Not to be viewed as a smart-ass here but this is funny.

First you pull the quote from Chris:
"Of course leisure time is worth something. But, there's no reason to expect it to be worth the same thing as working time"
and you state emphatically he is "wrong".

Then you turn right around and confirm what he said with this: "Sometimes it's worth more, and sometimes it's worth less."

Just thought you'd want to be aware and tighten up your arguments in the future.

Of course leisure time is worth something. But, there's no reason to expect it to be worth the same thing as working time.

Wrong. Sometimes it's worth more, and sometimes it's worth less. Read a chapter on consumer choice theory. The more you have of something, the less relative worth it has. The more you work, the more value you'll begin to place on leisure.

Would you be more comfortable with a private transit system? One where large employers (or groups of employees) have vans/small buses and they could park and ride (voluntarily, of course)?

Sure. If it wasn't for the damage to the economy, I'd love $10/gallon gas because my commute time, which has already become noticeably more pleasant and shorter due to $4/gallon gas, would be even better.

Kevin S. also wrote: "Can we agree that we should be free to make those value judgements without a mandate from gov't?"

Sure. That's my preference. It's a subjective preference, however.

IMO, it would be a huge economic risk to have a majority of the nation's workforce dependent on public transportation systems. That's just plain scary.

The value of one's time is highly individual. For me, it may be possible that a doubling of gas prices today actually saves me money. How, you ask? It might make using public transportation a net gain for some or most people, thus reducing traffic and allowing me to get around faster, increasing my efficiency. It might also make our public transportation sytem more efficient and possibly self-sufficient thereby reducing my tax burden (Although I have little doubt it would be diverted to some other useless cause). Other people whose time is not as valuable in real dollars, may find public transportation more valuable than $8 gas.

Can we agree that we should be free to make those value judgements without a mandate from gov't?

Does this: "It occurs to me that most people who are making a case for the relief of waiting in line are using something unpleasant as the alternative to waiting in line – a meeting at work, a honey-do list, hiding from an unpleasant boss, etc." make the case being made any less valid?

and

Do we know any of these: "But for those who just love queuing up for its own sake"?

But for those who just love queuing up for its own sake, please contact me. I need somebody to go to the post office, the DMV and a variety of other government offices on my behalf.

Mule,

"I'm trying hard to wrap my brain around his contrarian position (or is it more of a dissenter-for-dissent's sake role?)."

My contrarian position is taken simply from intellectual honesty, no more, no less. You will see below the relevant parts of the post Don made that prompted all of this discussion; and, in that seeing you and others will note that it is indeed a blanket statement/claim that waiting in line must be calculated as a cost to all consumers.

Now, shift gears here with me for a moment, and suppose that Don reads an opinion piece in the on-line NY Times (and he has plenty of times) and sees where Mr. X, a devout left wing clueless ideolouge, calls for complete regulation of an obviously corrupt system of capitalism and all markets because Mr. Y, CEO of Marbles Inc. looted his employee pension fund and abscounded to the Virgin Islands leaving the poor Marbles Inc. retirees destitute.

With that supposition tell me what Don's most probable response would be. I am confident that he would respond that to condemn captialism because of the actions of a morally corrupt individual would be a huge mistake because they system was not what was wrong, it was the individual crook. And, Don would be correct to do just that. He would know that the blanket statement made by the clueless Mr. X had no basis in reality and would not hesitate to say so.

My contrarian position stems from doing the exact same thing by inserting the understanding that what is cost to one may not be calculated as cost to all in the same way or even to the same extent. I submit that one would even have to consider that there is one individual out there that might consider waiting in line as no cost nor as a benefit, in other words in his life it is a nuetral thing.

Furthermore, I also make the contrarian position because I still feel like Don's original post on this subject seemed to me to be that stretch beyond reason to justify acceptance of current gas prices, to the point that it seemed like he was shilling for the industry. And, that surprised me.

Last point before I go and it relates to this:
"When you see a long line at airport security, do you think "Hey, perhaps this long line itself is a blessing, for I can make no blanket statement about whether or not the persons waiting in that long line enjoy doing so or not"?
Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Jul 29, 2008 9:11:01 AM"

Again, my point is not about what I think about any particular line, my point is that I can look up the line and see many different people in many different situations in their life, and their perception of the cost/benefit of that line may differ dramtically.

For instance, Mule and Don, I can look behind me in that airport line that is dragging for me and I see a young soldier with a wife and child who are clinging to each other trying to hide the tears and pain of separating again as he leaves for another tour in Iraq and I know he is praying for the line to crawl so he can be with his family for those precious few more moments……and brother that crawling line is a benefit to him. A cost to me, a benefit to him.

Now how do I know that the guy in the line next to mine at the gas station is not a devout Catholic who will not divorce, but has made a terrible decision in a wife? Anything that keeps him legitimately away from his home may be a benefit to him. And, there behind him is an abused wife whose crawling line is legitimately keeping her away from going home and she cherishes each of those moments the line keeps her secure. A cost to me, a benefit to her.

Of course those people are of my imagination, but tell me the possibility of them existing in any given line in any given circumstance is not to be thought of. A cost to me, a benefit to them, and neither you nor I know who they are. My sole and only point.

July 25, 2008
The Cost of Gasoline
Don Boudreaux

Is gasoline now more expensive for consumers than it was in the 1970s (as claimed by, among others, the author(s) of this article in the most recent issue of The Economist)?

The 1970s were notorious for long queues at filling stations. These queues meant that consumers back then paid not only with dollars at the pump, but also with hours spent waiting in line (not to mention suffering anxiety over the prospect of being unable to get gasoline at all).

The important pont is that, no matter how you slice it, the full price that Americans paid for gasoline during the many shortages of the 1970s was higher than the simple money prices they paid at the pump.

I can honestly say that there were a couple of times when my day at work was so hectic that I didn't truly "mind" sitting in traffic on the way home, knowing my wife would ambush me with a honey-do list before my car was even parked. But those were distinct outliers that would have to be thrown out of this discussion, would they not? Should these rare occasions serve as a basis in the cost of Don's original point? To me, it seems to border more on the philosophical rather than economical.

Either way, the comments were a fun review of (quasi-)opportunity cost.

If there were people who did not view waiting in line as a negative, they still have the option to voluntarily wait nowadays, so they are not made worse off.

Those who did view waiting in line as a negative are better off by not having to wait in line.

Since no one is made worse off and some are made better, a Pareto improvement, I don't see how one couldn't conclude that waiting in line is a non monetary cost.

Quite the opposite I would say.

"According to the Commission, the current proposal should encourage economic growth and shift more work from the do-it-yourself and black economy areas to the formal economy. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7492834.stm

I can't say I know a huge number of Europeans, but among the ones I know, working on the house during some of their many weeks of vacation seems common enough.

"Prefering not to wait in line" is different from "waiting in line must always be recognized as a cost to everyone in every single case". The latter being what your original proposal amounted to.

And, yes, I maintain that there are many times in many people's lives when time spent in a line might be a blessing or a benefit and that you, nor I, can make a blanket statement regarding how they must view the value of that time spent in line being calculated and assigned.

Fannie's restaurant outside of Boston circa 1982, popular place for Prime Rib and Lobster, located in the basement of a popular Italian Restaurant. It was common to arrive there at 0600PM and find the line beginning at the host station downstairs, up the stairs and into the street. Having just lived for three plus years in Utah where everyone tried to ignore everyone else in public, those people waiting to eat at Fannie's couldn't have cared less about a line. The entire line up and down carried on converstations with perfect strangers and listened to wisdom from long time sports fans about their local teams. It was like a meeting of family, and if you'd have asked them if they reckoned the time spent line as a cost they would have laughed at you. Now I recognize this was not a gas station, but it was a queue that people were compelled to submit too.

It doesn't matter that one could be doing something other with his time or the other lame arguments above, what matters is how the individual views his time spent and whether at any particular time it is in the cost or benefit column. We can not dictate that, we can only generalize.

To be specific on costs today compared to yesteryear, your original post on this subject seemed so out of character that I had the tinge of feeling that you were shilling for Big Oil.

One year ago I could take a $100 FRN to town, buy four bottles of wine slightly under $10 each, drive back to my home and fill up a gas tank (no waiting involved) which had the little warning tank showing. After doing so I would typically have %50 left in my wallet, give or take a dollar.

Last week I did that and bought four bottles of the same exact wines at the same prices, and filled up my empty tank (no waiting involved) and had slightly under $15 left in my wallet. What changed? Not the wine.

Again, Don, this: "I can make no blanket statement about whether or not the persons waiting in that long line enjoy doing so or not"?" is off topic. Making blanket statements about "enjoying" being line is different from making blanket statements about queuing having to be reckoned a cost.

John Dewey,
This: "That may be true, but there is no doubt in my mind that an overwhelming majority of people prefer no queues over queues." is a different argument than making a blanket statement that all queuing must be reckoned as a cost to everyone in every single situation, particularly queues at gas stations.

Hey, I prefer no lines, but what I prefer is irrelevant to what you prefer in virtually every single situation I can think of.

James Hanley,

This: "No, vidyohs, your point has been thoroughly rebutted. Waiting in line is always a cost, because people always have something they'd prefer to be doing." is the most silly ass non-sensical thing that has been said yet.

Unit,

Well that was pretty damn good, but go back to the post that began all of this, I believe it was "Market Rally" and reread Don's original posting. I choose disagreement with intellects such as our hosts casually.

Bret,

Yes. You got it.

Quite the opposite I would say.

But $XX is the wrong figure — what you really need to think about is $XX after being taxed at your highest marginal rate. My own marginal rate is nearly 50% (Federal + State + FICA), so I figure if the worker only makes half my hourly rate, it's still worth it to do the work myself. Not to mention the satisfaction of being able to do valuable work for myself without government taking a cut.

That's why, BTW, a lot of Europeans are do-it-yourselfers (high marginal tax rate combined with ample leisure time).

Still rather do that in my living room.

[takes another whack at the dead horse]

It doesn't need to be demonstrated that people prefer to do things in the car. It only needs to be demonstrated that at least one person doesn't have a material preference not to be in their car to do those sorts of things. I am that person.

Therefore, at least one person experiences no cost for queueing in his car (up to a point). That same person would experience enormous inconvenience babysitting someone else's kid.

If I had to queue for 12 hours per Don's example, then I would run out of things which I could enjoyably do in the car so that I too, at that point, would experience quite a cost! Then I really would be missing work.

As always these kind of statements (Don's argument) are to be understood "ceteris paribus" and the way I understand them is not that we actually can hold all else important constant (which might well be impossible to do) but that on "average" over all possible concomitant changes the probability is very high that people will consider queueing a cost not a benefit. No blanketing here.