> Big surprise, in a state where you're not even allowed to pump your own gas.

I'm afraid I don't understand this bit (being European and all). Are you saying that not only there are attendants, but that you are forbidden from using the pump if an attendant is not available?

Yes. Oregon and New Jersey both forbid consumers from pumping their own gas. If an attendant is not available, you still may not pump your own gas.

This is surreal. In western Europe, you'll find somebody manning a shop next to the pumps, if there is one, and you may have to pay for gas inside the shop, but most pumps take credit cards. I think any lawmaker suggesting that an attendant be made mandatory would be cause for much hilarity. I understand that this is a way for the state to provide jobs artificially, but it's definitely a different way of operating.

> This is surreal.

Sure, but we still end up paying less for gas than our neighbors.

Don't get me wrong, if it were up to me, this would be gone in a heartbeat ... but it's not the end of the world.

That's correct.

Having lived in Oregon (where motorists are put on a pedestal and actually served by gas station attendants) and then California, I don't understand the masses clamoring to pump their own gas. Is this supposed to be a privilege, getting out of the car in potentially inclement weather and messing around with flammable liquids?

It's nothing but the broken-window fallacy in action. If I didn't want to pump my own gas, I'd pull into a full-service lane instead of a self-service one... but the market has pretty much spoken on that issue. I don't know where I'd even find a full-service lane anymore. There is almost no demand for it in the absence of coercion.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, I should STFU and move to Somalia...)

Another example, along with cigarette-free establishments, that the free market is not capable of delivering.

Smoke-free businesses are a gray area, because we're talking about an addictive substance. Businesses that refuse to serve tobacco addicts are at a disadvantage that apparently can't be overcome by additional patronage from customers seeking a smoke-free environment. So the government steps in, in the name of public health. I don't agree with these laws 100%, but I can see the argument behind them.

Full-service gas stations, on the other hand, are neither prohibited nor mandated in most states. They would exist if there was a market. There's not. End of story.

It's not about the convenience of staying in your car. It's about the cronyist/protectionist attitude of not letting different business models have an opportunity to serve consumers with various price and service mixes.

> Is this supposed to be a privilege, getting out of the car in potentially inclement weather and messing around with flammable liquids?

Way to be hyperbolic. Why not let the customer decide whether or not they want to do it themselves, rather than choosing what's best for them?

And surprise, surprise: in the 48 states where customers are free to choose, they overwhelmingly choose to pump their own gas.

I would rather not pay someone (in the form of higher gas prices) to do something that takes nearly no effort, and I can damn well do myself. Who is so lazy at they can't get out of their comfy seat for 2 minutes?

> I would rather not pay someone (in the form of higher gas prices) to do something that takes nearly no effort

Then you'd be happy to know that in addition to having full service, Oregon's gas prices are ~$.40 per gallon cheaper than California's. Full service doesn't seem to be resulting in dramatically higher prices.

> Who is so lazy at they can't get out of their comfy seat for 2 minutes?

Who doesn't have better things to do with their time than inhale gasoline fumes?

> Then you'd be happy to know that in addition to having full service, Oregon's gas prices are ~$.40 per gallon cheaper than California's. Full service doens't seem to be resulting in dramatically higher prices.

And now you're being willfully ignorant. California has a variety of other regulations that lead to higher prices. But that doesn't change the fact that Oregon's gas-pumping regulation also leads to higher gas prices.

That additional cost is probably gas tax, so instead of going towards paying a group of people to waste their time doing something trivial, that money is going to pay for freeway maintenance, etc.

> That additional cost is probably gas tax

California's gas tax is ~$.70 per gallon, Oregon is ~$.50. Now granted, California has roughly 3x the miles of roadway that Oregon has...[1] This probably explains why California's roads are atrociously bad and Oregon's are relatively pristine.

[1] http://blog.cubitplanning.com/2010/02/road-miles-by-state/

The difference isn't just in taxes. California has an artificially restricted supply of gasoline because it requires a specific formula (ostensibly to reduce emissions) and only six or seven refineries are equipped to meet that regulation.

Oregon's standards allow it to buy from a far larger market.

Ah, good to know! Makes a lot of sense. Do you know if it actually does reduce emissions?

It does. Just at a very basic level they're reducing the amount of smog-producing particulates and toxins such as benzene in the typical gallon of gas. Obviously, a reduction in those constituents is going to affect their ratios in the combustion products, it's like reducing the number of moles on the left side of a balanced chemical equation. The moles on the right are going to drop because there's less material.

California has an interesting history with environmental legislation, as it had a clean air board before the EPA existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board

I don't know.

This is actually one area where the refining industry wants federal regulation: they would vastly prefer to deal with a single set of standards for the whole country than tailoring individual plants to 50 different standards.

There are minimum federal standards:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/rfg/areas.htm

So the state specific requirements only really matter if they exceed the federal standards.

It's pretty likely that reformulated gasoline is effective in reducing smog (I think CO is the big target).

> So the state specific requirements only really matter if they exceed the federal standards.

Which is exactly the case in California, hence the higher prices.

To a large extent, I was replying to your wording. There is federal regulation. I was probably over-reading.

I thought you were going to say: "instead of paying a local working human being providing a decent service, that money goes down the government rathole".

It's not a decent service, though. It's a service not many want to pay extra for. Personally I would even pay a bit extra to be able to pump my own gas. It certainly doesn't save me any time to have them pump it for me, and it's awkward to boot.

There's no shortage of things they could be doing, but instead, we're paying them to stand around most of the time inhaling gasoline fumes. We could instead be paying those people to do something actually useful, like running fiber to homes and businesses, or delivering goods so that we don't have to travel, or a million other things that would increase our productivity.

That is not a fair comparison. California's gas tax (including excise tax) is higher than Oregon. In addition, California requires a more expensive blend of gasoline. A better comparison would be to a state that has similar taxes and gasoline requirements. As a bonus, the availability of refineries is a significant factor in gasoline prices.

I live just over the Washington border in the eastern part of the state and go to Oregon frequently. Same situation as you've found compared to California - Oregon is normally $0.10 or so cheaper per gallon. Often the attendants will wipe your windshield, check your wipers, tell you the sports score and weather, etc. It's rather charming really. Even when I was in Portland on business, I don't think I ever viewed it as taking any longer for the attendant to do it over what it would have taken me. If you really want to do it yourself, you can get a commercial fuel membership and pump away at those stations.

Same thing in NJ. And no one thinks prices would go down if they got rid of full service, so what would be the point?

Weird, I live in IA. I've never heard that there are states where gas cannot be pumped by the customer. Weather? All gas stations I've seen have an open pavilion/roof over all of the pumps. Flammable liquids? Unless you are smoking while pumping your gas, there's a pretty low risk of explosion or fire. There are cases of static electricity igniting the gas but that's rare. Normally the non-conductive handle protects against that very well.

It seems that it would actually be less convenient to have to wait for an attendant, especially when the station is busy. Unlike service from behind the checkout counter, the attendant must walk around to each car...at least twice I'm assuming...to start and stop the fuel? I'm not familiar with it.

If you lived here you'd understand. NJ people are just like NY they have no time to get out of their car & deal with that bull, especially with bad weather an entire season. We also have the refineries here & we get cheaper gas almost always as a result. It's been challenged MANY times but the damn GOP old folks don't want to get it go.

The weather in California is rarely, if ever, inclement enough to make it a bother to get out of the car to pump gas. Most of the time it's quite pleasant, as you get 45 seconds to take in the clear blue sky, starry night, or gorgeous sunset.

Not a single country from Mexico to Argentina lets you pump your own gas.

When I got back from my 2 year Alaska->Argentina drive I genuinely had to stop and think about what I was doing, unsure of how to proceed. It was a great novelty :)

I liked full-service when I lived in NJ. And the gas is fifty cents cheaper than where I live now.

I don't even understand what the objection is.

I like having a home chef prepare my meals. And it was cheaper for me (opportunity cost-wise) than cooking them myself.

I don't understand the objection to laws against cooking for yourself at home.

> I don't understand the objection to laws against cooking for yourself at home.

If it was cheaper to hire a Chef to cook meals, I wouldn't understand all the noise about making it mandatory either.

Bad analogy. If you want ammunition, I'll give you the following. Having an attendant pump your gas sucks because:

1. They screw up what type of fuel you want. Or how much of it.

2. When you yell at them to fix it, they have no idea what you're saying, because they don't speak English.

3. At a busy station, you have to wait for five minutes for them to even get to you.

4. And then you have to wait for another five minutes for them to come back and finish off.

5. If you have the tag you use to pay for gas on your keys ... well you have to hand your keys to a stranger. Same with a credit card, when you could have simply swiped yourself.

I can go on, but really, at the end of the day, this isn't a big deal. There are far worse things to complain about.

>If it was cheaper to hire a Chef to cook meals

But my point is that it is indeed cheaper to hire a chef to cook meals -- in some cases, but that doesn't justify making it mandatory.

You're taking, as given, the claim that attended fuel pumping is cheaper -- but that's only true sometimes, just like with the home chef, especially if (as in my ignorant aristocrat example) you factor in opportunity costs, which was the point.

When people insist that attended fuel is cheaper in terms of sticker price ... well, that's dubious, but let's assume, for whatever reason, it is (maybe there are insurance savings?). It still has a higher opportunity cost for several reasons, many of which you just listed.

I'd complain about the not-allowed-to-pump-your-own-gas thing if gas wasn't so dirt-cheap in NJ.

Think of how much better the roads would (well, could) be if the mandatory cost of the attendant was deferred into additional tax revenue, while gas remains dirt-cheap.

Everyone in NJ is too cynical to think that would happen...

After spending 6 months there for an internship, I'd have to agree. Even the roads you explicitly pay for with tolls are crap. My car will never be the same again.

If only NJ offered the best of both worlds: ultra-low gas taxes and a state that trusts its citizens are able to figure out how to work a gas pump.

The reality is, you can usually pump your own gas without the attendants giving you a problem. They may come over and take-over the pumping after you've gotten it started - but I've never has any of them get upset at me for taking the initiative.

:O

I'm shocked, shocked to find that New Jerseyans are capable of performing such tasks. Are you sure you're pumping it properly? :D

Try that in Oregon, and you'll be treated like a level 3 sex offender.

Why would they get upset? They get paid either way.