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

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#21

Post by alisonkisk »

kgermino wrote: post #15

I’ve always felt that the advantage of pay toilets wasn’t that they were clean, it was that they exist . Walking around an American city trying to find a restroom can be extremely challenging, while in European cities I could almost always find a sign and a public restroom in short order (even outside the more touristy areas). I don’t know if there are actually more public toilets in those cities - or if the culture…

What's wrong with asking to use a toilet? Is it so wrong to be part of a civilized society?

Along the lines of OP, my free market solution is to keep pooping in the street until the chamber of commerce decides building a restroom is good for business.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#22

Post by Arn_Thor »

The author ignores or dismisses the many countries and cities in which publicly funded public toilets work very well. The problem with public services applied in the US is that it's often done piecemeal, and a lot of things only work when implemented and funded at scale. This is nothing but an ideological screed, without any substance.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#23

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

I grew up in a city where every habitable structure had to have separate indoor functional toilets. Roach closets in the back of the building weren’t acceptable, shared bathrooms didn’t cut it, always out of order or bombed out toilets were not allowed, customers only was not allowed.

So I was in for a shock just about everywhere else in the world. Make that everywhere else in America - a toilet in France might just be a hole in the floor, but at least it’s a clean hole in the floor. The toilets in New York City are horrific. Imagine trying to go to the bathroom in an airplane - an American airline not a fancy sovereign airline - except every surface is covered with standing fluids, the walls are alive, the lights are dim, there is no toilet paper, and there is always guy standing behind you that thinks a broken lock means you are looking for anonymous bathroom sex. That is assuming that the establishment has a public restroom, and you’ve made a purchase, and there isn’t a homeless guy with a Cosmo magazine occupying the only toilet for hours. Then on top of that imagine you have your young son or daughter with you and your trying to let them go to the bathroom or go to the bathroom yourself with letting them touch any surface or their clothing absorb any of the mysterious standing liquids.

The bathroom scene from Poultrygeist captures it perfectly (very NSFW) https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2x2cz7

The toilets at LaGuardia airport will also greet you with a loud piercing siren if you sit for more then thirty seconds. That’s a really jerk move so I decided to see how long that siren would go, they shut off after approx twenty minutes.

People always make fun of truck stop bathrooms but coming from NYC they are always a step up - clean, dry, vermin free, well lit, changing tables, soap, toilet paper, locks on the door, and I’ve yet to be propositioned in any of the truck stop bathrooms.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#24

Post by bshep »

alisonkisk wrote: post #21
kgermino wrote: post #15

I’ve always felt that the advantage of pay toilets wasn’t that they were clean, it was that they exist . Walking around an American city trying to find a restroom can be extremely challenging, while in European cities I could almost always find a sign and a public restroom in short order (even outside the more touristy areas). I don’t know if there are actually more public toilets in those cities - or if the culture…

What's wrong with asking to use a toilet? Is it so wrong to be part of a civilized society? Along the lines of OP, my free market solution is to keep pooping in the street until the chamber of commerce decides building a restroom is good for business.

Nothing wrong with asking. I think the person was trying to say that places wont let you use their toilets even if you ask.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#25

Post by Macha »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #23

I grew up in a city where every habitable structure had to have separate indoor functional toilets. Roach closets in the back of the building weren’t acceptable, shared bathrooms didn’t cut it, always out of order or bombed out toilets were not allowed, customers only was not allowed. So I was in for a shock just about everywhere else in the world. Make that everywhere else in America - a toilet in France might just…

The bit that always bothers me about US toilets is how poor the privacy is. The cubicle door is like 1m high and raised nearly 40cm off the floor, and often poorly fits on the frame. I'm told it's for ease of cleaning but we accomplish that with raising them only 10cm here and extending enough for at least a standing adult.

That's not to say we don't have crappy stalls here, but they seem the norm in the US and the exception at home

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#26

Post by jdeibele »

A lot of travelers swear by McDonalds near the highways. The restrooms are clean and I've never had an issue with using them before paying. Unlike the city, where the signs are either "no public restroom" or "restroom are for paying customers only".

In Portland there are a variety of restrooms built by the city but they're almost all permanently closed. Too many drug deals, drug use, sex acts, etc. The city government likes to bill Portland as "the city that works" and has spent several million dollars on automated toilets much like the one described in the article.

Recently the city has put a bunch of portable toilets in neighbhorhoods so that the homeless have access. Neighbors seem mostly tolerant if not happy about it. At first there were reports of a few of them being tipped over but I haven't heard much about it recently.

The portables aren't attractive but it's one way of handling the need.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#27

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

Macha wrote: post #25
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #23

I grew up in a city where every habitable structure had to have separate indoor functional toilets. Roach closets in the back of the building weren’t acceptable, shared bathrooms didn’t cut it, always out of order or bombed out toilets were not allowed, customers only was not allowed. So I was in for a shock just about everywhere else in the world. Make that everywhere else in America - a toilet in France might just…

The bit that always bothers me about US toilets is how poor the privacy is. The cubicle door is like 1m high and raised nearly 40cm off the floor, and often poorly fits on the frame. I'm told it's for ease of cleaning but we accomplish that with raising them only 10cm here and extending enough for at least a standing adult. That's not to say we don't have crappy stalls here, but they seem the norm in the US and the e…

They are designed that way to make people uncomfortable so that they will leave quickly. Plus Americans don’t know how to act so the doors get broken a lot by people kicking them or swinging on them.

At one bank I worked at had this really disgusting overweight guy - he couldn’t fit into a normal stall, and he was too lazy to walk across the floor to the handicap bathroom he could fit in, so he would just wedge in as much as he could and cut loose. No aim, just random salvo fire. Every single day.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#28

Post by whiddershins »

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.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#29

Post by whiddershins »

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…

‘ This is clearly a problem that can be solved with a little planning and adequate funding. ‘

That’s not true when costs can escalate to any amount. Which they can, and do. Regularly. With governmental projects.

Re: Pay toilets and NYT: a free market microcosm

#30

Post by nitrogen »

seibelj wrote: post #7
omegaworks wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public services are kneecapped in this country because non-white people use them. Same reason why we defunded public universities (imposing the student loan system) just as agitation was enabling women and people of color equal access.

I don’t like public services because every time I have ever used public services, even extremely (excessively) overfunded ones in liberal coastal US cities, they have had mediocre to extremely shitty quality from the perspective of the consumer. Services aren’t supposed to be jobs programs. I like privatization as a rule. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with an intense dislike of being fleeced by polit…

Services aren’t supposed to be jobs programs.

Maybe they should be. What's more demeaning, being told you're not good enough for any jobs so we'll pay you to stay out of the way, or being told you're not good enough for any other jobs but here's a job that still needs to be done and you can do it?

Post reply on HN