[Charles VI]

Some weeks ago I was in Colombia. Distracted for a second from the country's women, weather, and natural diversity (read: mosquitoes), I noticed a sign hanged over a gas station that translated to this:

We create employment. No to self-service.

This bugged me. New Jersey and Oregon have banned self-service in gas stations, likely to ''create employment'' as well. But there must be something wrong with creating gas-pumping jobs as a solution for unemployment, no?

I understand that not everyone can become a highly-paid professional, simply because the economy could not function like that. The garbage-man is needed as much as the doctor. However, it seems to me that, ideally, every able person would be employed in a job that would provide a useful and necessary product or service to society. The labour force of a city, region, or country, is an asset, and should be put to use in a way that would be of value to citizens and consumers.

An attendant in a gas station, though, really doesn't provide a valuable service. Pumping gas, seriously? Is self-service that much of a task? That a person is being employed pumping gas reveals that society has, unfortunately, found no other use for that person's labour than pumping gas. Is whether a gas station is self-service or not really a deciding factor in consumers' choice of gas station? If it is, that reveals a second problem, consumers' unfathomable laziness, but that's another issue. If it is not, then that person's labour is being wasted in a largely useless employment. His employment was created only for the sake of creating employment.

Now, I understand that the economy suffers when unemployment rises, and to some extent, giving people jobs, whatever jobs, puts disposable income in their pockets and thus stimulates the economy. But if the job - a largely useless, petty job, like an attendant at a gas station - is made not to provide a service or product of real value, but to give the employee an income, why not give him the money outright? That's the whole purpose of it all, it seems. That person's skills could be used, or trained, for something more... practical. I mean, we could really end the unemployment problem by banning self-service across the United States, but that would be a really lousy solution to the problem, no?

Opinions? Refutations?

This post has been edited by Charles VI: 25 April 2009 - 11:21 PM

[-Wolverine-]

How many small stores can actually afford this?

The one I worked at wouldn't be able to. Using the cashier doesn't make sense either, it would be silly to leave people waiting in line while she pumps gas. If a business wants to create the job, thats great. The government shouldn't force anyone to create a position within their business to "create" a lousy job.

[Lamuella]

removes too much choice for too little additional employment. Bad move economically and diplomatically.

Personally, I steer clear of stations where someone pumps your gas for you because they tend to be more expensive.

[LOXC5991]

The largest problem that I see with this (I live in Oregon) is that because of it you never, ever see an independent gas station. All of them are Shell, or Chevron, or some other major gas station chain. Forcing companies to hire more employees than they need hurts profits, and therefore hurts the ability of a business to succeed. Though it is convenient to have (in a kinda really really lazy way) it is nevertheless quite worthless and hurtful to business.
Then again Oregon is starting to close on 15% unemployment, so maybe I should stfu.

[deSouza]

Here in brazil there is almost no such thing as self service.
Not exactly because it is expensive, but because a grand portion of the costumers that can afford a car are lazy, pseudo-aristocratic assholes that like to be served in every stance of their lives.


With saying that, I think that every job that isn't exactly functional should be abolished.
It is an irrational reallocation of resources, considering that the service is only a service artificially.
I also think that everyone should be as self sufficient as possible, and that kind of dependancy, when it is generalized in all areas of expertise, generates lazy, pseudo-aristocratic assholes that want to be served in every stance of their lives and contribute nothing for the creation of an open, democratic society.

It also creates (or perpetuates) an underclass of superexploited people with no real perspectives of improving their livelihood.
The problem with the lack jobs should be addressed in a different form.
I am all up for student grants and free education, as I think that every society should give the opportunity for people to qualify themselves. We have something very wrong in the very fabric of our society when we see education as a privilege.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I know of no other method so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

[Carrick]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Apr 26 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

I know of no other method so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

I've lived in both Jersey and New York in my life. It was always hilarious to see my New Jersey friends get confused when having to stop for gas when coming into the city. I'd usually have to walk them through it or do it for them :lol:

[jackyseto123]

I actually agree with this, as I have been for a while now.

If you have a payed guy come by and fill up your car, it'll create moar jobs and stuff.

[Moridin]

LOXC5991, on Apr 25 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

The largest problem that I see with this (I live in Oregon) is that because of it you never, ever see an independent gas station. All of them are Shell, or Chevron, or some other major gas station chain. Forcing companies to hire more employees than they need hurts profits, and therefore hurts the ability of a business to succeed. Though it is convenient to have (in a kinda really really lazy way) it is nevertheless quite worthless and hurtful to business.

Coming from Oregon as well, I agree wholeheartedly. Offhand I can think of only one gas station in the Portland area that isn't part of a large national chain. It's an entirely useless service; might as well just pick one person in 10,000 and give them $70 a day, you'd get the same end result. In some cases, requiring a gas station attendant will actually slow things down; when there's four or five cars waiting for gas and one guy manning the station you begin to realize what a backwards idea it really is.

Lamuella, on Apr 25 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

removes too much choice for too little additional employment. Bad move economically and diplomatically.

Personally, I steer clear of stations where someone pumps your gas for you because they tend to be more expensive.

I'm not sure exactly how much more expensive it makes it. While there are confounding variables to be considered, when I go up to Washington or down to California I don't notice much difference in price. Again, it could be a result of where pipelines are, tax rates, etc, but I wouldn't necessarily say that having a gas station attendant will jump the price all that much.

This post has been edited by Moridin: 26 April 2009 - 12:52 AM

[SynthFG]

If someone is spending extra on keeping low paid low skilled workers in service jobs,
There not spending it on things like electronics, sofa's, car's, luxury food items, so jobs in other parts of the economy, particularly manufacturing and retail are hurt.

[HHAYD]

Those gas pumping service people only slows down the gas pumping, pissing off the customers and reducing profits.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Why not leave it as it is, and let the market decide? Why interfere with the choices that can be made?

[Lamuella]

it's an interesting, and possibly Pavlovian thing.

The moment someone says "let the market decide" I have the intense desire to be on the other side of the issue no matter what the issue is.

It passes after a moment, but I think I have an irrational hatred of the free market somewhere in my psyche

[SilverHawk]

The invisible hand knows all!

[Squiggers]

Balls to that, I'll fill up my own damn vehicle.

I'm not having some trained monkey do it for me!

[steodonn]

I find the fact the places that have people pump your petrol for you even exist to be crazy

SERIOUSLY THERE A GARAGES THAT HAVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED TO PUMP PETROL. Talk about the most useless job ever

[Lamuella]

worse than that, I hear there are places where they will cook a meal for you

SERIOUSLY THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED TO COOK DINNER. Talk about the most useless job ever.

[Charles VI]

jackyseto123, on Apr 26 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

I actually agree with this, as I have been for a while now.

If you have a payed guy come by and fill up your car, it'll create moar jobs and stuff.

This is exactly what I was arguing against, eliminating self-service (either through government or through the free market) as a way to reduce unemployment. I say it's a pretty lousy solution - deSouza reflects my opinion on this.

Lamuella, on Apr 26 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

worse than that, I hear there are places where they will cook a meal for you

SERIOUSLY THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED TO COOK DINNER. Talk about the most useless job ever.

It's a stretch to compare cooking to gas-pumping, really. The former involves some (and depends on the level, a great deal of) skill, the latter, not at all.

This post has been edited by Charles VI: 26 April 2009 - 10:32 AM

[Lamuella]

Charles VI, on Apr 26 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

It's a stretch to compare cooking to gas-pumping, really. The former involves some (and depends on the level, a great deal of) skill, the latter, not at all.

pumping gas involves no skill? no skill?

that's a bit of an unfair statement. Certainly, it's not a triple bypass, but it's not entirely unskilled.

All right, if you have strong objections to cooking as the comparison, try washing cars, or mowing lawns.

The point of my post was this: Simply putting something in all caps to show how ridiculous you think something is doesn't make it ridiculous.

[Ethan Smith]

Giving out cheaper student loans would be better and wouldn't be a burden on the gas companies.

Kid goes to college fulltime = isn't in the workforce for 4 years (by which time one hopes there won't be a recession)