The Cost of Gasoline

by Don Boudreaux on July 25, 2008

in Current Affairs, Energy, Prices

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)?  Adjusting for inflation seems to yield an answer of "yes."  The average retail price of a gallon of 87-octane gasoline in 1979, in the U.S., was 90 cents.  Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of regular gasoline retailed in 1979 at $2.67 reckoned in 2008 dollars — more than a dollar less than gasoline is retailing for today.

But let’s not be too quick to affirm the conclusion that gasoline costs consumers more today than it cost way back then.

While the
inflation-adjusted dollar price at the pump for gasoline is indeed
higher today than it was during the disco decade, consumers’ expense of
acquiring gasoline is arguably now lower.  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 average
price of a gallon of gasoline in 1979 was (in 1979 dollars) 90 cents.
So if a worker in 1979, earning that year’s average hourly wage of
$6.19, spent one hour waiting in line to buy five gallons of gasoline -
a standard maximum amount that filling stations would sell to customers
during periods of shortage – he would have spent, waiting in queues,
$1.24 worth of his time for every gallon he bought.  The total cost per
gallon to him would have been $2.14 ($0.90 in cash expense plus $1.24
in time expense).  $2.14 in 1979 was worth about $6.36 of today’s
dollars — a cost per gallon much higher than the roughly $4 that we Americans now pay (without having to queue up for the privilege of filling our tanks).

Of course, the results of any calculation of the sort that I perform above are sensitive to the assumptions used (such as my assumptions of one-hour queuing time per gasoline purchase, and a five-gallon per purchase limit; by the way, you can find here a brief account of the 12 hours that my father and I shared in waiting in a queue to buy five gallons of gasoline during the summer of 1979).

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.

(HT to Hans Eicholz for drawing my attention to the article in The Economist.)

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • jp

    What was the percent of Income for Gasoline in the 70's vs. now? I.e. what chunk of one budget had to go to Gas?

  • Matt

    Your time expense is based on the average wage. Adding time expense, calculated as such, to the cost is valid if, and only if, the person could have been earning that hourly wage instead of waiting to buy gasoline. In reality, there are a limited number of professionals that fit that category. The vast majority either work hourly shifts or are salaried, and so cannot substitute wage-earning time for free time.


    You could put a value on free time used to wait in line. Unfortunately that's too subjective to be useful for comparison.

  • rvturnage

    JP:

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/and-you-tho...>

    As percent of per capita disposable income, it looks comparable to '79/early '80, though not as high as 80/81, which was at the bottom of a fall in income that begin in '74...

  • What a cool idea for a tool! I'll drop it in the development queue (no pun intended....)

  • John Dewey

    "You could put a value on free time used to wait in line. Unfortunately that's too subjective to be useful for comparison."


    I don't think that's subjective. If the average person's free time had less value than the average wage, he or she would be trying to find parttime employment. I've known hundreds of fulltime workers the past 40 years. Very few ever substituted free time for parttime employment.


    I've known many hourly workers who regularly rejected overtime pay in order to keep their free time. So I suspect Don's hourly wage rate of $6.19 is too low. People in the U.S. place a very high value on leisure time.

  • Matt

    John Dewey:

    "If the average person's free time had less value than the average wage, he or she would be trying to find parttime employment. "


    That applies to the value of the time as a sum, or a majority, of his/her free time, right?




    But here, aren't we talking about an isolated case of substitution. I agree, very few would give up all or a majority of his/her free time for a long period of time by finding additional work. But for an isolated period of time, or for a period of time that might occur once a week, one usually does not have the opportunity to substitute that time.


    The substitution we're talking about here is: You have to get gas and you'll have to wait 1 hr to get it. Can you use that 1 hr for profitable work? If so, then add that rate to the cost of the gas. If not, then what is the value of that time? It's not your wage rate.

    (granted, there's a limit here. At some point, the wait time will get large enough that the time can be substituted practically)

  • Don Boudreaux

    The relevant issue isn't so much exactly how valuable is the time that a person spends waiting in a queue. Equal to that person's hourly wage rate -- higher -- lower.... The point is that time spent in such a way has SOME value, and that failure to count time spent in this way as a cost of acquiring whatever good or service requires such queuing is to under-estimate the cost to consumers of acquiring that good or service. Put differently, the $$$ price is often not the only, or even the chief, cost that consumers pay to get buy a product.

  • SteveO

    I spent the better part of last night arguing with a drunk philoophy professor. When I spoke of ways that things are rationed, he said that rationing is governemt force to mete out a supply. He refused to understand or accept that any other concept of rationing, whether by time or money is indeed "rationing".


    I said to him if I came in here on Friday night and had to wait 10 minutes to get a beer... "That's not rationing!" he says.


    OK.

  • Matt

    It may have SOME value, but if you can't measure it (higher or lower....), you can't apply a cost to it, and you can't use it to make a comparison or justify an argument.

  • Don Boudreaux

    Matt,


    I thoroughly disagree with your claim that, because the subjective value of the time that people spend queuing cannot be objectively measured, it cannot be used "to make a comparison or justify an argument."


    Forensic economists are agreed that there's no objective way to measure the value of a life lost to someone else's negligence, recklessness, or purposeful destruction. And yet this fact properly does not prevent courts from putting a $$$ value on such lost lives. Surely, if a loved one of yours were killed by a drunk driver, you would not argue that nothing of value were lost simply because attaching an objective monetary value to that lost life is impossible.

  • Matt

    Don:


    You are, of course, correct.


    But it seems rhetorical to compare the loss of a life to a loss of an hour.


    I apologize for not being explicit that, in claiming the uselessness of subjective value, I was addressing specifically this argument about trying to compare $6 to $4. I could have been more clear.

  • It seems to me that we also get more satisfaction out of a gallon of gas than we used to in the seventies. Cars are certainly a more enjoyable ride these days. In other words, independent of the cost, the benefits have gone up for sure (how do you measure that?).

  • Dick King

    I've always thought that lefties liked queues because they feel like a steeply progressive tax to the victim. The value of a person's time to hirself is undeniably highly positively correlated with the income they could otherwise earn with that time.


    The fact that the tax has no social benefits is of no consequence to a lefty. Taking huge amounts from a wealthy person is not a bug or a cost, but a feature or benefit.


    -dk

  • Many cars today also have better gas mileage than in 1979. Also, we are buying cleaner air with our gasoline purchases today.


    Um...when was lead removed from gasoline formulations?

  • save_the_rustbelt

    I started driving in the 60s and I have never waited more than 2 minutes to gas up my car, ever, even during the crunch in the 70s.


    Put a story from New Jersey on the nightly news and suddenly it is gospel truth for the entire country.


    And my '67 Chevy was the coolest car ever, good mileage and terrific "coolness" factor. Ended up married in fact, and then ended up with uncool minivan full of rug rats.

  • The wealthy or connected don't have to deal with queues. In the 70's, I was connected by working for an oil company and never waited in line. The politically connected and most government workers also didn't have a problem.

  • Ozornik

    Truly noteworthy comparison should be along the following line of logic:


    We’re not interested in gasoline per se; we’re interested in moving from point A to point B. Thus, we need to compare what was the total cost of ownership of having comparable cars and doing average commute *) for, say, 3 years in ‘70s and now.

    Total cost should include: full price (loan or lease – is it cheaper now then in ‘70s?), insurance, repairs (aren’t cars more reliable now?) and time lost fixing; oil changes (aren’t they less frequent nowadays?) etc.


    Cars should be truly comparable (what was a luxury then is ubiquitous now).


    Comparison should be made in hours of work required (similar to what Don did with Sears catalog recently)


    *) I’d pick 12,000 miles/year as per standard lease term.

  • The problem here might be that no one has taught you that queuing could in fact be a very socially enjoyable experience and a great chance for out of the box networking. It is also nation building, in the sense that it forces everyone to share a problem and to be able to complain as a group about the lousiness of their government, which is a popular and required activity in any democracy that wants to be seen as vibrant. Then compare the previous with the alternative of no queuing for some but no money for others to buy gasoline, and which squarely puts the blame on the individual, and I am not really sure which alternative average Joe would pick.


    You should see the Venezuelans when caught up in a traffic jam… out of their well prepared trunks appear their domino tables and beer and a cheerful time ensues.


    From a different perspective what could be analyzed in more depth is also whether the US learnt well from its experiences in the 70s and, if not, why not? For instance Europeans really got their gas taxing going and are currently much less exposed to the tight market conditions of oil, also by means of the added bonus of a strong Euro and that in the circle of life is also closely related to less oil dependence.


  • John Flanagan

    Great Article - most people seem to forget the value of time when considering eoonomic decisions.


    I would suggest another "real cost" comparison would be a recent proposal by your Sen. Warner from Virginia who is encouraging a resumption of the 55 mph speed limit. He trumpets how much gasoline would be saved by his proposal but neglects to note the "waste" of people's time by driving well under what they might otherwise have freely chosen to drive.


    Of course, Sen. Warner, will freely choose to have his limo driven in the right hand lane at 55 to save fuel. Maybe he will be late to the vote and we can add value back to the equation.


    The government cretins always seem to think that voters have a lot of "free" time. Thank you for the reminder.

  • vidyohs

    I don't know, Don. I am respectful of your usual rationale, logic, common sense, and education; as well as your ability to get that across.


    And, I am with you on your explanation of the role speculators do not control, or cause flucuations of to any real degree, the price of that which they speculate on. I am with you on the supply and demand aspect.


    However, here you've begun to reach a little beyond where I can go with you. Rationalizing the cost of gas by, now, factoring in the time spent in a line and calculating that against what one normally receives as wages per hour to come to a total cost, is in my opinion going above and beyond your duty.


    When I was in the military I was literally "on duty" 24 hours a day, so perhaps I could make the claim that time spent waiting on anything was a factor that could be calculated and added or deducted from real costs. Outside of the military most people get paid for X (typically 8) hours a day and once those are done how can we correctly add time spent, calculated as salaried dollars, in other activities of our choice?




    Before going down that road with you I'd have to ask if the time spent in line was time taken from the supposed productive part of one's day; or was it time taken from sitting in front of a TV being mind boggled by mediocrity?


    If it is the latter, perhaps the benefit of getting you away from the TV set and putting you in a situation where you might actually use your brain is a factor that could be calculated and subtracted from the pump price as a real dollars and cents benefit to you?


    Or, perhaps time spent in line is time allowing you to escape the constant carping and bitching of a malcontented mate. That time spent might also be factored and calculated into a real dollars and cents benefit to your peace of mind and subtracted from the pump price?


    Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I think you went overboard this time.

  • jpm

    The "gas lines" myth that you used to see on TV news during the late 70's "oil crisis" was typical media dishonesty "the world ends tommorrow, women and minorities hardest hit". The facts were, some stations would be open for much shorter periods, but you could always buy gas without waiting in line. I even had a friend who's dad's was a regular customer at a station and the owner would call him when he got his gas in. He in fact made an appointment. (he was a doctor and his time was valuable). I was 15 that summer and would go fill up during work hours. I never waited in line, and rarely ever saw any lines at the time, except at peak traffic times. I see them now though, at the cheaper filling stations where I also buy my gas, but I am careful to go to the cheaper places at times when there are no lines.


    Capitalism works for queuing theory as well as price. If gas is available, it can be distributed efficiently, even if a distributor has to make appointments for customers like a barber, but I have never seen a need for that type of system.

  • phil

    Price per gallon, even adjusted for time spent trying to buy gas doesn't really look at all the costs/benefits.


    For example, today's cars are more efficient than those of the 1970's. Also, many of us are more inclined to car pool to work. So the appropriate calculation is not just price per gallon but price per passenger mile traveled.


    Eg. 2 people in a FIT at 30 mpg get 60 miles per gallon or $0.0667 per passenger mile. In 1970s a single driver in a typical car got 15 mpg and 15 passenger miles per gallon. At an adjusted price of $2.67, cost per passenger mile was $0.178 of nearly 3x today's price. Even if you drive alone, the cost per passenger mile is $0.13, still much less than $0.178!!


    While SUVs are less efficeient than a FIT, many still are getting 20 mpg or 40 passenger mpg. Approximately $0.10 per passenger mile.

  • jpm

    I remember, back in those days, a car that got 18 mpg on the highway was extremely rare. 16mpg on the highway was considered real good, for a decent, or useable size car at that time. There were some compact cars that go above that, but they were real, genuine, pieces of junk.

  • Martin Brock

    jpm, Don's point about queuing seems quite a stretch, but the point about increased fuel efficiency is valid. I grew up in small town, but I started driving in '78, and I don't remember ever lining up for gas.

  • Gas lines weren't equally geographically distributed. They occurred wherever the government controlled price was below the market price.


    I vividly remember the first time I couldn't find a station open after I got off work one day in the summer of 1979, and had just enough left in my tank to drive home. The next morning I arose two hours earlier than normal to drive to the closest gas station.


    There was already a line of people in exactly my situtation; we couldn't get to work until we put gas in our cars. We were all waiting for the station to open.


    I ended up missing an hour of work that day, and calculated something like: 10 gallons at $ .80/gal = $ 8.00 + 1 hour lost wages at $10/hr. = $10.


    $ 8.00 + $ 10 = $18.00 for ten gallons, or $1.80 per gallon for gas that would have probably sold for $ .90 without price controls.


    Thats why I decided to educate myself about economics.

  • jpm

    There were no price controls in 1979. By 1974,when Ford was elected, price controls had been totally discredited.


    It also sounds like that long line no gas was a one time supply disruption, not an everyday one, as after that, other arrangements are made, (even if you have to buy a 100 gallon tank and put it in the back yard).


    As Martin said earlier, long lines just weren't the factor of imposed costs that Don initialy addressed, but the fact that it was such an issue with the media at the time, myth that it was, was because it fit the media time slot template. "see see! capitalism doesn't work" and "people are too stupid to make arrangements to supply themselves"


    We still get that now. Whether it is ENRON is the same as your local utility BS or the "housing crisis" when it is almost all media generated. I never knew anybody stupid enough to go wait an hour to buy gasoline, and I don't know even one single person who can't pay his mortgage, yet for almost two years, it is harped on by CNN all day long about how dire the situation is, and it created a panic in the buyers of those pools of mortgage trusts, and even caused a run on the bank IMB that caused the Fed's to step in, in spite of the fact that all of those pools of Mortgages owned by IMB were contained in bankruptcy independant trusts that would not have been a drain on depositor's funds. (all IMB owned were the residuals, the trusts were all funded by mortgage pool investors, (not depositors) who received a fixed interest generated by the individual pool net proceeds; IMB just received the excess net spread above bonds issued but below the interest collected from the loans and depositor funds were NEVER at risk.

  • David

    Rustici had the best story to illustrate this, and I hesitate to attempt a hearsay account. But it ended up that he missed a day of work, so it cost him $72 for 3 gallons of fuel, or $24/gallon.

  • I don't understand why Don's point is a stretch: I sell gasoline for free you just have to wait forever to get it, deal?


    In fact, this argument is even more relevant for health-care: surgeries are really cheap in nationalized systems you just have to wait a bit and may end up paying with your life, that's all.

  • happyjuggler0

    There were no price controls in 1979


    Then how do you explain that one of the "crimes" that Marc Rich committed was for selling "old oil" at "new oil" prices?

  • happyjuggler0

    By the way, The gas station around the block from where I lived in 1979 (in suburban MA) had gas lines in 1979 for a time, although they weren't nearly as bad as they were under Nixon.

  • Martin Brock

    I don't understand why Don's point is a stretch: I sell gasoline for free you just have to wait forever to get it, deal?

    It's a stretch, because people didn't wait forever for gasoline as a matter of fact. If Don has some concrete statistics on how long people waited on average across the U.S. at a particular time, that's fine, but anyone can pick a number out of the air and pretend to have proven something. I was only a teenager in the seventies, but I drove throughout '78 and '79, and I never waited in a gas line. I saw them on television, but I never waited myself.


    Don purports to address a specific claim. Is gasoline really more expensive today that it was in the late seventies? If he answers "no", that's a quantative proposition requiring a quantitative analysis, not vague handwaving. Vague handwaving is the sort of politic argument he ordinarily detests. There is no sound economic reason to suppose that the real price of gasoline can never exceed its value in the late seventies.


  • Martin Brock

    Thats why I decided to educate myself about economics.

    Right, but you're describing one anecdotal experience. I'm paying the roughly $4.00 a gallon now, and so is everyone else in the U.S., everywhere, every day. Even if half the population in the seventies shared your experience once a week, the experience doesn't remotely make up the difference between the CPI adjusted price of gas then and now on the average.


    It's a quantitative question, not a political question.


  • happyjuggler0

    Off topic, but I just noticed and couldn't let it lie:


    1974,when Ford was elected


    Ford was neither elected president, nor elected vie president.

  • Martin,


    draw a supply and demand diagram with a price ceiling below the market clearing price. This is the 70s. There was excess demand and prices were not allow to rise (artificially). Now look at the quantity consumed and draw a vertical line. When you meet the ceiling that's the price at the pump then. However, Don keeps on going along this vertical line until he meets the demand curve. Because after all, at this quantity level, people are willing to pay that much (just read the demand curve in reverse). Now this new price is higher than the one at the pump and is also higher than the market price. Part of this price is monetary and part is paid "in nature", e.g. time spent in queues, health hazards of waiting in a car without air-conditioning, etc... The point of the post is that the price at the pump alone is not enough, because the price controls make gasoline scarcer and more expensive (all included).

  • You just refuse to get it.


    You could hire someone to queue for your and you would still have the market clearing the price for gas.


    If you can have tenured professors why can’t you give the small guy a chance for gainful employment?


    How much time have you wasted standing waiting in banks and that has not killed you eh?

  • Martin Brock

    draw a supply and demand diagram with a price ceiling below the market clearing price. This is the 70s.

    That's all well and good, but it tells me nothing quantitatively about the real cost of gasoline in 1979 versus the cost today. If Don wants to challenge comparisons based on a simple CPI adjustment, he needs more than clever rhetoric. The "hour wait" is just a number he's picked out of the air. I'm extremely skeptical that everyone across the U.S. waited an hour for gasoline on the average at any time in the seventies, but everyone is paying roughly $4.00/gallon for gasoline 24/7 today. If Don can make this case, let him make, but he certainly doesn't make it above.


    Again, increasing fuel efficiency is also a factor worth considering. We could be paying more per gallon but less per mile, and we could certainly pay less per mile in the future even if the price of gasoline per gallon remains higher. This point seems more compelling, particularly since I was driving in the late 70s and never waited in line for gasoline.


  • Steve Ducharme

    One thing being overlooked (unless someone else mentioned it already) is the cost per mile driven (as opposed to the price of a gallon of gas). The higher mileage of todays vehicles (and the reduced "cost" on the environment from the cleaner exhaust) should not be left out of the equation.

  • Per,


    you're making my point: the cost of standing in line is real and in fact it equals how much you would have to pay a high-school kid to do that for you. So a quicker way to compute the actual price of gas in the seventies is to add the minimum-wage to the pump price. This would still be lower because we're not counting the transaction costs.


    Again the difference is that today there are less (overt) price controls so the current price internalizes most of these other costs.

  • LoneSnark

    This speech by Carter in 1979 was a good read:

    "The mechanisms by which we try to control the distribution of gasoline are clumsy and imperfect. They have a long response time. Our allocations are based largely on past patterns of consumption; but the shortage itself changes those patterns. We have been working to improve our allocation system, and we will accelerate that effort."


    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycarterundeliveredenergyspeech.htm


  • LoneSnark

    Youtube also has stuff about the impact in California to the 1979 shortage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KrxmpPJ-o
    </p
    >

  • Gary

    As a few other have noted, a gallon of gas in the 70s may have provided similar energy to a modern gallon of gas, but we use that gallon of gas much more efficiently now. As the table I've linked to below notes, regardless of the class of vehicle, the fuel efficiency of the US fleet has improved dramatically. While the cost of a gallon has risen, that gallon goes much farther thannit used to.


    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

  • SteveO

    Gary:


    Could you try that link again, I'm interested in reading whatever you found but that link doesn't go anywhere. It looks incomplete.

  • Gary

    SteveO - My apologies


    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

  • Gary

    last post... promise. click on my name above, and it will take you to the site.

  • SteveO

    Awesome Gary, thanks a bunch for that.


    Looks like the take-away is that the average MPG from 1980 to 2007 has increased 40 to 47 percent. You can reverse the math their on the current price of gas, and you get $2.77


    Just another way of looking at comparisons over time. I don't think any one of these ways is the magic answer. I once asked a historical actor who goes around in character as Ben Franklin, how much he would pay for a device that would allow him access to information on all kinds of subjects from around the world (I essentially described the iPhone with Wikipedia access). He said he'd give everything he had, because with that he could earn it all many times over.


    It's very difficult for people to grasp the value of things over time. Inflation calculators just don't get you there.


    Gary, I'm always interested in how to mine the incredible amount of resources that exist out there. Could you tell me how you find things like that table? Were you already aware of it for some other purpose?

  • Gary

    SteveO - Well, I figured that there must have been advanced in fuel economy since the 1970s, since, well, cars have gotten more efficient even in the brief 9 years I've been of driving age. I figured it was certain that someone, somewhere had compiled the data, so I ran a few searches in Google, and sifting through the useless results to find what you're looking for.


    The problem we have now is information overload. I had thousands of hits, but only found a few that had the information I was seeking. Still, it took me no more than a few minutes... a small price for what I've learned at the Cafe!


    Best,


    Gary

  • Martin Brock

    So a quicker way to compute the actual price of gas in the seventies is to add the minimum-wage to the pump price.

    Simply adding the minimum wage to the price of a gallon of gas assumes that everyone in the seventies waited an average of one hour every time they bought gas and then bought one gallon of gas. I doubt that anyone has the data required to estimate the cost of queuing meaningfully.


    There are probably more filling stations today, more conveniently located where people need to buy gas. This change also affects what people pay to fuel their cars, but I don't know how you'd quantify the effect.


    The analysis of increased fuel efficiency is more compelling.


  • floccina

    Also today’s vehicles are much more efficient. So you get more comfort power and luxury miles per gallon today. Do not be fooled by the fact that the mileage is not that much better today because we consumers chose to use the efficiency gains to ride in heavier more powerful cars.

  • John Dewey

    per kurowski: "You just refuse to get it. You could hire someone to queue for your and you would still have the market clearing the price for gas."


    Are you suggesting that my cost to have someone wait in line for me to buy gasoline is only the minimum wage rate? Surely there is a cost to the increased risk of allowing a minimum wage worker drive my car.


    As a small business owner, I've observed the high turnover rate for low wage workers in parttime jobs - much different from that of fulltime workers. The cost of finding and hiring such a worker to fill my gas tank would have to be repeated several times through the year.


    During the time tat a low wage worker is filling my gas tank, what would I use for transportation in case of an emergency?


    What am I not getting, Per? Was your post a joke, as it certainly seems to me?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: