Gas: All Eyes On the Price
Dan Ariely thinks we’re paying paying too much attention to the price of gasoline. 
He says we can’t help it because the price is plastered on every street corner, reported in every newscast, and we stand there day in and day out filling up our cars while staring at the meter:
For the several minutes that I stand at the pump, all I do is stare at the growing total on the meter — there is nothing else to do. And I have time to remember how much it cost a year ago, two years ago and even six years ago. [...]
While we concentrate our anger on gas prices, we are ignoring increases in electricity, food and health insurance — expenses that might actually have a greater effect on our budgets.
I’ve read news reports about people who drive 20 miles from California to Mexico just to buy cheaper gas, and about people who trade in the gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s that they bought only a year ago for more fuel-efficient cars… I wonder if the person driving to Mexico considers the cost of the entire trip, including his time and wear and tear on the car. And I wonder if the person who takes a $20,000 loss on his S.U.V. ends up paying more for the trade than he can possibly save at the pump.
Perhaps it would be better if gas station attendants filled the tank for us, as they used to, so we did not stand at the pump watching the rising price of our gasoline. Maybe it would help if gas pumps came with bigger hoses so that filling up would go faster and we’d spend less time watching the meter. Or maybe we should just learn to examine all our purchases and expenses more holistically so that we see where rising costs make the biggest difference.
Meanwhile, the NYTimes reports a rise in online shopping in response to gas prices:
The Web sites of Neiman Marcus, Saks, Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Bon-Ton Stores, Aéropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Target and Kmart were all offering a deal on shipping this week.
“With gas being such an issue, we know that mall traffic is down more than off-mall traffic,” said Mike Boylson, chief marketing officer for J. C. Penney, which had an 8.7 percent increase in Internet sales in the first quarter of this year.
That is in contrast to a 7.4 percent decrease in sales at stores open at least a year, known as same-store sales and a measure of retail health.
Hm. If they’re offering incentives, is it really gas prices that are driving those online sales?
RELATED: Wired says, “Forget hydrogen. The car of the future has an extension cord and a great big laptop battery…”
Share This
Related Posts
-
Perceptions of the U.S. Presidential Race from Poland, China and Germany
Posted on Oct 16, 2012
-
Edward Topol: ‘America on the Verge of a Civil War’ (Argumenty i Facty, Russia)
Posted on Aug 30, 2012
-
A prediction
Posted on Aug 13, 2012
-
It’s the Daddy Warbucks and Baby Scrooge ticket!
Posted on Aug 11, 2012
Maybe a higher rate of online purchases will help Federal Express and UPS make up for recent losses…due to high gas prices.
I notice now that people are seeing how BigOil is wrecking our economy, the price-fixing is starting to lessen and barrel prices are magically dropping.
Weird..
No quarter for extortionists, even if they start being nice at the 11th hour. The 11th hour is too late. The damage their influence has caused is real and far-reaching.
They convinced GM to recall and crush electric cars several years back…VERY popular and totally gas-free cars…you could charge their 120-mile capacity at solar panels at home if you wanted to (and hence BigOil's objection to them)…GM could be leading the world in production right now. Their participation in this travesty and turning to big SUVs instead is the very root of their demise. Ironic.
If I was a GM stockholder, I'd be furious. Imagine the CEOs of your company deciding to recall and crush an enormously popular product that would be a financial gravy-train for decades in favor of short-term appeasements to BigOil incentive$? They must be furious…
Silhouette — the EV-1 was a joke. It was nice-looking, sleek, and silent (I have driven one), but it had next to no cargo capacity and even with its snazzy “paddle” inductive charger,
http://www.eanet.com/kodama/ev1/chargers.htm
it was a joke. The car was great to look at, and a fun toy, but as a replacement for a conventional car, it was a joke. (Strictly speaking, it was state of the art then and the latest “experiment.”) The range was a joke. (Plenty of us make inter-city trips, day trips that are long; I've made over 100 over 800 miles in one day — THAT is what must be satisfied by manufacturers). It took unacceptably long to recharge the battery pack. The car was horribly overpriced compared to conventional cars (leasing around $600+ monthly; selling price nearly $40,000) while its range was a joke. There was no great conspiracy to remove it. The EV-1 was never, repeat, never, repeat, never “enormously popular” and anything similar never will be, either. (The price must be cut in half, the range more than doubled, and recharging time greatly reduced from the current recharging time required.)
And as for the next vehicle being produced by GM:
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/
Sihouette, you are exactly right when you say, “The damage their influence has caused is real and far-reaching. ” Let's not let the stockholders or the driving public off the hook though, knowledge about the waste and inefficiency of SUV's has been around for a long, long time. High gas prices worry much less than either willful ignorance on the part of consumers, or capitalism devoid of conscience.
” knowledge about the waste and inefficiency of SUV's has been around for a long, long time”
If it's a fad that people have wanted to follow (like so much of the global warming fad), it's their right, no matter what you or I think about SUVs and their real versus rugged-outdoor-depicted use. It's not the place of anyone else to tell me or anyone else that we _shouldn't_ have a vehicle that's larger than we “need” or faster or more powerful than we “need,” or is politically incorrect.
I never suggested that owning an SUV (or a Corvette for that matter) should be illegal, so spare me your strawman argument. I'm only pointing out that's it's short-sighted and contributes to the problem. We're not living in the 60s anymore. As for your continuing belief that gobal warming is only a “fad”, my earlier phrase, “willful ignorance” would apply. If you have any new, useful, genuine information that supports your contention, then feel free to share it. As I've said before, the politicization of science serves nobody.
By the way, the Volt is a prototype and isn't scheduled for release until 2011. The starting price is expected to be $40,000.00 Pardon me if I don't start jumping up and down about it.
“should be illegal,”
I never said or implied that. (And you dare make false straw man accusations?) It's bad enough that we have to read or be told such things.
“As for your continuing belief that gobal warming is only a “fad”, my earlier phrase, “willful ignorance” would apply.”
You lose again. It's a huge fad and mainly political rather than scientific or technical, the real issues which are subsumed by political agendas and an ocean of emotional nonsense. Kind of like anti-nuclear idiocy but more broad in scope.
“Pardon me if I don't start jumping up and down about it.”
I'd happily participate in a demo program if the company or Detroit metro's power company engages in such a program (as it should if it wants to promote this vehicle and the concept on which it is based; it did this with the EV-1 when I was in Phoenix, supplying home chargers as well as the vehicles).
DLS, it takes some folks a longer time to come around than others. Galileo ran into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for not recanting his theory that the Earth moves around the sun. It wasn't until the 20th century that the Church finally admitted it's own stance was wrong… so don't feel like you're under any pressure… take your time.