What do you think of states that don't let you pump your own gas?

[Shylock]

A case of bureaucrats making work. If it was in demand it would be provided without their intervention, it usually isn't.

 

[Adebisi]

Now there has to be thousands of jobs created by this law. That's lower unemployment, more money pumped into the economy (and thus, more sales tax unless they go to Delaware) and more money directly collected by the state in Income Tax.

What politician made you believe that!?

This is completly absurd, it must be for some other reason than creating jobs. Or is it a way to fool voters that jobs are created? Do people really believe that more inefficiency and going back in time will create jobs?

 

[tomsnowman123]

1)Can find ANY evidence of someone who died pumping gas

People can die, and do, especially in cold states, when they cause a spark to form while pumping gas because of static electricity. No, I am not worried about it, but it has happened.

 

[IglooDame]

People can die, and do, especially in cold states, when they cause a spark to form while pumping gas because of static electricity. No, I am not worried about it, but it has happened.

And dying via stingray spines has happened too. But, can you point to any actual cases? I mean, are we talking a single death or two per year nationwide here?

 

[woody60707]

People can die, and do, especially in cold states, when they cause a spark to form while pumping gas because of static electricity. No, I am not worried about it, but it has happened.

huh what? wait, your not joking. I would bet more people die choking on food. Should we be feed also? Think of the kids

I am sure you could find a way that someone died pumping gas, giving the number of times a day gas gets pumped over years and years something is bound to happen. On that note it would seem to me that pumping gas is one of lifes safer activities.

 

[Chairman Meow]

But what if the station where someone does it for you, the price is a dollar higher?

Can you find an example of a full-service gas station that charges a dollar more than neighboring non-full-service stations? My experience has always been that the full-service stations charge about the same as the self-service station. When I'm at home I have the choice between a self-service Sheetz station, or a full-service station just down the road that charges the same price. Guess which one I go to.

Ridiculous.

Not only can this be an object for abuse, but it adds another layer of bureacratical left wing nonsense by hiring yet another middleman to perform a useless task that is easier done by yourself.

Exactly. It's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to give poor people jobs. In good, patriotic, conservative states like Maryland, you pay the same price for the pleasure of pumping your own gas!

 

[Atlas14]

Exactly. It's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to give poor people jobs. In good, patriotic, conservative states like Maryland, you pay the same price for the pleasure of pumping your own gas!

Why do we need these jobs? Why not create meaningful jobs that aren't existing for the sole purpose of welfare?

 

[Cuivienen]

I remember hearing in this thread that in NJ or perhaps Oregon it is defended for safety purposes, but is it really that necessary to mandate this? If somebody is completely unsure about how to pump gas and doesn't want to blow the whole place up or something, he/she should simply ask whoever is working at the gas station, or if serious enough shouldn't be driving.

The point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the law. No, it probably doesn't really impact safety significantly, and maybe the jobs it provides are not the greatest, but there's no down side. Gas stations in New Jersey (and, I would guess, Oregon) do no worse than those in neighboring states.

Now, how about we argue about some laws that actually do have down sides like the stringent blue laws of my native Bergen County, NJ? (I would actually argue in their favor, but many would argue against them.)

 

[Arcadian83]

Argh, despite the numbers Augerey provides, I cannot be convinced that you can employ and pay people to perform a useless service without it costing money.

If there is indeed no downside, why not make a law to employ ten times as many gas pumpers, so they can rotate: 9 sit down while 1 pumps gas. That way they can employ 10 times more people this way! Or you could go another 10 fold, and pay 99 people to do nothing while 1 pumps gas...

I just do not buy that there is no cost....

 

[amadeus]

It's silly, paternalistic, and like most laws on the books, unnecessary.

 

[Cuivienen]

Argh, despite the numbers Augerey provides, I cannot be convinced that you can employ and pay people to perform a useless service without it costing money.

If there is indeed no downside, why not make a law to employ ten times as many gas pumpers, so they can rotate: 9 sit down while 1 pumps gas. That way they can employ 10 times more people this way! Or you could go another 10 fold, and pay 99 people to do nothing while 1 pumps gas...

I just do not buy that there is no cost....

Of course, you can't require so many employees that the station can't turn a reasonable profit, and hiring people to do literally nothing is pointless.

However, unlike many venues, gas stations must exist at fairly regular intervals and are guaranteed patronage, meaning that they will, unless under extreme stress, always turn a large profit. The costs are minimal since the gas stations make money either way.

(My guess is that stations also save money when their pumps are not damaged or destroyed by incompetent or frustrated customers and of course don't lose money from people stealing gas. Two or three minimum wage employees [to cover all hours of the day] are probably worth that.)

 

[bhsup]

I just remembered a news article in my hometown newspaper from this summer. The last full-service filling station closed up shop finally, leaving the poor folks at the mercy of death at the pumps when they do it themselves.

I'm sure there are still some in Kansas City proper and some of the bigger suburbs, but down here in Cass County, there are no more.

 

[Arcadian83]

Of course, you can't require so many employees that the station can't turn a reasonable profit, and hiring people to do literally nothing is pointless.

When I would just as soon pump my own gas, they are doing just about nothing. I would do it in the same amount of time as they would. Them being there provides neither me nor the station any benefit. (at least to me)

However, unlike many venues, gas stations must exist at fairly regular intervals and are guaranteed patronage, meaning that they will, unless under extreme stress, always turn a large profit. The costs are minimal since the gas stations make money either way.

Gasoline is a very competative, price-driven (because they are all selling the same quality product) industry. Therefore they have very thin profit margins. It is simply not true that they turn large profits, and thus have some sort of padding, so adding employees does not make a difference.

(My guess is that stations also save money when their pumps are not damaged or destroyed by incompetent or frustrated customers and of course don't lose money from people stealing gas. Two or three minimum wage employees [to cover all hours of the day] are probably worth that.)

In my area, all gas stations have been pay-first for years.

The matter of insurance does interest me, and could explain this a little bit, but I find it hard to believe that customers would do damage per hour to the station equal to the employee's hourly pay.

 

[emzie]

What politician made you believe that!?

This is completly absurd, it must be for some other reason than creating jobs. Or is it a way to fool voters that jobs are created? Do people really believe that more inefficiency and going back in time will create jobs?

How doesn't it create more jobs? There are thousands of gas stations across New Jersey and they all have to hire an extra employee or empolyees. I never said it was efficent.

On a side note, I drive through southern Jersey a lot in the summer (my family owns a vacation home near Cape May. Avalon is the name of the town if anyone's intreasted) and the gas stations I see are much nicer than those back in Ohio (where I'm from).

 

[Sims2789]

Ridiculous.

Not only can this be an object for abuse, but it adds another layer of bureacratical left wing nonsense by hiring yet another middleman to perform a useless task that is easier done by yourself.

Not in libertarian Oregon; they don't have a sales tax. I'd bet the gas thing is left over from the Depression.

 

[amadeus]

The problem is they come up with new excuses to keep it on the books.

 

[CaptainF]

The problem is they come up with new excuses to keep it on the books.

And the excuses all suck. Some aspects of this state truly are lame.

 

[Lotus49]

As I recall, they're very slow to change things in general, in the PacNW. And the longer something has been done a certain way, the more likely it will continue. Nobody thinks to consider 'why', or 'let's analyze this from a fresh perspective for a moment'. It's all pretty laid back. The whole region feels like it's on autopilot. Not exactly the locale for 'sweeping, frequent changes'. Dare I say, 'inflexible'... to use a kind, patient word. There's a certain comfort zone, and complacency that goes w/ the laid-backness. The people tend to resist change, instead opting for the status quo. Change is frowned upon, quite frankly. And for someone coming from other parts of the country, that shows up and asks, "what the heck is this ate up crap?" -Well, you might as well give up; they're going to keep doing things their way, regardless of how sadly inefficient it may be. And while I'm sure the engineers at Microsoft, Boeing, et.al. are very bright and innovative people, I must say the general populace fails to impress, not to mention fall short of living up to the nationally perceived reputation. But, oh well - JMHO. /rant

 

[aaglo]

States like Oregon, and I believe New Jersey have laws that prevent a person from filling his own car. You need an attendant to do it. What do you think of that law?

That seems like communism: everybody has to have a job. Any job.

 

[Adebisi]

How doesn't it create more jobs? There are thousands of gas stations across New Jersey and they all have to hire an extra employee or empolyees. I never said it was efficent.

But they aren't productive jobs - they just exist because of a law, not because they are needed. You could just as well raise taxes and let the people live on welfare!

If this would really be a good way of creating jobs (and, as you said earlier, "pumping more money into the economy") why isn't it done all the time? We could solve American poverty by creating millions of meaningless jobs!

Just as a comparsion, in the Social Democratic Nordic countries, only the most die-hard Socialists wants to solve unemployment by employing more people in the public sector. Forcing private companies to employ people is something I have probably never heard of. The pragmatic, ruling parties are turning to privatisations, deregulation and tax cuts.