Why does breakfast cost more than lunch?

Devoted fans of AB,I recognize that the blog functions primarily as a heavy-handed commentary on pop economics.  As such (and despite my own problematic literacy), I must from time to time digest the thoughts and writings of others.  One volume that repeatedly muscles its way into conversation is Steven Levitt's Freakonomics.  The work can be described as a series of cleverly framed questions whose answers, while at times less than astonishing, still point to the overarching theme that human beings tend to respond to incentives.  

I've lately developed a question of my own.  

During some recent time off from work (for those who do not know, I am a model for North Face running apparel), I allowed my frequency of eating out to increase to the point that I was paying for one or two restaurant meals a day.  Staring at a menu with such regularity alerted me to the puzzling fact that a typical breakfast is almost always more expensive than a typical lunch.  Why is this?  

Let me backtrack and first offer why this trivial observation seems puzzling.  The ingredients that compose a "traditional" restaurant breakfast - eggs, bread, and potatoes - seem less costly than those - meat, vegetables, and perhaps potatoes again - involved in a normal lunch.  

Consider two fairly common menu items - a basic three cheese omelet, and a normal cheeseburger.  If we equalize the portion sizes, discount labor/overhead*, and use supermarket pricing, a comparison of the two meals looks a lot like the following:

Three cheese omelet (with toast and hash browns)

3 eggs - $0.33

2 ounces of cheese for omelet - $0.90

2 pieces of toast - $0.50

4 ounces of potatoes - $0.15

Total - $1.88

Cheeseburger (with fries)

1/3 pound ground sirloin - $1.33

Hamburger bun - $0.50

1 ounce cheese - $0.45

Lettuce, onion, tomato - $0.10

4 ounces of potatoes - $0.15

Total - $2.53

Obviously the units used above are subject to variation/fluctuation, especially when considering the effects of bulk or wholesale purchasing.  If for some reason the breakfast cost is in fact 15% higher, and the lunch cost is actually 15% lower, the two meals would be even (ingredients-wise).  Yet on a menu, the omelet is typically $8.99 or 9.99, while the burger is $7.99 or 8.99.

So, why the price disparity when the check comes?  

If we engage in a Levitt-ian study of incentives, more than a couple seemingly credible theories emerge.  

Let's start with the consumer side.  Breakfast is not a meal we eat in a restaurant very frequently; according to the National Restaurant Association, the average person consumes commercially prepared breakfast only once every week or two, compared with more than two lunches per week.  It reasonably follows to suggest that breakfast is more of an event than lunch, when it actually occurs.  And what are the circumstances of this event?  Most likely it falls on a weekend.  Perhaps the residue from the previous night's antics demand food as a dulling agent.  Perhaps an occasion to sleep in causes a greater gap between meals than we are accustomed during the week, and leads to greater hunger.  Or perhaps our general grogginess in the morning hours confuses us as to how hungry we really are, or how much money our food is really worth.  In any event, I'd first argue that we are more desperate for food when we go out for breakfast.**

What, then, about the restaurant's incentive for higher prices?  An increased profit margin is clearly in the establishment's better interests, but there seems to me to be another factor at play.  While we sit at the table and reconstruct the previous night, or lay out our plans for the day ahead, or simply read the morning paper, we seem to spend a greater deal of time at the breakfast event than at the lunch event.  Even if the company is not more enjoyable, the conversation likely is.  Accordingly, the restaurant experiences a slower turnover rate for its tables.  

So, despite the temptation to say that restaurants charge more for breakfast simply "because they can," I believe that there are, er, more meaty justifications, including our perceived urgent need for breakfast, and the sluggish table turnover rate.  

*We can keep the discussion simple if we agree that whatever disparity exists between prep times for the two meals is not great enough to be a real factor.

**Still don't agree?  How often have you waited 30, 60, or 90 minutes to get into a lunch establishment?  Now, how often have you endured that wait in anticipation of a seat at breakfast?