In a pure market/capitalistic society, price is set by supply and demand. If prices rise because supply can't keep pace with demand, then demand will go down and prices will follow and/or we will explore for new sources of oil to increase supply, we will find new sources of energy to supplement oil and natural gas, and/or we will develop new technologises to use energy from all sources more efficiently. None of this will happen until the price of oil rises to the point where pursuing alternatives is economically profitable.
I would say that's true when all other things are equal.
For example, if an American telephone support worker could get a support job at Indian wages in an Indian cost of living area as easily as an Indian can, then your rule is a good and fair one.
It already has.
Canada has enough oil sands to supply the world with oil for the next five hundred years, but at $30 a barrel it is not economically feasible to extract it with the steam technology required.
At $70 per barrel, however, it is quite economically feasible and production is being ramped up even as we whine about forcing people to use alternatives.
John Stoessel has an entire chapter on this in his new book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, where he debunks the myth that we are running out of oil.