4 ms·

It's the same in Oregon. You're not allowed to pump your own gas even if you want to.

by dmarkow 13y ago

kabdib 13y ago
Unless you're on a motorcycle. Then none of the attendants want to deal with you -- they hand you the gas pump nozzle and you do the filling. I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. If it's "consumer safety" then it's bullshit.
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. Blatant employment protectionism. Every time it comes up on a ballot the "statement in favor" is always primarily employment protectionism. The arguments are generally of the form "if we allowed self service, nobody would pay for full service, and those jobs would go away". As with many similarly obnoxious laws: Portland votes for it, the rest of Oregon votes against it, and Portland wins.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Who actually lobbies for it? I can't imagine that gas station attendants themselves have much sway, and I don't see why station owners would want to keep it that way. Is it just regular old people in Portland who honestly believe it is best, even without any lobbying or propaganda?
    - repsilat 13y ago
      People aren't smart. They like full-service, and they know it'd disappear if it wasn't the law. What they don't realise is that the reason it'd disappear is that they don't like it enough to pay extra for it. The stations themselves might not be against full-service, either (at least away from state borders.) It's an extra cost, true, but it's paid by all of their competitors, too, so it just drives prices up. Demand is pretty inelastic, so profits aren't much affected. This might change with electric and fuel-efficient cars becoming more common, but it's hard to think long-term when you're selling oil.
      - to3m 13y ago
        There are a couple of petrol stations near me that have recently started offering optional attendant service at peak periods, for no extra charge. This has been some time coming, I must say; last time I saw attendant service, it was probably the mid 1980s, and that petrol station was famous for being the only place in town that offered it. But anyway - even if it's got rid of, it may yet come back. (I have no idea what's caused this. My personal theory is that it improves throughput at busy periods; many UK petrol stations have closed over the past 10-15 years due to the wafer-thin profit margins so those that are left can often get quite busy. But that's just a guess.)
      - takluyver 13y ago
        Alternatively, it could be that people do like full service enough to pay for this, but act irrationally at the pump, not the ballot box. I.e. people undervalue their own comfort and do things themselves because the idea of paying more seems so objectionable. This has occurred to me with airlines as well - we relentlessly optimise for cheap flights, and then complain that we're crammed in to tiny seats while flight attendants hawk duty free goods to us. Maybe we'd actually be happier if the cheapest flights were actually 50% more expensive and nicer, even though that's not what we choose.
        repsilat 13y ago
        Cool idea. Reading your post I thought, "This is obviously wrong," but it's growing on me the more I think about it (making it the best kind of comment to read.)
        AlisdairO 13y ago
        I experience the same thing with charitable giving. While I think I give a reasonable-ish amount out of pocket compared to most people, I absolutely don't give enough to match my ideals - fundamentally, the money is there, in my pocket, and it's hard to part with. On the other hand, at the ballot box, I always vote for parties that tend more redistributive (and since I earn decently, likely to raise my taxes). It's a much easier decision to make when there's that degree of separation.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    I figure this will change soon enough, now that $15 minimum wage laws are becoming popular causes in this neck of the woods. The broken-window fallacy is about to get really expensive for Oregonians.
    - repsilat 13y ago
      All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)
    - repsilat 13y ago
      All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)

It's the same in Oregon. You're not allowed to pump your own gas even if you want to.

by dmarkow 13y ago

It's the same in Oregon. You're not allowed to pump your own gas even if you want to.

Unless you're on a motorcycle. Then none of the attendants want to deal with you -- they hand you the gas pump nozzle and you do the filling. I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. If it's "consumer safety" then it's bullshit.

JoshTriplett 13y ago
> I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. Blatant employment protectionism. Every time it comes up on a ballot the "statement in favor" is always primarily employment protectionism. The arguments are generally of the form "if we allowed self service, nobody would pay for full service, and those jobs would go away". As with many similarly obnoxious laws: Portland votes for it, the rest of Oregon votes against it, and Portland wins.
- Crito 13y ago
  Who actually lobbies for it? I can't imagine that gas station attendants themselves have much sway, and I don't see why station owners would want to keep it that way. Is it just regular old people in Portland who honestly believe it is best, even without any lobbying or propaganda?
  - repsilat 13y ago
    People aren't smart. They like full-service, and they know it'd disappear if it wasn't the law. What they don't realise is that the reason it'd disappear is that they don't like it enough to pay extra for it. The stations themselves might not be against full-service, either (at least away from state borders.) It's an extra cost, true, but it's paid by all of their competitors, too, so it just drives prices up. Demand is pretty inelastic, so profits aren't much affected. This might change with electric and fuel-efficient cars becoming more common, but it's hard to think long-term when you're selling oil.
    - to3m 13y ago
      There are a couple of petrol stations near me that have recently started offering optional attendant service at peak periods, for no extra charge. This has been some time coming, I must say; last time I saw attendant service, it was probably the mid 1980s, and that petrol station was famous for being the only place in town that offered it. But anyway - even if it's got rid of, it may yet come back. (I have no idea what's caused this. My personal theory is that it improves throughput at busy periods; many UK petrol stations have closed over the past 10-15 years due to the wafer-thin profit margins so those that are left can often get quite busy. But that's just a guess.)
    - takluyver 13y ago
      Alternatively, it could be that people do like full service enough to pay for this, but act irrationally at the pump, not the ballot box. I.e. people undervalue their own comfort and do things themselves because the idea of paying more seems so objectionable. This has occurred to me with airlines as well - we relentlessly optimise for cheap flights, and then complain that we're crammed in to tiny seats while flight attendants hawk duty free goods to us. Maybe we'd actually be happier if the cheapest flights were actually 50% more expensive and nicer, even though that's not what we choose.
      - repsilat 13y ago
        Cool idea. Reading your post I thought, "This is obviously wrong," but it's growing on me the more I think about it (making it the best kind of comment to read.)
        AlisdairO 13y ago
        I experience the same thing with charitable giving. While I think I give a reasonable-ish amount out of pocket compared to most people, I absolutely don't give enough to match my ideals - fundamentally, the money is there, in my pocket, and it's hard to part with. On the other hand, at the ballot box, I always vote for parties that tend more redistributive (and since I earn decently, likely to raise my taxes). It's a much easier decision to make when there's that degree of separation.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  I figure this will change soon enough, now that $15 minimum wage laws are becoming popular causes in this neck of the woods. The broken-window fallacy is about to get really expensive for Oregonians.
  - repsilat 13y ago
    All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)
  - repsilat 13y ago
    All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)