Slashdot Mirror


Higher Oil Prices Are Starting To Bring Jobs Home

penguin_dance notes a report up at ABC News that high oil and gas prices in the US may be moving jobs back home in a trend that some economists are calling "reverse globalization." It's becoming more and more expensive to ship finished product from other countries, so some companies are moving the manufacturing back to the US. The article hints that this trend may spill over soon to raw materials such as steel. One economist is quoted: "It's not just about labor costs anymore. Distance costs money, and when you have to shift iron ore from Brazil to China and then ship it back to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh is looking pretty good at 40 bucks an hour."

16 of 777 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Interersing trend... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It should be bringing nuclear wessels. With the cost of oil to fire a ship being what it is, the Savannah would have been competitive back in the 70's. The only problem to solve is that high seas piracy still exists and the US government doesn't want the nebulous "bad guys" to steal a nuclear wessel and reuse its atomic fuel for something nasty.

  2. I was hopeful this would be a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently I saw a show that visited Asbury Park in NJ, and it was stated that the slow decline of the park started with cheap airfares. It immediately struck me that this trend should now start to reverse itself, as travel costs are rising while consumer confidence is dropping.

    High gas prices are going to have some bad side effects, but also quite a few good ones. Hopefully, reduced travel will be effected on almost every scale: suburbs will wilt and cities will grow stronger, local foods will become more popular, inefficient business travel will be replaced by online meetings, etcetera. I think most people who have wanderlust aren't going to let higher airline prices stop them, but perhaps they'll take fewer and longer trips in order to reduce expenses - e.g., instead of going to France and Spain on one trip, and the U.K. on another, they'll wait and take a longer trip to visit all three.

  3. Re:Interersing trend... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The 163 pounds of uranium she consumed is estimated to have provided the equivalent power of nearly 29 million gallons of fuel oil."

    That just put everything in perspective. Holy hell. For the amount of money you saved you could hire a small army to arm your vehicle. US Government could nationalize some ships.

    29 million gallons of fuel.

    Damn. Just Damn.

  4. Re:Yay, Pittsburgh by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    my dad owns a drycleaning plant. steel hangers are one of his biggest supply expenses now. a few years ago a hanger might have been $0.10 or so, then 2 or 3 years ago it doubled overnight to $0.20, and a few weeks ago *that* doubled.

    some of the larger hangers are 50 cents each. 50 cents for a metal coat hanger. he needs several hundred of these in a given week, nevermind the price of all the other supplies going up. it hurts, bad, and he has had to raise prices because of it (though not enough to actually cover the added cost)

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  5. Re:Yay, Pittsburgh by John_Sauter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    my dad owns a drycleaning plant. steel hangers are one of his biggest supply expenses now. a few years ago a hanger might have been $0.10 or so, then 2 or 3 years ago it doubled overnight to $0.20, and a few weeks ago *that* doubled.

    some of the larger hangers are 50 cents each. 50 cents for a metal coat hanger. he needs several hundred of these in a given week, nevermind the price of all the other supplies going up. it hurts, bad, and he has had to raise prices because of it (though not enough to actually cover the added cost)

    Perhaps your dad could provide a discount for customers who provide their own hangers.

  6. Too bad by SaintOfAllChucks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they don't make steel in Pittsburgh any more. US Steel may be based here but most of the steel plants are no longer in the region. They make steel in Pittsburgh the same way they make cars in Detroit. Pittsburgh is mostly medical science and hospitals now. When industry comes back to the U.S. it will be in places that are less union friendly. (for the record, I do live in Pittsburgh)

  7. China is the last by thorpie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the 50's it was Japan,
    In the 60's it was Hong Kong
    In the 70's it was Taiwan
    In the 80's and early 90's it was South East Asia
    In the late 90's to now it has been China
    To be worthwhile producing elsewhere you have to be able to produce for less than 30% of your home costs.
    There is nowhere left to go
    We have to manufacture our own again
    So maybe we will get decent working conditions at last!

    --
    The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink
  8. It's also putting the kibosh on the American Dream by gillbates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with telecommuting is that your job is basically dependent on the quality of the IT staff to a much higher degree. My employer tries to do telecommuting, but somewhere between cost cutting in IT, draconian security restrictions, and a dodgy network connection, it fails to be useful for getting real work done.

    We've been looking to move out of our high cost of living area for quite some time, but the rising cost of gas has put that on hold. I would like to buy a house - and can afford one on the edge of the suburbs, but alas, any saving in mortgage payments would be consumed by the cost of fuel. Even though I'm just a fifteen minute commute from work, I spend nearly fifty dollars a week getting there and back.

    So yeah, it might bring some manufacturing jobs back home. But those of us who have become used to working in the city and commuting out from the cheaper communities are finding themselves in quite a bind. I can't afford a house in my current area, and I can't afford the gas to drive from the places where I can afford a house.

    I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I'm going to have to wait another 5 to 10 years for the next housing market crash before I'll be able to move into a house. When my Dad was my age, the loan on his (our) house was up - and he was a factory worker. Today, I make almost four times what he did, and can't even afford a three bedroom house. So much for the American Dream.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  9. Re:Interersing trend... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Even the highest estimates say we'll only get about a 10 dollar reduction in the price per barrel of oil. That translates to a few cents per gallon."

    Well, I think that as soon as they announce that we will start new drilling out there in previously 'banned' areas...that speculators in oil will begin selling off...and that should drop the prices almost overnight back to more normal levels.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Law of Unintended Consequences by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Environmentalists have been hoping for high fuel prices, to encourage use of less fuel.
    They weren't expecting the return of blast furnaces to Pittsburgh, however. So we burn a little less gasoline, and dump tons of coal and limestone in the steel furnaces.

  11. Re:Interersing trend... by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oil companies have leases all over America to drill for oil. They are currently only using 20 percent of these leases.

    They want to get the Alaskan drilling rights because they are GREEDY and want them for down the road when they've drilled all their current leases.

    When you see the president that drilling in ANWAR will help the US, he is LYING. (That, and his lips are moving--so you can tell he's lying.)

  12. Re:Interersing trend... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oil was $10 a barrel in 1999.

    That's down from $34 in 1982 (about $80 in 1999 inflation-adjusted dollars).

    http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

    Why would the saudi's sell oil for $10 when they could sell it for $34?

    Because they can't.

    Every day this goes on, the longer oil prices will be low.

    Every day, more people start carpooling, move closer to work, replace a 13mpg truck with a 31mpg (or higher) car, start riding public transportation, start working from home 2 days a week, start working 9/80 schedules.

    My morning commute is now consistently 5 minutes faster in the morning and 15 minutes faster in the evening because the number of cars on the road has dropped that much.

    Already, Iran is stacking up tankers because their online storage tanks are full.

    Already our national gas usage is down about 4% in one month.

    The current prices are caused by speculation. The same bubble of excess wealth passing through it that passed through the stock market in 1996-2000, housing in 2002-2005, and commodities now. The true "last barrel" cost of producing oil right now is about $50 a barrel. Everything over that is excess.

    Once demand drops like a stone, then the oil companies STILL have to pay the bills. A lot of them are spending money like water. A very few of them are investing the current profits wisely.

    They will sell oil to whoever will buy it- because just like the average salaryman in the U.S., they are just a couple paychecks from being homeless.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  13. Re:Interersing trend... in 1985 by sycodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps you missed the part where the libs, enviro-whackos, and "intellectuals" lobbied successfully against building any new reactors.

    Why the hell should anyone research nuclear power generation technology when there was no way to build them and recoup the research costs?

    You guys fucked it up big time in the 80s by shutting down nukes. Now you are all shitting bricks over "climate change" (not Global Warming anymore, is it?...at least not for another 10 years)

    So the one thing that could have averted the latest end-of-the-world scenario is dead in the water because of a previous end-of-the-world scenario.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  14. Re:Interersing trend... in 1985 by smegged · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok I'll bite.

    Nuclear power, even when considering the one nuclear meltdown that we have had and all the deaths caused by it, has resulted in less deaths than any other form of power generation per MWh generated. Including wind and solar.

    Secondly, Nuclear power in the only baseload power source which does not release significant amounts of CO2. If you believe that we need to reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the next few years to avoid catastrophic anothropogenic global warming, then Nuclear Power is your best currently available option.

    Thirdly, Uranium is one of the most abundant materials in the earths crust - though it does cost quite a bit to extract. We have known reserves that will last us quite some time (though the same is true for coal).

    Lastly, we are currently in the third generation of nuclear power plants, which now in the event of an emergency automatically shut down. i.e. it requires individuals to be pushing buttons to keep the reactor running and in a "dangerous" mode. If human intervention stops, the reactor ceases being dangerous (well excluding the radioactivity danger present in the fuel itself).

    The problem with nuclear power is threefold - public perceptions (generally from irrational fear), high water usage and high long run marginal costs. Canada and France have shown us that nuclear power can provide a significant amount of baseload power relatively safely.

  15. Keep dreaming by doooooosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Guess what's different from 1999...

    - the US dollar is worth ~40% less than it was in 1999

    - there are over 2 billion people whose economy, and therefore demand for energy, is surging.

    - there is an oil supply graph that, rather than increasing every year, has been roughly flat for the past three years (not coincidentally, the time when the price has skyrocketed)

    Oil, in our lifetimes, is a finite commodity. It has an energy return on investment higher than anything else out there right now. There is still a lot in the ground, which is to say, we're not going to run out any time soon. But we have skyrocketing demand and a constrained supply. In the past, high prices have led to exploration and increased production. Well guess what. The large deposits of easy to retrieve oil have been found. We've reached a point of diminishing returns. Oh, there's still a lot of oil. The Saudis continue to pump almost 10 million barrels of it a day, more or less the same amount they've been pumping for the past 5 years. But in that time, they've been bringing new drilling projects online, in order to make up for declining production out of their old fields. And their oil exports have dropped by over 10% in just the past 2 years, due to increased domestic demand from a booming economy.

    You can tell yourself it's all speculation, if it makes you happy. But the supply of oil to global markets is no longer increasing, while demand remains high, globally. And there are a whole lot of people in Asia who will gladly buy any oil that we don't.

  16. It's the 1850's all over again. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think people forget that this is not the first time people have been looking for a new fuel for industrial purposes.

    Up until the 1850's, lighting lamps were fueled by whale oil, and with the rapid decline in the whale population even by then there was considerable concern about what to substitute for whale oil. The discovery of using kerosene derived from crude oil about this period changed all that, and that was the foundation of the oil industry as we know it today.

    Today, rapid changes in technology could make gasoilne obselete as a motor fuel within the next 20 years. The most important announcement was MIT's announcement of research into high-energy supercapacitors using carbon nanotubes back in 2006; that may just open the way for a drastic reduction in the size of the battery pack needed for a battery-electric vehicle (BEV), making it possible for a practical electric car that could carry four passengers in comfort yet go up to 400 km (248 miles) or more on a single charge, and the charge time for the battery pack would be a tiny fraction of even Li-On battery packs.

    That same technology could make it possible to have electrical storage units from home size to city size that could provide power after being charged up by a solar cell array or wind turbine array. I can imagine a single house with a sun-facing solar cell array (now much cheaper thanks to nanotechnology) that provides power during daytime and charges a supercapacitor electrical storage unit for use at night.

    In short, I see within 20-25 years most homes and apartment complexes with cheap solar arrays on their roofs and supercapacitor electrical storage units somewhere in the building.