November 22, 2010
Energy Prices Boost Rural Living Costs

In the UK the added costs of living in a rural area raises the minimum income needed to live a fairly minimal existence.

The Commission for Rural Communities said someone in a remote village needed 18,600 a year to get by, compared with 14,400 for an urban dweller.

It means a villager must earn about 50% above the minimum wage of 5.93 an hour to reach a minimum living standard.

The report cited transport and fuel as the main extra cost burdens.

Curiously, the difference in living costs for a "rural town" versus an urban area was fairly small as compared to the additional costs of villages or, even more expensive, hamlets. Anyone know what the sizes are for each of these categories?

Since fuel taxes are higher in Britain than in America in a sense the British are living in America's energy future. The higher energy taxes in Britain simulate the effects of futurel higher energy costs due to Peak Oil. If compared today one would expect a smaller price premium in living costs in rural America as compared to rural Britain. Has any reader come across sources of information on living costs as a function of population density in the United States?

Of course, Britain is a much more densely populated country than the US. So one can get further away from populated areas in the US. So I wonder just how remote a remote British village can be, at least in England.

Since I expect Peak Oil to cause a big increase in the costs of transportation the rural area living cost disadvantage will grow. Shipping costs and commuting and other travel costs will all go up faster in rural communities. Also, shipping costs will rise more rapidly in areas more distant from sea ports and cargo rail stations. Though rural areas in farm country will have food supply advantages due to proximity to crops.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2010 November 22 10:13 PM  Energy Peak Oil Adaptations

James Bowery said at November 23, 2010 12:08 AM:

This is legacy nonsense of a managerial elite that enjoy the perk of physically present meat to boss around. If the incorporations had any rationality, they'd just hire B&D/S&M pros -- buy the idiot control freaks off and let producers stay away from them. There is no market-rational reason to disintermediate food, fresh water, clean air and insolated area, given telecommunications.

Now, as I've previously mentioned, the managerial elite _do_ seem bent on denying they're simply sexually perverted parasites that drain productivity to keep meat within reach even if it fries the planet -- as long as they're the last to go. So perhaps I'm being too optimistic...

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright