5 ms·

I live in Oregon. Up until last year, you weren't allowed to pump your own gas in most parts of the state. The law required gas station attendants to do it, as

I live in Oregon. Up until last year, you weren't allowed to pump your own gas in most parts of the state. The law required gas station attendants to do it, as a scheme to keep them employed. The most annoying part of this wasn't the tiny marginal cost, but that it sometimes took forever to get your gas if the attendant was busy. You'd just sit there looking at the pump you weren't allowed to put your credit card into. You can create laws to keep making work for a class of workers, but it ends up unpopular. Instead of a social safety net as it was intended, it turns into a corrupt drain on society at large, and a relative disadvantage to your economy versus those that are more ... agile, let's say. Check out e.g. the underpaid but overstaffed government bureaucracies and police forces in most Latin American countries. Giving a third of your society badge and a lousy paycheck often does more harm than good. I don't consider this observation to be right wing (per the sibling post), it's just how things work. While there's nobility in work and psychologically it's better to keep people employed, I'd just as soon give all the gas station attendants a lifelong retirement UBI so they'd get out of the way and let me pump my gas.

jakelazaroff 2mo ago
As a New Jersey native (the single remaining state that still mandates gas station attendants) I have spent my entire life convinced this is sour grapes from other states. Why would you want to leave your warm cozy car in the winter to pump your gas?!
- hattmall 2mo ago
  You're not wrong really, it's just a luxury most people aren't familiar with. My mom would always only go to the 1 or 2 stations in our town that advertised "Full Service" now it's not even a thing at all anywhere around here. At one we even had an account so didn't even have to bother with paying. The attendant would put air in the tires, check oil, top up fluids and if you wanted go grab you a snack. Last one went away around early 2000s.
  - noduerme 2mo ago
    My mom did that too. She got an oil check and wiper fluid filled up, and gave a nice tip to the attendant. And that was in Los Angeles where there was definitely no weather-related reason to stay in your car. But my mom was old and I think it was a status thing, too. On the east coast I could understand not wanting to get out of your car in the winter. And an attendant standing out in the snow is a tough job. Not sure it should be mandated. But in Oregon there's really no time of year it's that great a hardship to pump your own gas. The attendants weren't fired, btw. At most stations they're still there and they'll offer to pump your gas. You're just allowed to do it yourself now.
    - selimthegrim 2mo ago
      The law never applied to diesel cars FYI
  - serial_dev 2mo ago
    > The attendant would put air in the tires, check oil, top up fluids So today it would be mainly just busywork, I’m doing those like twice a year, but need to put gas in my car once a week (roughly).
    - radiator 2mo ago
      I think you should check your tires more often.
  - sbiru93 2mo ago
    In Italy this is still a thing. Almost all city gas stations are "multi": If there are 4 pumps usually 2 are self-services, and the other 2 are with the operator that, if you require, it does check oil, clean windshield etc.
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  Do they check your oil and coolant, and wash your windows? That is what Full Service used to mean at a gas station.
- ricardobayes 2mo ago
  In Dubai and other gulf states, you can order gas to your home and they fill your car up in your driveway.
  - ileonichwiesz 2mo ago
    Isn’t that the plot of an episode of Always Sunny?
    - ZeroGravitas 2mo ago
      I think it's also a YC startup called Yoshi from 2016, I wonder how often those two overlap?
  - noduerme 2mo ago
    Must be nice to be in the 10% of the population who are citizens. Apartheid labor so so sweet.
- duskdozer 2mo ago
  [dead]
SecretDreams 2mo ago
You're half right. UBI is probably the only path where humanity comes out OK in the not so distant future. But you don't give out UBI and let people become potatoes. You give out UBI to allow them to meet their basic needs and then have them work a job they kfhr genuinely be OK at, and, ideally, enjoy. Ideally.
- lazide 2mo ago
  Why would the billionaires do UBI instead of Running Man (latest one)? Not a joke. All the folks talking about it, it sounds like some sort of fantasy cope to get people going along willingly into the void.
  - noduerme 2mo ago
    Because if there's one thing billionaires should be scared of, it's billions of people suddenly becoming estranged from the economy. Having governments pump money into the consumer demand side becomes a no-brainer once you're faced with deflationary depression and mass unemployment. Your investors then get taxed to give UBI to workers to spend money to keep your sales up. It's probably the one form of wealth redistribution that on balance would actually benefit billionaires.
    - lazide 2mo ago
      That assumes a degree of forethought and worry about consequences that the current set of billionaires seems to be studiously avoiding - along with half of everyone else, near as I can tell.
      - generic92034 2mo ago
        Why worry if you can have an army of AI controlled combat robo dogs and drones? /s Now, times are becoming "interesting" again, unfortunately.
        Y-bar 2mo ago
inigyou 2mo ago
It would be better if they were paid to do nothing.
- noduerme 2mo ago
  Right, but that's the double edged sword isn't it? If you pay them to do nothing, they have nothing to do. If my income is going to subsidize that, then they'd better literally do nothing as if doing nothing is their full-time job. Like: Don't start a podcast, don't get into politics, don't whine about people who choose to work and earn more than the UBI. Don't have children and don't usurp credit. Just take your check for doing nothing, play your video games and watch your movies, thank you. I don't think it would be fair fo make living on a UBI as comfortable as the lowest minimum wage job people are actually working at. Not fair to the people who work at whatever they can find.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    The premise of an actual UBI is that it's universal, i.e. unconditional. If the UBI is $12,000/year then everybody gets $12,000 a year. If you don't have a job then you get $12,000. If you have a job that pays $10,000/year then you get $12,000 plus that $10,000. If you have a job that pays $100,000/year then you get $12,000 plus that $100,000. Of course, you also pay taxes out of whatever you make, so the person who makes $100,000 might be paying $30,000 in taxes and then they're effectively paying $18,000 rather than receiving $12,000. But that's fine and is actually want you want, because it produces a progressive rate curve even when everyone is paying the same marginal tax rate. Right now we put irrationally high marginal rates on lower and middle income people in the form of benefits phase outs. With a UBI they get the benefits as cash and experience the phase outs as paying taxes at the same (rather than a higher) marginal rate as higher income people. You don't want people doing nothing. You want them to have the incentive to take productive employment when it's available. Taking away the money you give them because they take a job is exactly what you don't want, which is crazy.
    - noduerme 2mo ago
      I mean, but, if everyone gets $12k, then doesn't $12k mean nothing? If I'm buying a car or a house, and the guy I'm bidding against is getting a $12k check, and so did I, then he ups his offer and I match it so doesn't the price just jump by the same $12k? After a year or two, won't the cost of living just go up so that the UBI no longer covers basic necessities? And isn't that just inflation... instead of printing money, injecting it into a different part of the cycle? I know it's considered "regressive" but if we're going to pay for that I think it shouldn't come out of income tax, it should be sales tax. Specifically zero tax on basic necessities and an escalating sales tax on anything optional or luxury. A gluttony consumption tax, if you will. Want to spend your $12k on Nikes? You're only gonna get $3k of shoes for it. Make $300k a year and live on rice and beans? Keep your money. Want to buy a boat? 20% of that goes to pay for the UBI. [edit] on the other hand, what I just wrote is probably also a prescription for destroying the world's most successful and productive economies, and the companies that fuel them. But taking a UBI out of income tax is a great way to make more people not want to work. And if Nikes get way too expensive, who knows how that could distort the economy. Maybe it would be better if the government just made some basic rules about minimum wages and work hours and let people fight it out for a buck like they do now. idk.
taneq 2mo ago
> The law required gas station attendants to do it, as a scheme to keep them employed. I wonder what they’ll do next with EVs becoming more popular? Outlaw home charging?
- hirako2000 2mo ago
  Home charging is an opportunity. Mandate a monthly routing check by a certified specialist. You can sign up for a yearly commitment, 12 visits for just $899. A no brainer when a visit costs minimum $149. Failure to comply can result in a fine up to $3,000 and up to 6 months in prison.
  - noduerme 2mo ago
    The IAEA will be up your ass right now just for running a small nuclear reactor in your basement. WTF. Can't make your own power, it's illegal to grow your own tobacco, what's next? Sewage bills?!
Earw0rm 2mo ago
They're doing this in the UK right now with security for cultural events. Since the Manchester Arena terror attack (awful, tragic, evil, and an isolated event), it has been mandatory for music and live theatre venues to have an absolute army of "security" staff checking people's bags. A full 95 percent of whom would be entirely and totally useless in any actual emergency or danger situation. It's one of the things contributing to the ever increasing price of show tickets, but basically it's a tax on people who can afford live shows to create jobs for an otherwise fairly unemployable sector of the population (young and not much education - way too little natural demand for that in central London to mop up all the supply).
- harvey9 2mo ago
  A lot of the time bag checks are for glass bottles either because they can make brawls more dangerous or because the venue doesn't want you bringing your own booze.
  - Earw0rm 2mo ago
    I'm too old and boring to go to cultural events that are likely to end in brawls. And yep, I get it on the booze thing, but they'd have to confiscate a ton of handbag booze for the nylon jacket army to make economic sense. Festivals is one thing, sure, but we're talking theatre shows and comedy nights as well.
ludicrousdispla 2mo ago
>> it sometimes took forever to get your gas if the attendant was busy Then the gas station owner could hire another attendant. Or your parent could pick a different gas station or a different time of day, free markets and all...

jakelazaroff 2mo ago

As a New Jersey native (the single remaining state that still mandates gas station attendants) I have spent my entire life convinced this is sour grapes from other states. Why would you want to leave your warm cozy car in the winter to pump your gas?!

hattmall 2mo ago
You're not wrong really, it's just a luxury most people aren't familiar with. My mom would always only go to the 1 or 2 stations in our town that advertised "Full Service" now it's not even a thing at all anywhere around here. At one we even had an account so didn't even have to bother with paying. The attendant would put air in the tires, check oil, top up fluids and if you wanted go grab you a snack. Last one went away around early 2000s.
- noduerme 2mo ago
  My mom did that too. She got an oil check and wiper fluid filled up, and gave a nice tip to the attendant. And that was in Los Angeles where there was definitely no weather-related reason to stay in your car. But my mom was old and I think it was a status thing, too. On the east coast I could understand not wanting to get out of your car in the winter. And an attendant standing out in the snow is a tough job. Not sure it should be mandated. But in Oregon there's really no time of year it's that great a hardship to pump your own gas. The attendants weren't fired, btw. At most stations they're still there and they'll offer to pump your gas. You're just allowed to do it yourself now.
  - selimthegrim 2mo ago
    The law never applied to diesel cars FYI
- serial_dev 2mo ago
  > The attendant would put air in the tires, check oil, top up fluids So today it would be mainly just busywork, I’m doing those like twice a year, but need to put gas in my car once a week (roughly).
  - radiator 2mo ago
    I think you should check your tires more often.
- sbiru93 2mo ago
  In Italy this is still a thing. Almost all city gas stations are "multi": If there are 4 pumps usually 2 are self-services, and the other 2 are with the operator that, if you require, it does check oil, clean windshield etc.
SoftTalker 2mo ago
Do they check your oil and coolant, and wash your windows? That is what Full Service used to mean at a gas station.
ricardobayes 2mo ago
In Dubai and other gulf states, you can order gas to your home and they fill your car up in your driveway.
- ileonichwiesz 2mo ago
  Isn’t that the plot of an episode of Always Sunny?
  - ZeroGravitas 2mo ago
    I think it's also a YC startup called Yoshi from 2016, I wonder how often those two overlap?
- noduerme 2mo ago
  Must be nice to be in the 10% of the population who are citizens. Apartheid labor so so sweet.
duskdozer 2mo ago
[dead]

SecretDreams 2mo ago

You're half right. UBI is probably the only path where humanity comes out OK in the not so distant future. But you don't give out UBI and let people become potatoes. You give out UBI to allow them to meet their basic needs and then have them work a job they kfhr genuinely be OK at, and, ideally, enjoy. Ideally.

lazide 2mo ago
Why would the billionaires do UBI instead of Running Man (latest one)? Not a joke. All the folks talking about it, it sounds like some sort of fantasy cope to get people going along willingly into the void.
- noduerme 2mo ago
  Because if there's one thing billionaires should be scared of, it's billions of people suddenly becoming estranged from the economy. Having governments pump money into the consumer demand side becomes a no-brainer once you're faced with deflationary depression and mass unemployment. Your investors then get taxed to give UBI to workers to spend money to keep your sales up. It's probably the one form of wealth redistribution that on balance would actually benefit billionaires.
  - lazide 2mo ago
    That assumes a degree of forethought and worry about consequences that the current set of billionaires seems to be studiously avoiding - along with half of everyone else, near as I can tell.
    - generic92034 2mo ago
      Why worry if you can have an army of AI controlled combat robo dogs and drones? /s Now, times are becoming "interesting" again, unfortunately.
      - Y-bar 2mo ago

inigyou 2mo ago

It would be better if they were paid to do nothing.

noduerme 2mo ago
Right, but that's the double edged sword isn't it? If you pay them to do nothing, they have nothing to do. If my income is going to subsidize that, then they'd better literally do nothing as if doing nothing is their full-time job. Like: Don't start a podcast, don't get into politics, don't whine about people who choose to work and earn more than the UBI. Don't have children and don't usurp credit. Just take your check for doing nothing, play your video games and watch your movies, thank you. I don't think it would be fair fo make living on a UBI as comfortable as the lowest minimum wage job people are actually working at. Not fair to the people who work at whatever they can find.
- AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
  The premise of an actual UBI is that it's universal, i.e. unconditional. If the UBI is $12,000/year then everybody gets $12,000 a year. If you don't have a job then you get $12,000. If you have a job that pays $10,000/year then you get $12,000 plus that $10,000. If you have a job that pays $100,000/year then you get $12,000 plus that $100,000. Of course, you also pay taxes out of whatever you make, so the person who makes $100,000 might be paying $30,000 in taxes and then they're effectively paying $18,000 rather than receiving $12,000. But that's fine and is actually want you want, because it produces a progressive rate curve even when everyone is paying the same marginal tax rate. Right now we put irrationally high marginal rates on lower and middle income people in the form of benefits phase outs. With a UBI they get the benefits as cash and experience the phase outs as paying taxes at the same (rather than a higher) marginal rate as higher income people. You don't want people doing nothing. You want them to have the incentive to take productive employment when it's available. Taking away the money you give them because they take a job is exactly what you don't want, which is crazy.
  - noduerme 2mo ago
    I mean, but, if everyone gets $12k, then doesn't $12k mean nothing? If I'm buying a car or a house, and the guy I'm bidding against is getting a $12k check, and so did I, then he ups his offer and I match it so doesn't the price just jump by the same $12k? After a year or two, won't the cost of living just go up so that the UBI no longer covers basic necessities? And isn't that just inflation... instead of printing money, injecting it into a different part of the cycle? I know it's considered "regressive" but if we're going to pay for that I think it shouldn't come out of income tax, it should be sales tax. Specifically zero tax on basic necessities and an escalating sales tax on anything optional or luxury. A gluttony consumption tax, if you will. Want to spend your $12k on Nikes? You're only gonna get $3k of shoes for it. Make $300k a year and live on rice and beans? Keep your money. Want to buy a boat? 20% of that goes to pay for the UBI. [edit] on the other hand, what I just wrote is probably also a prescription for destroying the world's most successful and productive economies, and the companies that fuel them. But taking a UBI out of income tax is a great way to make more people not want to work. And if Nikes get way too expensive, who knows how that could distort the economy. Maybe it would be better if the government just made some basic rules about minimum wages and work hours and let people fight it out for a buck like they do now. idk.

taneq 2mo ago

> The law required gas station attendants to do it, as a scheme to keep them employed. I wonder what they’ll do next with EVs becoming more popular? Outlaw home charging?

hirako2000 2mo ago
Home charging is an opportunity. Mandate a monthly routing check by a certified specialist. You can sign up for a yearly commitment, 12 visits for just $899. A no brainer when a visit costs minimum $149. Failure to comply can result in a fine up to $3,000 and up to 6 months in prison.
- noduerme 2mo ago
  The IAEA will be up your ass right now just for running a small nuclear reactor in your basement. WTF. Can't make your own power, it's illegal to grow your own tobacco, what's next? Sewage bills?!

Earw0rm 2mo ago

They're doing this in the UK right now with security for cultural events. Since the Manchester Arena terror attack (awful, tragic, evil, and an isolated event), it has been mandatory for music and live theatre venues to have an absolute army of "security" staff checking people's bags. A full 95 percent of whom would be entirely and totally useless in any actual emergency or danger situation. It's one of the things contributing to the ever increasing price of show tickets, but basically it's a tax on people who can afford live shows to create jobs for an otherwise fairly unemployable sector of the population (young and not much education - way too little natural demand for that in central London to mop up all the supply).

harvey9 2mo ago
A lot of the time bag checks are for glass bottles either because they can make brawls more dangerous or because the venue doesn't want you bringing your own booze.
- Earw0rm 2mo ago
  I'm too old and boring to go to cultural events that are likely to end in brawls. And yep, I get it on the booze thing, but they'd have to confiscate a ton of handbag booze for the nylon jacket army to make economic sense. Festivals is one thing, sure, but we're talking theatre shows and comedy nights as well.

ludicrousdispla 2mo ago

>> it sometimes took forever to get your gas if the attendant was busy Then the gas station owner could hire another attendant. Or your parent could pick a different gas station or a different time of day, free markets and all...