Social Evolution

[Birdjaguar]

State by state prices will be largely a product of the economics of supply (the path crude oil takes to a refinery and then from the refinery to users), any difference in fuel and sales taxes, and then retail costs.

In the world, oil prices fluctuate daily. US Fuel distributors change the prices they charge retailers daily based on the oil markets. In response, gas stations change their retail prices daily based on the daily changes in prices set by their supplier. Seems reasonable, except it ignores the fact that there are millions of gallons of fuel parked at refineries, in pipelines, in storage tanks and already in the underground tanks at gas stations. If the price of oil goes up $5 today and the pass through end up raising the retail price $.10, then the inventory value of all those millions of gallons sitting somewhere has now gone up and the stores profit potential on its inventory goes way up (along with the oil companies profit potential profit). Gas station pricing is based on the daily replacement cost and not actual cost of what folks buy or even average cost (for accounting purposes, though, they will often use average cost). When oil price rise, stores raise prices quickly. When they go down, stores drag their feet and lower prices slowly.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, sure, thanks, but my post you quoted was simply addressing whether or not "having gas station attendants who pump your gas for you" makes gas cheaper.

My point again.. was that it does not matter... the goal is more jobs not cheaper gas.

 

[Arwon]

I mean, sure, thanks, but my post you quoted was simply addressing whether or not "having gas station attendants who pump your gas for you" makes gas cheaper.

Yeah and those pump helpers can only possibly be impacting on that small sliver of total costs, presumably outweighed by the big factors

 

[Arwon]

In the world, oil prices fluctuate daily. US Fuel distributors change the prices they charge retailers daily based on the oil markets. In response, gas stations change their retail prices daily based on the daily changes in prices set by their supplier. Seems reasonable, except it ignores the fact that there are millions of gallons of fuel parked at refineries, in pipelines, in storage tanks and already in the underground tanks at gas stations. If the price of oil goes up $5 today and the pass through end up raising the retail price $.10, then the inventory value of all those millions of gallons sitting somewhere has now gone up and the stores profit potential on its inventory goes way up (along with the oil companies profit potential profit). Gas station pricing is based on the daily replacement cost and not actual cost of what folks buy or even average cost (for accounting purposes, though, they will often use average cost). When oil price rise, stores raise prices quickly. When they go down, stores drag their feet and lower prices slowly.

At the micro local level the prices also usually fluctuate in a sawtooth pattern due to the discount cycle, operators repeatedly cutting margins to the bone to undercut other operators until they have to snap back up to pay for the next shipment.

(Unless every petrol station is owned by like 4 giant companies like my city, and the stations mostly aren't near each other, and so they just don't compete like that, and the price just sits there)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Australia might well be different. I spent a decade overseeing a variety of Tribal Convenience Store operations and there were never such sawtooth patterns for pricing. I'm guessing that the regulation or (unregulated) aspects of OZ versus the US oil businesses would be substantial. One important aspect for store owners is how big their underground tanks are and how quickly that supply turns over.

 

[RobAnybody]

My point again.. was that it does not matter... the goal is more jobs not cheaper gas.

Right. Sure. But my point was:

People can push for mandating whatever jobs they want of course - I mean, advocating for breaking windows at random & then mandating window installers would create jobs. But the idea that gas attendants are cheaper than self-service just doesn't hold up in light of the evidence.

"More jobs no matter what" is fine, & I'm OK with that mindset. Doesn't really affect me in the slightest. Go for it.

But if we're debating "adding gas attendants actually reduces costs"... which I was weighing in on, then I've presented evidence that it doesn't. That was my only point.

 

[amadeus]

I thought the idea was maybe trying to create market forces by government fiat was a foolhardy idea, which I agree with in principle. Creating a bunch of jobs not in demand just for the purpose of shoring up unemployment doesn’t add to the general welfare—it might actually be less destructive to pay them not to be gas station attendants and let them do what they want.

 

[Arwon]

Australia might well be different. I spent a decade overseeing a variety of Tribal Convenience Store operations and there were never such sawtooth patterns for pricing. I'm guessing that the regulation or (unregulated) aspects of OZ versus the US oil businesses would be substantial. One important aspect for store owners is how big their underground tanks are and how quickly that supply turns over.

It's only a big city pattern where there's a diversity of operators with different behaviours, I'm guessing the Tribal stores aren't mostly operating in big cities with a lot of other operators as well? The only reason to specifically and willingly cut your own margins is if there's other companies stations nearby, and people regularly choose which one to go to.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's only a big city pattern where there's a diversity of operators with different behaviours, I'm guessing the Tribal stores aren't mostly operating in big cities with a lot of other operators as well? The only reason to specifically and willingly cut your own margins is if there's other companies stations nearby, and people regularly choose which one to go to.

Tribal dynamics are different because they add the state tax to their cost (just like non tribal stations do) but they get to keep that tax, In NM it is $0.18 a gallon. Tribes can collect that as profit so if they only mark up their price another nickel, it gives them $0.23 profit and they are likely the lowest price around. In any case, the goal is always to push selling more gallons even if the nominal profit is zero. Most gas stations mark up their cost 10 to 12 cents on top of the taxes.

non tribal stores retail price: fuel cost+fed tax+state tax+profit = retail price
Tribal stores retail price: fuel cost+fed tax+state tax value profit+extra profit = retail price

This system gives the tribes the appearance of pricing that is close to non tribal retail prices and keeps area prices similar. It just gives the tribes a windfall. If you get in a gas war with a tribe, you will lose if they know what they are doing. A well placed Indian store can sell 20,000 gallons a day. With EVs that all will go away most likely.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right. Sure. But my point was:

"More jobs no matter what" is fine, & I'm OK with that mindset. Doesn't really affect me in the slightest. Go for it.

I never advocated more jobs "no matter what". Your arguing against a "mindset" that doesn't exist.

But if we're debating "adding gas attendants actually reduces costs"

We're not. I've said that multiple times.

... which I was weighing in on, then I've presented evidence that it doesn't. That was my only point.

Then your "only point" is essentially "weighing in" on a strawman, right? Once again, my point is that mandating full-service at gas stations would potentially create more jobs. The goal isn't to reduce costs and the goal isn't "more jobs no matter what" (WTH??). The point is to create more jobs at the gas station by mandating full-service, particularly because these jobs would have very little barrier to entry, as in most people would be able to do the job, regardless of experience/qualifications.

I did mention that I'd noticed anecdotally, that despite being full-service, gas in New Jersey tended to be cheaper than neighboring states, but that wasn't to argue that full-service was better because it was cheaper. In retrospect, I shouldn't even have mentioned it, because it has derailed my point into this strawman about reducing costs, which was never my intention in the first place.

 

[Lexicus]

I did mention that I'd noticed anecdotally, that despite being full-service, gas in New Jersey tended to be cheaper than neighboring states, but that wasn't to argue that full-service was better because it was cheaper. In retrospect, I shouldn't even have mentioned it, because it has derailed my point into this strawman about reducing costs, which was never my intention in the first place.

Fwiw it seemed obvious to me you were saying the price effects of attendants aren't always enough to offset other factors (like gas tax) that account for differences in the price of gas between states.

 

[RobAnybody]

But if we're debating "adding gas attendants actually reduces costs"... which I was weighing in on, then I've presented evidence that it doesn't. That was my only point.

We're not. I've said that multiple times.

Then your "only point" is essentially "weighing in" on a strawman, right? ...

I did mention that I'd noticed anecdotally, that despite being full-service, gas in New Jersey tended to be cheaper than neighboring states, but that wasn't to argue that full-service was better because it was cheaper. In retrospect, I shouldn't even have mentioned it, because it has derailed my point into this strawman about reducing costs, which was never my intention in the first place.

fair enough, but you did say it was cheaper - it wasn't a straw man on my part:

It's not about it being "better". Its just cheaper/easier/ more straightforward to implement.

 

[Joij21]

Anyone want to tell me why the thread is called "social evolution"?

Is there some kind of implied social darwinism via prices and economics to impoverish and kill certain demographics so as to foster preferred demographics in order to achieve one's political aims?

 

[amadeus]

A well placed Indian store can sell 20,000 gallons a day. With EVs that all will go away most likely.

How well placed are they in your parts? Where I’m from, the Indian lands are outside the main urban areas and the rich ones make their income from casinos. There are a few stores here and there that sell mostly tobacco at state minimums, but I’ve never seen anyone compelled to drive out that far to save a nickel on gas.

 

[Sommerswerd]

fair enough, but you did say it was cheaper - it wasn't a straw man on my part:

No, you're taking that quote way out of context. I said that the policy, of banning self-serve would be cheaper/easier for the government to implement, than the other policies being suggested. Hygro asked me:

If you have $35,000 to give to someone in exchange for something, you can find a million better things to than compel them to be a gas attendant. Why is forcing gas attendants a better system than spending that on anything else?

And my response was for that particular policy, ie banning self serve... it wasn't about it being "better" than other suggestions, but that it was easier to implement, because it would only take a law change, rather than investment, training, resources etc.

It's not about it being "better". Its just cheaper/easier/ more straightforward to implement. Planting community gardens, working out, creating art, childcare, for example all would require more investment, training and resources. Banning self-serve, thus requiring gas stations to hire attendants requires no investment. The pumps are already there, the labor is already there, needing "low skill" jobs.

So again, you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my post. To be fair, as I've already acknowledged, I used the anecdotal example of New Jersey having cheaper gas than neighboring states, which I've already said was a mistake and a distraction on my part. But this statement you're quoting does not at all say what you are trying to claim it says. Once again...I'm not arguing for mandatory full-service based on it making gas cheaper. I don't know how many times I have to say it over and over for you to get it. That wasn't my argument, it never was... and at this point, trying to pretend that it was is just... strawmanning... I don't know what else to call it.

 

[RobAnybody]

fair enough - I think we've come to, once again (I think last time was on House of Dragons?), an understanding of each others' positions, if not an agreement.

 

[soundjata]

Anyone want to tell me why the thread is called "social evolution"?

Is there some kind of implied social darwinism via prices and economics to impoverish and kill certain demographics so as to foster preferred demographics in order to achieve one's political aims?

It's called social evolution because it is a natural process.

(there are 2 kinds of stuff in this world: stuff that evolves, and stuff that does not exist)

IMO, social evolution is NOT strongly correlated with "political aim"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Anyone want to tell me why the thread is called "social evolution"?

Is there some kind of implied social darwinism via prices and economics to impoverish and kill certain demographics so as to foster preferred demographics in order to achieve one's political aims?

You'd almost think so sometimes, if you happen to be one of the demographics caught in the crosshairs, or if you're being dismissed as unimportant.

An example from years ago, when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister here: A reporter asked him what his government was doing to address the issue of missing/murdered indigenous women (a significant social issue that leads to economic issues among the indigenous population, particularly in British Columbia).

Harper's answer: "Um it, it isn’t really high on our radar, to be honest ... Our ministers will continue to dialogue with those who are concerned about this."

Source.

Women - the primary caregivers for their children - go missing, and the files sit in a drawer in the RCMP's stations, and the federal government didn't give a damn about a public inquiry. There are cases going back DECADES that are unsolved. Some of them might have been solved if the cops and others had bothered to do anything about them.

As I recall, they sat up and investigated when it was a white woman from Red Deer who disappeared on the "Highway of Tears". She was a tree planter, and intended to hitchhike to get somewhere during some downtime. She never arrived, and if memory serves, they have still not found her.

 

[Joij21]

It's called social evolution because it is a natural process.

The word "social" implies it is imposed by humans upon other humans. Unless you believe humans being animals therefore makes it all natural?

Nevertheless there are many processes in nature that involve the mass dying off of individual organisms that can't adapt to the naturally imposed material conditions, however in the case of humans imposing conditions upon other humans one could argue it is now a form of "social darwinism" and no longer "natural selection" especially if one admits that some will inevitably die as a result of the anthropologically imposed change.

(there are 2 kinds of stuff in this world: stuff that evolves, and stuff that does not exist)

And by stuff that doesn't exist you mean those who are unable to adapt and thus are worthy of only death???

IMO, social evolution is NOT strongly correlated with "political aim"

You said not strongly correlated, as in it would be hard to notice but nonetheless could still exist as a result of specific economic policies, or careful control and use of specific language with the intent to subsequently nurture a particular cultural zeitgeist.

Those who can't adapt would experience social isolation and eventually social death, while at the same time be slowly impoverished with all blame going toward the victim without noticing the specific forms of cultural and economic control which were used by those in power to eliminate that specific class of person from the gene pool.

 

[soundjata]

@Joij21 It seems we don't have the same understanding of the word "social"
You are linking the term with the idea of politics / policies (eugenics!) So in a way, the molding of humans by humans.

In my view, social = related to human kind in general (even outside of the political field). That is why I call social evolution a "natural process".
Aren't we animals? Not sure what is actually your position on this
If you don't think we are a product of nature (or even a part of nature) then I can understand our disagreement.

Of course sometimes you can correlate some sort of social evolution (IDK, we are using cars to move around, much more than 200 years ago! Ain't that social evolution?) to some sort of policy (favorable taxes to car manufacturers for example)

But at the end of the day, who is really in a position to shape the society of tomorrow?
I don't think anyone is in particular. There is a natural (random? mysterious?) element in that evolution (IDK. COVID?) that cannot be overlooked.

So yeah, again, everything changes (evolves) and this cannot be avoided. Including human society or humanity as a whole.
I don't think there is any logic at all behind most of the changes, no grand plan, no mastermind. Mostly chaos and awesomeness