Comments on: Gasoline, Groceries, and a Simple Look at the Cost of Time

By: Louise

Louise — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:32:49 +0000

I don’t understand why people freak out over this. This is like washing plastic zip lock bags; it saves you a few pennies here and there, but if you do it consistently, along with similar cost-saving measures, you really do save money! If someone feels it’s worth the few seconds or minutes it takes, then you should do it. If you make a habit of doing things like this over the year, you could easily save a decent chunk of change. I’m sure I save at least $400-$500/year by doing little things that just take a moment or two. Maybe that doesn’t seem like a lot to you, but that money can be invested in something else that saves you money, like a sewing machine, a home freezer, or similar item.

By: Dottie

Dottie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:37:03 +0000

If this were me and I forgot to fill up with enough gas for a long trip before I left I think I would have just filled up at the more expensive station far from home, considered the 63 cents a sunk cost and chalked it up to experience. As a frugal person and an accountant by trade I am all into numbers, however I have never been able to routinely use the cost per hour for every financial decision I make. I usually just use it for repetitive long term choices. However, as a frugal person it would have gone against the grain to fill up with gas I new I could get cheaper. For 63 cents I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer, just what fits your lifestlye best and makes you feel like you made a good decision.

By: Ellen / MoneyLounge

Ellen / MoneyLounge — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:42:20 +0000

Thank you for the detailed analysis. I’m relieved to find that my multiple shopping stops likely add up to savings after all!

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:33:23 +0000

Perhaps not better mpg for a full tank, but starting and stopping the car and shutting off the engine and turning it back on again use more gas than just driving straight home. That needs to be factored into the money equation too ;-)

While I don’t agree with this post, I do want to state that I enjoy Trent’s blog immensely, and this is definitely an entry I will share with my sarcastic friends. The jokes they will make should be funny indeed.

By: almost there

almost there — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:52:53 +0000

I think Joan #60 is being fooled by her gas gauge. My car shows that I drive more miles the first 1/2 tank of gas but that is due to the gas gage not being calibrated, miles divided by the actual gas replaced up to the automatic stop when filling up gives a true mpg every time.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:49:47 +0000

@Joan (#60), can you explain your logic regarding getting better mileage on a full tank of gas? That seems counter intuitive since the car will weight slightly more with more fuel in the tank.

By: joan

joan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:32:43 +0000

By the way, you get better gas milage out of a full tank of gas than you do from an empty or near empty one. Check it out if you don’t believe it. I try to never let my gas tank get below the half mark, because I check to see how many miles a gallon I get every time I fill the tank. So, if you get 1 or more miles per gallon more out of a tank of gas; how does that calculate with only putting two gallons in the tank.

By: joan

joan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:23:51 +0000

I’ve been known for squeezing a dime and getting at least 15 cents worth out of it, but even this seems not really worth it for me.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:54:44 +0000

Is it common for people in Iowa to ask for “x” amount of gallons of gas? Do you have to give them the exact amount, or do they get pissed if they see you handing them a $10?

Who would want to be in “rural Iowa” with only two gallons of gas in their tank? What if there was some event/emergency that prevented you from getting home (or to the cheap station) before the two gallons ran out? Then how much time and $$$ would have been saved? More than 63 cents, I’m sure.

My father, “Mr. Safety”, would be appalled.

And I agree with Eva – Another article that my non-frugal peers will read and throw at me.

Is this all really part of some weird experiment that you’re not telling us about?

:o-)

By: Hannah

Hannah — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:25:05 +0000

You recently wrote another post about how you have to add your own time into the equation, because you could have been doing something so productive.Yet you didn’t do that here. Stop trying to quantify things like this. It doesn’t work!

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:12:02 +0000

What no one has mentioned is the fact that Trent writes this blog for a living, so the time he took to do the calculations was just part of his job, as it would not be for most of us.

Re: extrapolating the wage per hour idea. I’m retired, so i like the idea that i could be “paid” so much an hour for being thrifty. I like that formulation!

By: dsz

dsz — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:40:56 +0000

I’m not on board with the hourly wage calcs, particularly since any small change in the actual time can skew the value one way or another-but-I do the same thing simply because I get cheezed off if I spend more than necessary due to my own inattention and I know for a fact I will waste more time in a day than it takes for that second fill-up.
I make a point of checking gas prices on my way to a local destination and then fill up at the cheapest station on the way home. I also will shop at up to four grocery stores in a given week depending on the sales. I may only buy one or two items at each store so maybe the ‘hourly rate’ isn’t the best (never crossed my mind, to be truthful) but the extra 15 minutes or so I spend per store isn’t eating into my otherwise productive time anyway so it’s worth it to me. Two of the stores are within 2 miles of my house and the other two are near other places I frequent so there’s no real extra cost for getting there.
36 Kelly-I’m sort of in your area and we have Giant Eagle, Buehler’s, Acme and Wal-Mart (all our Tops markets closed). I do most of my staple shopping at Wal-Mart, meat at Sam’s, veggies at the year-round farmer’s market and loss leaders at the rest. Giant Eagle’s prices are obscene (around here, anyway) and Wal-Mart has the $4 prescription deal as well.

By: Evita

Evita — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:51:53 +0000

Well…. this post is the perfect example of the obsessive nickel and diming that turn people right off frugality!
I don’t dispute the actions leading to this minuscule saving (I could have done the same!) but all these calculations to equate it with a hourly wage are just plain silly…… it does not relate to real life in any way.
Silly posts like this one also turn me off from the blog, unfortunately…….

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:54:17 +0000

In addition, I no longer have to think to myself “am I making the right decision to buy a little now to get to the cheap gas later?”. Thanks to this post I don’t have to run the numbers myself, I know that it is the correct decision. Trent’s time in doing the calculation is saving me the time of doing it on the fly.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:31:58 +0000

This is silly. Rural or urban—the math isn’t realistic. I think many folks have learned enough from life & this blog to move on. Let’s all stop obsessing folks. This post convinced me of that. I hope this blog sticks around in an archive form to help those new to being a bit thrifty, but I think the topics are getting quite thin. (JMHO.) Going overboard in thriftiness can lead to a miserable life—I have personal, very sad proof of that in my family like another poster in these comments. Keep it normal & enjoy the life that your sane thriftiness affords you. Thanks for a good blog Trent, it was very enjoyable.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:09:13 +0000

I guess if one wants to go far enough with the math, you could figure the wieght of the extra gas, and fighre the milage savings, and just keep just enough gas for each trip, it’s all just a matter of how far to take it.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:18:15 +0000

Many of the comments to this article show that what works in one area of the country might not work as well in another area. If rural Iowa is anything like rural Kentucky, then being able to stop and get a couple gallons of gas in 2 1/2 minutes should be no problem. There are a couple of key things that make that possible.

First, most of the gas stations here are located right off of the main rural roads. There is no going out of your way to stop, you’re passing by anyway. Second, whether the station is on the right or left side of the road is normally not as issue, as there is little traffic on the rural roads. At most you might have to wait for one or two oncoming cars to pass, taking an extra 10 or 20 seconds maybe. Third, rural gas stations here are not normally very busy. It is very rare that I have to wait in line to pump my gas. If there is a wait, and I can make it to another station I’ll often just wait, since most likely there will not be a wait there. Last, if using a credit/debit card to pay at the pump, there is no waiting in line or dealing with the other customers. For this reason, I will not stop at a station without pay at the pump unless I have no other options.

The arguments that it isn’t possible to stop and get 2 gallons of gas in 2 1/2 minutes are probably accurate in certain areas. If you live in a city, have to go out of your way or wait for a traffic light to turn to cross the road, that takes more time. If the station is usually busy and you have to wait in line to use a pump, that takes more time. If you don’t use pay at the pump, and go into the store to pay that takes more time, especially if there is a line at the counter or the cashier is not efficient.

As far as I’m concerned, this article makes perfect sense. My initial reaction was that some of negative comments are from people who just don’t get it, but then I realized that most likely those posters just live in areas with very different variables, in which case Trent’s calculations would not be accurate.

By: Jacinta

Jacinta — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:44:51 +0000

I also thought this post was a little ridiculous, but I think Trent is correct in how to calculate savings. When we extrapolate something into an hourly rate, it’s not to suggest that we’ve saved an hour’s worth. Instead it allows you to apply a value to a given amount of time. This then gives us a comparison. It’s better to do things which save us money at a high hourly rate (even if they mostly just save us cents) than it is to do things which save us money at a low hourly rate.

So Trent’s wife spent about 3:48 filling up the second time and saved 63 cents (although Trent explains that this is only an additional 2:25 from filling up to full in the first stop). I know I would take longer, even if I didn’t have to wait, but let’s pretend that’s valid. The only way to properly determine whether 63 cents is a good saving for 2:25 is to extrapolate it into an amount of time that makes more sense. To do this we solve:

(60 seconds/time spent * cents saved) = (60/2.25 * 63) = 1679.58 cents or $16.80/hour.

This doesn’t mean you can keep up this activity over a longer period of time and actually save $16.80, it just means that this savings was at a rate of $16.80. It is still only 63 cents saved today, and only $32.76 if you did this weekly for a year.

Consider a movie. In Australia, it costs $18 for an adult to see a movie at the cinema. Most movies run for about 2 hours, so we’re paying $9/hour. On Tuesdays, some cinemas sell tickets for $10 per adult. This means the same movie now only costs $5/hour, for a saving of $4/hour. If Trent’s scenario is correct, it’s better value for time spent to fill up twice than it is to see a movie on a Tuesday, so long as you were going to see that movie anyway (in either case you’re still down at least $10 from your entertainment budget). This doesn’t mean that seeing movies on Tuesday is bad, it just allows you to compare the comparative savings.

If Trent’s wife spent an extra 5:00 filling up that second time (which is still much less than I would spend) then the hourly rate of savings would be $7.56. Perhaps that would still be a good deal for some people, but not for me.

By: John

John — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:26:29 +0000

Again, your math is ridiculous, and your hourly cost analysis is even worse. Your wife did the right thing by only purchasing the amount of gas required to get home to where the gas prices are cheaper. Unless you are actually “on the clock” at a paying job you aren’t making money, so by saving $.63 or whatever the number is, you are still actually saving that amount.

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:19:16 +0000

I like the saying “Watch your pennies and the dollars will watch out for themselves.” However, as sayings go, it’s also possible to be “Penny-wise but Pound-foolish.” Personally, I’d prefer to skip the occasional big treat to make up for not having to count pennies like this for routine purchases.

I agree with others that the comments on this one have been fun to read.