest I’m a bit surprised by the strong reactions as today’s news is filled with different perspectives on the economic consequences of higher gas prices (as unimportant as that is relative to the war in Ukraine) but I appreciate the feedback. There’s no intent to be dishonest or self-serving here but I’m sorry if that’s how it was construed.

> filling a car’s fuel tank is one of the most volatile and essential line items in a typical household budget

With work-from-home I'm finding that this is absolutely not the case anymore. I do walk a block every few days to buy simple groceries that I didn't used to do. This isn't about the car and mostly as a way of making up for the exercise I don't get by going to the office every day and associated incidental walking/meandering.

The FedEx/UPS/Amazon/Doordash vehicles still require fuel. The trucks bringing food and supplies to your local grocery store use fuel. The fertilizer used to grow your food required fuel. The construction and maintenance materials for your current dwelling require fuel. The plumbers, electricians, cleaners, trash collectors, locksmiths, etc require fuel. The container ships that transport good from China require fuel.

Literally everything you use in life, even if you're the most shut-in Hikikomori on the planet, is downstream of fuel. If the fuel cost increases are transitory, you might not notice it. But if they persist, you absolutely will.

Yes, the cost of energy has been important since the 1970's energy crisis. That fact doesn't add much to this conversation. I thought that the point being made was the direct use of fuel was a major line item in personal budget (or near-direct if substituting Uber rides for own car) which doesn't have to be the case.

While were at it, why should anybody trust “the profession” either way?

The link to the paper is broken, wanted to examine their method to see if the analysis is sound

I found it on another site:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.80...

It is being shared for clicks, aka money, regardless of the belief.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com