Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

johnhcochrane.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#51

Post by bekindandopen »

adolph wrote: post #33

So Cochrane claims that toilet “attendant” work is “well suited to new immigrants.” Really? The rational for the claim is that immigrants “don't speak English, are not well attuned to American culture, and have little education or training.” Really? I don’t disagree with the overall point about public potty markets but there is something off putting about claiming that “dirty” jobs are for people without skills and t…

That could make a great comedy sketch.

A posh-speaking student on walkabout takes a temp job explaining public toilets to urban Australian pedestrians.

A few iterations later, and I still find myself trying to think of ways to make the premise less offensive...live comedy must be ridiculously difficult these days.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#52

Post by Noumenon72 »

For this American, free toilets were a triumph of socialism. I have never had to pay for a toilet in my life. (At the age of 25 I was refused the use of a toilet in a Chicago storefront, and I was shocked.) Most companies and governments keep their toilets cleaner than my own bathroom. Just don't live in the big, overcrowded cities, and stop voting for immigration to overfill the ones that still work.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#53

Post by Larrikin »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #47
elihu wrote: post #17

> Kristof and the Times, of course, would prefer a national infrastructure project to provide free toilets. If you've followed this over the years, you will see many efforts at government provided toilets. Costs are often hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the effort falls apart. There are some free toilets. In Chicago, the park district still had some. Without the incentive to charge a bit of money, they were typ…

> Bathrooms aren't expensive to operate as long as Read the entire article. You need to hire an attendant or someone who at least cleans regularly. That’s the major cost, especially at $15/hour minimum wage + health benefits + 3 workers per 24-hour day.

What's the cost to clean when people poop right outside when they realize that they have to pay?

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#54

Post by elihu »

whiddershins wrote: post #46
elihu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure that could happen. But it doesn't have to. We already have a lot of public infrastructure: schools, roads, government buildings, parks, and so on. Some of those projects are managed well, and some aren't. Either way, we put up with it because on average the benefits of those things outweigh the costs. Public restrooms aren't fundamentally different from all the other forms of public infrastructure we already hav…

What exactly is the downside to making it legal to charge for the bathroom? Like, what exactly.

Privacy is one. A lot of people don't carry cash, and probably few carry coins anymore. Which means going with electronic payment. Do you want there to be an electronic record of every time you paid to use a restroom?

Another is precedent. If charging for a restroom were allowed, it would likely be done in a lot of places that are currently free. That seems like a step backwards.

A third is that if pay toilets were a big business, then such businesses would have a strong incentive to lobby their local governments against constructing new free bathrooms.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#55

Post by wyattpeak »

I live in Australia, and we do have a few public toilets, but honestly 90% of the time if I need one when I'm out I'll use one in a food court or a department store or some other private enterprise which seems to have a financial incentive to provide good quality amenities.*

Does this not happen in the US? And if not, can anyone muse as to why? I would figure that the incentives would be the same.

* I expect that there's a legal requirement for many of these businesses to provide toilets, but the level to which they maintain them is without doubt over and above any requirement of law, certainly better than any public facilities.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#56

Post by upbeat_general »

whiddershins wrote: post #46
elihu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure that could happen. But it doesn't have to. We already have a lot of public infrastructure: schools, roads, government buildings, parks, and so on. Some of those projects are managed well, and some aren't. Either way, we put up with it because on average the benefits of those things outweigh the costs. Public restrooms aren't fundamentally different from all the other forms of public infrastructure we already hav…

What exactly is the downside to making it legal to charge for the bathroom? Like, what exactly.

Some (including me) might find it morally wrong.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#57

Post by jquery »

whatastory wrote: post #9

I don't want to seem too accusatory, but this just felt like an angry rant without much research. I've been to a few places on this earth, and while I know there are some Europeans who'll proudly talk about how paying for toilets helps keep them clean, I haven't noticed them being any better than gas station bathrooms in the US. Some are okay, some are total disaster sites. The only difference is someone or a machine…

You must have stayed in a very nice part of China.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#58

Post by Clewza313 »

whiddershins wrote: post #28
whatastory wrote: post #9

I don't want to seem too accusatory, but this just felt like an angry rant without much research. I've been to a few places on this earth, and while I know there are some Europeans who'll proudly talk about how paying for toilets helps keep them clean, I haven't noticed them being any better than gas station bathrooms in the US. Some are okay, some are total disaster sites. The only difference is someone or a machine…

I believed you that you might be saying accurate things until you wrote ‘even China does pretty decently.’ I spent two weeks traveling around China and, when it comes to toilets, what you said couldn’t be more insanely inaccurate. I decline to go into details, but it’s is in every way the opposite of what you wrote.

China is huge and fast-developing, so generalizations are dangerous. The notorious partitionless poop trough is pretty much a thing of the past (although I have no doubt some survive), but these days at eg. major train stations or tourist sites, the average public toilet is just fine.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#59

Post by WuTangCFO »

floren wrote: post #50
WuTangCFO wrote: post #34

I have lived in London, NZ, Australia. All have had free toilets. Why? Growing up in NZ free bathrooms were normal so we take it for granted. Yes, a small population means that these facilities were less likely to be abused. But London? In Shoreditch, a part of East London that is full of pubs and hipsters quaffing the Devil's Dandruff the council sets up urinals in the street where any punter can see you pissing but…

Certainly not a new thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissoir It will not be implemented in SF because it's only suitable for men. Switzerland appears to have created a solution for women by providing disposable paper "funnels" so the ladies can use it too, but because people lack any decency they would all be stolen within minutes in SF--and if you think creating a male-only public urinal won't fly in SF, just wa…

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the historical photos! At Glastonbury music festival, the ladies call these funnels "she wees". Bring back the pissoir!

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#60

Post by baron816 »

The Left keeps referring to things as a “human right” (housing is a human right, healthcare is a human right, etc.). I don’t totally disagree, but they mean that if something is a human right, then the government should provide it to everyone.

The case for government providing healthcare to everyone is much stronger than it providing housing for everyone. Why? Because humans are much better at making decisions about where to live than about their medical treatment. That’s it. Rights are irrelevant.

Post reply on HN