4 ms·

That's even more backwards in my opinion. The fact that it takes a human to fuel the car was my point.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
If every car had NASCAR style fill holes all in the same place, a robot could probably insert a hose and fill you up. As it is now, I would not trust an automatic robot arm to locate my fuel door, open my fuel door, twist off my cap, place cap in out of way spot, insert hose to fill, replace cap and close fuel door without ever scratching my car. Who is responsible when it malfunctions and scratches the shit out of it? Or misses and pumps gass all over the ground? Right now if that happens, it is my fault and I'll deal with the fix later. I'd rather not have to deal with some service station who is just going to claim the fault is with the robot manufacturer who is probably going to blame the car manufacturer. I can pump my own gas, thanks. (I'm looking at you too Oregon!)
- learc83 13y ago
  >I would not trust an automatic robot arm For 95% of newish cars this problem is fairly trivial because the gas cap/fuel doors are so similar (there are exceptions, I'm specifically thinking of cars that require you to press a button inside the car to open the refueling port), and any college robotics lab could design a system to handle it that was much less likely to scratch your car/spill gas than a human operator. The problem is that in Oregon/New Jersey it's a jobs program, so regulators are unlikely to allow something like that. In every other state, gas stations have no incentive to pay for such a system because they have no labor costs to save.
zalew 13y ago
Depends how you look at it. In hi-tech Japan low-level dull jobs are encouraged because they prefer that to unemployment. Thus there are 3 people servicing your car on the gas station (I only read about it, not sure if still true), every one of them has healthcare, etc. Nation-wide, in the long run supporting such jobs may be cheaper than dealing with the side-effects of unemployment. As a different example, in GCC countries immigrants also tank your car, but there it's just cheap means of comfort.
- learc83 13y ago
  It's much more efficient to just give the money out directly via a negative income tax, or a guaranteed basic income if that's your goal.
  - hrktb 13y ago
    It's the same way ofthinking as a luxuory hotel. There's a groom bringing your luggages to your suite, not a sophisticated warehouse style system shuffling them around. Having a guy/girl fill in the tank at the station is not efficient, but it makes a better service experience, it' also less error prone and stress free. BTW most people 'standing there doing nothing but X' in Japan are actually very valuable and can help you in a lot of matters, even completely unrelated to X. Unefficient but priceless if you have a special need or just don't know how things work.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Is it? Jobs provide all sorts of intangibles. You can't derive job satisfaction and a feeling of value to your community if you don't have a job. Neither of these things are requisite, but can be beneficial to the community.
  - zalew 13y ago
    I'm yet to hear of an example where giving money away to the unemployed cured socio-economical problems, especially in cultures where there is a social stigma attached to joblessness and living off benefits. Hiring for low wage jobs doesn't necessarily raise financial status, but gives access to social services and prevents side-effects like detachment from the job market, petty crimes, mental illnesses and addictions. Or to put it more simply: do you prefer an unemployed who's got cash for booze and nothing to do, or would you prefer him to be at work like all his peers and family?
    - learc83 13y ago
      Well there was that recent program that was posted about here where the basic income worked splendidly in a an African village. >specially in cultures where there is a social stigma attached to joblessness and living off benefits That's part of the point of a basic income as opposed to other means tested programs, there is no social stigma attached because everyone gets the basic income. > prevents side-effects like detachment from the job market, petty crimes, mental illnesses and addictions. How does low wage menial labor prevent mental illness or addictions. Sure people who are mentally ill or are addicted to hard drugs are are less likely to hold jobs, but the causality is in the opposite direction. >do you prefer an unemployed who's got cash for booze and nothing to do, or would you prefer him to be at work like all his peers and family? I'd prefer people do meaningful work that benefits the economy, instead of useless menial labor. Gas station attendants are almost completely nonexistent in other states, so clearly they aren't needed or wanted by the market. Here's a proposal that should mesh with that ideology. Enact regulation that says that grass must be cut by hand with scissors. Watch companies spring up overnight to employ tens of thousands of low wage laborers. Economists on all sides from Milton Friedman to Keynesians, to die hard socialists support some kind of basic income over our current welfare system. These are people who are diametrically opposed on almost every other issue yet they agree on this.

If every car had NASCAR style fill holes all in the same place, a robot could probably insert a hose and fill you up. As it is now, I would not trust an automatic robot arm to locate my fuel door, open my fuel door, twist off my cap, place cap in out of way spot, insert hose to fill, replace cap and close fuel door without ever scratching my car. Who is responsible when it malfunctions and scratches the shit out of it? Or misses and pumps gass all over the ground? Right now if that happens, it is my fault and I'll deal with the fix later. I'd rather not have to deal with some service station who is just going to claim the fault is with the robot manufacturer who is probably going to blame the car manufacturer. I can pump my own gas, thanks. (I'm looking at you too Oregon!)

learc83 13y ago
>I would not trust an automatic robot arm For 95% of newish cars this problem is fairly trivial because the gas cap/fuel doors are so similar (there are exceptions, I'm specifically thinking of cars that require you to press a button inside the car to open the refueling port), and any college robotics lab could design a system to handle it that was much less likely to scratch your car/spill gas than a human operator. The problem is that in Oregon/New Jersey it's a jobs program, so regulators are unlikely to allow something like that. In every other state, gas stations have no incentive to pay for such a system because they have no labor costs to save.

zalew 13y ago

Depends how you look at it. In hi-tech Japan low-level dull jobs are encouraged because they prefer that to unemployment. Thus there are 3 people servicing your car on the gas station (I only read about it, not sure if still true), every one of them has healthcare, etc. Nation-wide, in the long run supporting such jobs may be cheaper than dealing with the side-effects of unemployment. As a different example, in GCC countries immigrants also tank your car, but there it's just cheap means of comfort.

learc83 13y ago
It's much more efficient to just give the money out directly via a negative income tax, or a guaranteed basic income if that's your goal.
- hrktb 13y ago
  It's the same way ofthinking as a luxuory hotel. There's a groom bringing your luggages to your suite, not a sophisticated warehouse style system shuffling them around. Having a guy/girl fill in the tank at the station is not efficient, but it makes a better service experience, it' also less error prone and stress free. BTW most people 'standing there doing nothing but X' in Japan are actually very valuable and can help you in a lot of matters, even completely unrelated to X. Unefficient but priceless if you have a special need or just don't know how things work.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Is it? Jobs provide all sorts of intangibles. You can't derive job satisfaction and a feeling of value to your community if you don't have a job. Neither of these things are requisite, but can be beneficial to the community.
- zalew 13y ago
  I'm yet to hear of an example where giving money away to the unemployed cured socio-economical problems, especially in cultures where there is a social stigma attached to joblessness and living off benefits. Hiring for low wage jobs doesn't necessarily raise financial status, but gives access to social services and prevents side-effects like detachment from the job market, petty crimes, mental illnesses and addictions. Or to put it more simply: do you prefer an unemployed who's got cash for booze and nothing to do, or would you prefer him to be at work like all his peers and family?
  - learc83 13y ago
    Well there was that recent program that was posted about here where the basic income worked splendidly in a an African village. >specially in cultures where there is a social stigma attached to joblessness and living off benefits That's part of the point of a basic income as opposed to other means tested programs, there is no social stigma attached because everyone gets the basic income. > prevents side-effects like detachment from the job market, petty crimes, mental illnesses and addictions. How does low wage menial labor prevent mental illness or addictions. Sure people who are mentally ill or are addicted to hard drugs are are less likely to hold jobs, but the causality is in the opposite direction. >do you prefer an unemployed who's got cash for booze and nothing to do, or would you prefer him to be at work like all his peers and family? I'd prefer people do meaningful work that benefits the economy, instead of useless menial labor. Gas station attendants are almost completely nonexistent in other states, so clearly they aren't needed or wanted by the market. Here's a proposal that should mesh with that ideology. Enact regulation that says that grass must be cut by hand with scissors. Watch companies spring up overnight to employ tens of thousands of low wage laborers. Economists on all sides from Milton Friedman to Keynesians, to die hard socialists support some kind of basic income over our current welfare system. These are people who are diametrically opposed on almost every other issue yet they agree on this.