This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation. In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy.

> In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy.

You have a point there. I think what I'm getting hung up on is that it's not so much a creation of value as a redistribution of value (from the comic strip workers to the gas station attendants, and to the government collecting taxes). Of course, there should be _some_ creation of value involved for the buyers and sellers of the gas pumping service, other wise they would abstain from it, and maybe it is this value that the parent comment referred to, and all is well.

> This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation.

Actually, I'm uncomfortable with many discussions of "job creation". It often seems that the number of people hired, i.e. the number of "jobs created", is all that is considered, even if the work done is not useful, meaning that a job-creating action is seen as a success even if it comes at a cost greater than that of just gifting the same people the money and leaving them available for useful work.

Well gee, there's a solid argument.

It's meant like "do you guys also feel the weird smell in here?".