|
wateroverfire posted:How is that not merely a semantic difference? To restate it a little. Is it... I work ----> I earn money ----> I use that money to buy food I want vs Food is provided to me -------> I work --------> Money is taken from me to pay for producing the food I was provided?
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm honestly pretty confident that after some transition costs you and just about anyone would be better off watching less TV and eating more meals they prepared themselves with fresh produce. There's something supremely goony about a post that amounts to "maybe I'm better off eating disgusting cheesy poo poo because it gives me more time to also watch television." Pro-tier home cooks can even prepare meals while watching TV. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Being a little obtuse here, guys. You're right in some (many!) cases. For example, tiny cans of soda - of course those are expensive, Aluminum isn't cheap. But you can't seriously tell me that Wonderbread can't afford to take one loaf of bread, split it down the middle and put it in a second bag. The profit margins at grocery stores aren't so thin that they couldn't make up the quarter of a cent worth of increased cost per unit. A half a loaf of bread in two bags takes up exactly the same space on a truck as one loaf of bread. Yeah but another factor to consider is "who would only eat one half of a loaf but not one full loaf?" Even assuming you're unaware of freezing bread, most households can probably eat a loaf of bread in a week (or however long it takes to go bad). The ones that can't are either extremely small (like 1 person) or don't eat bread that much. In that case, they should probably find another source of grain, or change their eating habits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How is that not merely a semantic difference? Well because the food is guaranteed, it's treated as national infrastructure, like roads. You don't all go out and chip in a bit to maintain the road, it's built and then maintained by the productivity which stems from its existence and also anyone can use it whenever they like just for fun. It has a productive benefit but also benefits people who aren't necessarily using it to produce things. wateroverfire posted:To restate it a little. Is it... Well more that money is taken from everywhere to pay for the food, because the food is part of the foundation of all productivity. And also you can just get food even if you don't work. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Currently, you work, you receive a portion of the product of your work as money, and that money is traded in exchagne for food so you can work. It's too band-aid like, and I think it would devalue labor, especially in low income brackets. The advantage of being paid entirely in currency is that you can choose how much of that currency you spend on food. People need different amounts of food; some people have lesser or greater appetites, or differing dietary preferences/requirements, some people are like power lifters in their spare time and need a lot of protein, and so on. Some people would rather eat beans and rice so they can save up their cash for a few months. Some people don't mind skimping in other areas so they can eat good steaks or whatever more frequently. Even paying people partially in "food vouchers" that can be exchanged for whatever doesn't account for the people who would have to eat into their "not food" section of the paycheck to buy extra protein, or expensive gluten-free everything due to celiac disease or whatever. Unless you're paying people different amounts of food vouchers for reasons other than them having dependents, in which case what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Agricultural subsidies make TV dinners and other convenience food artificially cheap, IMO, and are part of the problem. You'd think farm subsidies would have a positive impact on hunger, but it just encourages waste and overproduction (hence why corn is in loving everything) and masks the actual problem of "real" food being completely unaffordable for some people. It is a problem if it's legitimately cheaper (and sadly these days it often is) to feed your family a product that someone had to research and develop and package and market than it is to just feed them fruits, vegetables and a protein. This doesn't make sense to me. The cost of "real food", whatever that is, is probably lower than it has ever been. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm honestly pretty confident that after some transition costs you and just about anyone would be better off watching less TV and eating more meals they prepared themselves with fresh produce. There's something supremely goony about a post that amounts to "maybe I'm better off eating disgusting cheesy poo poo because it gives me more time to also watch television." Jesus Christ. Did you just use the term "goony" unironically, in a D&D thread? You know what else is "goony"? Posting on these loving forums at all, you holier-than-thou prick. Do you think I would have posted what I did if I wasn't completely anesthetized to being labeled "goony" or "autistic" or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:It's too band-aid like, and I think it would devalue labor, especially in low income brackets. The advantage of being paid entirely in currency is that you can choose how much of that currency you spend on food. People need different amounts of food; some people have lesser or greater appetites, or differing dietary preferences/requirements, some people are like power lifters in their spare time and need a lot of protein, and so on. Some people would rather eat beans and rice so they can save up their cash for a few months. Some people don't mind skimping in other areas so they can eat good steaks or whatever more frequently. No you're not quite getting it. I'm saying give away food for free, like, lots of it. Obviously someone shouldn't be able to just take the entire supermarket but just give away a bunch of food to people. Fund food production through taxation. Let people pick what they want to eat and give them it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This doesn't make sense to me. The cost of "real food", whatever that is, is probably lower then it has ever been. It's mostly psychological. It takes the same amount of time to cook a pot of broccoli and sprinkle some cheese over it as it takes to microwave cheezy frozen broccoli, but it's not packaged and requires you to spend 5 minutes washing dishes afterwards. I mean, in that particular case. I'm not going to argue that organic kale isn't way expensive compared to iceberg lettuce, but I will argue that it takes the same amount of effort to prepare. If you're not frying or sauteeing absolutely everything you eat, most of cooking consists of "waiting 20 minutes - 4 hours while something sits in an oven," which, based on my own experience, leaves me with plenty of time to get wrecked by internet people playing Street Fighter while I wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you're not quite getting it. I'm saying give away food for free, like, lots of it. Obviously someone shouldn't be able to just take the entire supermarket but just give away a bunch of food to people. Fund food production through taxation. Let people pick what they want to eat and give them it. Okay, that's actually pretty fair, especially at our rate of overproduction. The original wording seemed like the "food pay" was going to cut into the "currency pay", which would massively devalue labor in the "Making $15/hour or less" sector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:Okay, that's actually pretty fair, especially at our rate of overproduction. The original wording seemed like the "food pay" was going to cut into the "currency pay", which would massively devalue labor in the "Making $15/hour or less" sector. Nah, that seems more complicated than it's worth. Just treat food more like you would a municipal water supply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Jesus Christ. Did you just use the term "goony" unironically, in a D&D thread? You know what else is "goony"? Posting on these loving forums at all, you holier-than-thou prick. You just posted how eating broccoli with processed cheese sauce as one of your staples is healthy for you because the alternative of cooking real food is so stressful it would lead you to start smoking. Broccoli with cheese sauce, a food who's "real" alternative is literally just buying real cheese and throwing it on top during cooking so it melts. You had that coming. edit:gently caress beaten
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nah, that seems more complicated than it's worth. Just treat food more like you would a municipal water supply. The only way this would work and not devolve into a classic case of mass shortages and overproduction is if you literally treat it like municipal water supply and just pipe a uniform food product into everyone's home. So...go Soylent I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nah, that seems more complicated than it's worth. Just treat food more like you would a municipal water supply. That makes sense, because our food supply is just as homogeneous and locally source-able as water, and it's not like I have to pay a water bill every month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The only way this would work and not devolve into a classic case of mass shortages and overproduction is if you literally treat it like municipal water supply and just pipe a uniform food product into everyone's home. So...go Soylent I guess? Why don't we already have mass shortages? People get given money and can spend it on any food they like. What's the difference between that and a fairly generous allowance of food for everyone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You just posted how eating broccoli with processed cheese sauce as one of your staples is healthy for you because the alternative of cooking real food is so stressful it would lead you to start smoking. Broccoli with cheese sauce, a food who's "real" alternative is literally just buying real cheese and throwing it on top during cooking so it melts. What the gently caress does "real food" mean? Can anyone give a concrete definition of this term that gets thrown around so much? Is it food that has never been inside a packaging plant? Is it food that has never had a corporation involved in any step of its production or distribution? If so, I have some real bad news for you about your produce. If something has no concrete definition (or at least, none that you would personally meet the purity test for), maybe it's a stupid shibboleth and you should stop using it to lambast people with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That makes sense, because our food supply is just as homogeneous and locally source-able as water, and it's not like I have to pay a water bill every month. You can go get water from a public fountain if you want to, or poo poo in a public toilet. I suppose if you want fancy water or water delivered directly to your house you do pay more but water is available for the taking even in the blighted hellscape of America where public funding of things is punishable by death and you insist on living in the middle of a desert. And this has been the case for a very long time. Perhaps in this modern age we can improve upon it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why don't we already have mass shortages? People get given money and can spend it on any food they like. What's the difference between that and a fairly generous allowance of food for everyone? So, under your proposed system, are there any limits to the amount of food which one can obtain for free, or its nature? Could I decide that I like to eat t-bone steaks and Osetra caviar for three meals a day, and get those for free, or would certain luxury foods be excluded from this system or limited in quantity? Would luxury foods even be available at all? As far as I can tell, you're basically discussing a ration system (but where additional food is available if you're willing to pay, I presume). It would've saved a lot of time for everyone if you'd just have said "I want basically the exact system Cuba has right now."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The only way this would work and not devolve into a classic case of mass shortages and overproduction is if you literally treat it like municipal water supply and just pipe a uniform food product into everyone's home. So...go Soylent I guess? There's already mass overproduction, and arguably already shortages that are fake shortages caused by poverty. Just keep overproducing, and nothing really changes except that people who would have otherwise been really desperate and stressed about how the hell they are going to provide for their family are now able to have a modest meal that doesn't consist of canned beans from the local church. You'd have to cross this kind of program with a massive and probably expensive food education campaign, though, because something is broken in Americans' heads that makes them choose foods with way too much caloric density when given the option. You don't want to swing the balance from people who don't have enough food to people who can't afford to address the medical complications that arise from weighing like 450 lbs. Take a look at our beautiful heartland's casserole-based traditional cuisine, which is made out of like 3 different types of carbs, plus a cheese (or a "cheese"). edit: moved edit to its own post deadly_pudding fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, under your proposed system, are there any limits to the amount of food which one can obtain for free, or its nature? Could I decide that I like to eat t-bone steaks and Osetra caviar for three meals a day, and get those for free, or would certain luxury foods be excluded from this system or limited in quantity? Would luxury foods even be available at all? I suppose rationing would be sort of accurate though I dislike its association with restricting the amount of food you can eat, really the goal should be to increase availability of food for most people because it's pretty cheap and decoupling it from the rest of your income would encourage people to be a little more free with it. You can probably leave the fois gras and poo poo out of the system and just let people buy it but definitely staple foods I think would benefit from being freely distributed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why don't we already have mass shortages? People get given money and can spend it on any food they like. What's the difference between that and a fairly generous allowance of food for everyone? You just said you wouldn't have food vouchers or whatever and would just give it away for free. Also, P.S. you still have to pay per-unit for municipal water supply, not to mention hookup fees...
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:What the gently caress does "real food" mean? Can anyone give a concrete definition of this term that gets thrown around so much? Is it food that has never been inside a packaging plant? Is it food that has never had a corporation involved in any step of its production or distribution? If so, I have some real bad news for you about your produce. We're just trying to explain that you can make your own cheesey broccoli in like 4 minutes, and it won't have a kind of unnecessary amount of sodium or hydrogenated vegetable oil. I understand the convenience of packaged food, but in this case there is a simple alternative that is better for you unless you are in a place where you don't have access to a stove, like at work. Like you said, though, it's hard to discuss the merits of food preparation versus packaged food without turning the conversation a little elitist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose rationing would be sort of accurate though I dislike its association with restricting the amount of food you can eat, really the goal should be to increase availability of food for most people because it's pretty cheap and decoupling it from the rest of your income would encourage people to be a little more free with it. So, you basically get a set amount of basic staples, inexpensive proteins and in-season fresh produce, and then you'd be allowed to buy additional or different food if you chose to do so? I think that's a pretty workable system, but I don't think it will meaningfully reduce food waste. Cooked pizzas from a restaurant, for example, could still be thrown out, the only difference is now it's just waste, instead of being waste at the same time someone goes hungry. That's an improvement in terms of guaranteeing food security, but not really in terms of the fact we throw food out all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:You just said you wouldn't have food vouchers or whatever and would just give it away for free. No I didn't I said you wouldn't be paid in food, I said you get food regardless and that it should be more than you realistically need. Whether you actually need to ration it or not I suppose depends on the food. Do people regularly go up to public fountains and try to fill an 18 wheeler tanker off them? Exactly how much dried rice do you feel like carting away from the supermarket even if it was free? PT6A posted:So, you basically get a set amount of basic staples, inexpensive proteins and in-season fresh produce, and then you'd be allowed to buy additional or different food if you chose to do so? Well like I said food waste itself isn't really a problem, the problem is food being wasted while other people are hungry, or at least while other people are being held hostage in some way over their not having free access to food. Food that is thrown out can be composted and put back onto the farm. It's a bit inefficient I suppose but there's not really a social problem with it because production should be more than expandable to overcome that wastage. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No I didn't I said you wouldn't be paid in food, I said you get food regardless and that it should be more than you realistically need. Whether you actually need to ration it or not I suppose depends on the food. Do people regularly go up to public fountains and try to fill an 18 wheeler tanker off them? Exactly how much dried rice do you feel like carting away from the supermarket even if it was free? For the first decade or so, this would definitely happen. You'd have like the food version of "scalpers" trying to get their entrepreneurship on, the crazy coupon people following old habits, and the doomsday preppers hording all the good stuff to stop "zombies" (minorities) from getting it. Which is why it would need to be accompanied by a massive food education campaign to cut it off at that generation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No I didn't I said you wouldn't be paid in food, I said you get food regardless and that it should be more than you realistically need. Whether you actually need to ration it or not I suppose depends on the food. Do people regularly go up to public fountains and try to fill an 18 wheeler tanker off them? Exactly how much dried rice do you feel like carting away from the supermarket even if it was free? It depends. Do I think we can afford, as a society, to basically give away all the potatoes and carrots we want? Yes. Do I think the same applies to stuff that has to be imported regularly out-of-season, like red peppers or asparagus or any of the other expensive produce items at the grocery store? No, I don't think you should be able to take as much as you want. Should you be able to take just the premium cuts of meat, to any quantity you like? I have no problem with letting people grab a free whole chicken, but I think allowing people to take boneless, skinless chicken breasts for free would result in a glut of other sorts of chicken, since breasts are generally considered more desirable, and that would create more waste. Remember: you can't pass off the less desirable cuts for less money if you're giving the desirable stuff away for free. EDIT: There's also the issue that imported foods (or, I guess in the US context, food that come from a long way away in the same country) have a higher carbon footprint, as do animal proteins, so prices should reflect the externalities of those things to some degree. You can't do that if you're giving it away for free. PT6A fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:What the gently caress does "real food" mean? Can anyone give a concrete definition of this term that gets thrown around so much? Is it food that has never been inside a packaging plant? Is it food that has never had a corporation involved in any step of its production or distribution? If so, I have some real bad news for you about your produce. Sorry, I was using the term because someone else had, there's a reason I put it in scare quotes, I was using it partly as a stand in for "not poo poo" and partly because in this case I was comparing it to actual cheese. Personally I'm somewhat of a crusader against the anti-processed foods and natural foods movements but wholly poo poo you actually managed to find something that actually is over processed to poo poo in order to keep shelf stable and declare how it was unworkable to do make the healthier, tastier, and cheaper version because the stress of making broccoli and cheese would drive you to smoking. Honestly you're coming off with the same sort of pride in ignorance as the anti-intellectuals who complain about those pretentious liberals and their book learning. Only unlike a college education the information you're sneering at is readily available at zero cost with a modicum of effort. deadly_pudding posted:We're just trying to explain that you can make your own cheesey broccoli in like 4 minutes, and it won't have a kind of unnecessary amount of sodium or hydrogenated vegetable oil. I understand the convenience of packaged food, but in this case there is a simple alternative that is better for you unless you are in a place where you don't have access to a stove, like at work. gently caress dude you could make that easily in a microwave OwlFancier posted:You can go get water from a public fountain if you want to, or poo poo in a public toilet. I suppose if you want fancy water or water delivered directly to your house you do pay more but water is available for the taking even in the blighted hellscape of America where public funding of things is punishable by death and you insist on living in the middle of a desert. And this has been the case for a very long time. Perhaps in this modern age we can improve upon it? You realize that infrastructure isn't designed to provide daily use levels of water to the general public right? And that outside of a handful of municipal water fountains whoever owns the building is paying for it and offering it as a convenience? But sure lets go back to the town well as a analogy, replacing our current food supply with big barrels of take all you want grain sure sounds like a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It depends. Do I think we can afford, as a society, to basically give away all the potatoes and carrots we want? Yes. Do I think the same applies to stuff that has to be imported regularly out-of-season, like red peppers or asparagus or any of the other expensive produce items at the grocery store? No, I don't think you should be able to take as much as you want. Should you be able to take just the premium cuts of meat, to any quantity you like? I have no problem with letting people grab a free whole chicken, but I think allowing people to take boneless, skinless chicken breasts for free would result in a glut of other sorts of chicken, since breasts are generally considered more desirable, and that would create more waste. Remember: you can't pass off the less desirable cuts for less money if you're giving the desirable stuff away for free. I can agree that it creates some logistical issues for some products certainly, I wouldn't suggest just letting people take as many T bones as they want to so that may be either a thing for the supplementary markets or which you may have to ration, but certainly I think many basic foodstuffs should be pretty easy to regulate by just not letting someone try to cart the whole pallet out of the store, no need for much bureaucracy in getting access to them. PT6A posted:EDIT: There's also the issue that imported foods (or, I guess in the US context, food that come from a long way away in the same country) have a higher carbon footprint, as do animal proteins, so prices should reflect the externalities of those things to some degree. You can't do that if you're giving it away for free. If you centralize the distribution of those things you can figure out whether a certain thing is causing a significant problem in that regard and either replace it with a local alternative or reduce the supply of it, or increase taxes to fund something else to offset those externalities. The food tax also goes to fund some green energy or something because everyone wants their poo poo trucked across the country. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:gently caress dude you could make that easily in a microwave No, it'll get mushy  I like my broccoli lightly steamed so it still has some crunch to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:No, it'll get mushy You're leaving it in the microwave too long, but more importantly do you really think he's not microwaving his broccoli right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:But you can't seriously tell me that Wonderbread can't afford to take one loaf of bread, split it down the middle and put it in a second bag. The profit margins at grocery stores aren't so thin that they couldn't make up the quarter of a cent worth of increased cost per unit. A half a loaf of bread in two bags takes up exactly the same space on a truck as one loaf of bread. For gently caress's sake if you're whining about wasting a half a loaf of bread why don't you find other uses for it or don't buy it at all? In the food waste thread, of all places. Pro tip: only buy 100% whole wheat bread if you're concerned about wasting bread. Because those loaves are smaller than the cheap white bread. Doctor Butts fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Jesus Christ. Did you just use the term "goony" unironically, in a D&D thread? You know what else is "goony"? Posting on these loving forums at all, you holier-than-thou prick. I'm not trying to hurt you're feelings. I use the term "goony" because it bears connotations of being mentally and physically unhealthy, socially isolating and aesthetically depressing. All of those are descriptions I'm comfortable using regarding a post that amounts to "I prefer unhealthy prepackaged foods they let me maximize my TV watching time." Sorry but I'm going to go ahead and say you should buy some rice, some veggies, and some dry pasta, familiarize yourself with the stove and oven, and maybe leave the TV off for the evening and crack open a book when you're all done. I will openly admit to being an "elitist" who thinks human beings are going to be happier when they spend more time being physically active and eating nutritious fresh foods. The kind of lifestyle you're describing is understandable but it's neither desirable nor healthy and the discussion should be about how to help people transition away from it, not some ludicrous false equivalency that claims all lifestyles are equally healthy or equally conducive to human happiness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You realize that infrastructure isn't designed to provide daily use levels of water to the general public right? And that outside of a handful of municipal water fountains whoever owns the building is paying for it and offering it as a convenience? Well, no it is, otherwise the general public would not be able to use water daily. It's just the public infrastructure isn't designed to do that at the moment. If the state owned all the water infrastructure and just let you do whatever with it, then funded the infrastructure by raising a tax instead of by getting people to pay for it directly, what would really change? Do you avoid leaving the tap on all day because you don't like paying for it or do you just not see the point in doing it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no it is, otherwise the general public would not be able to use water daily. It's just the public infrastructure isn't designed to do that at the moment. I was referring to the public sources of water, obviously our in home plumbing in capable of providing water for daily use. And yes, I am more conscious of water use when I'm paying for it rather then it being included in the rent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I was referring to the public sources of water, obviously our in home plumbing in capable of providing water for daily use. And yes, I am more conscious of water use when I'm paying for it rather then it being included in the rent. Then wouldn't it be nice for you not to have to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not trying to hurt you're feelings. I use the term "goony" because it bears connotations of being mentally and physically unhealthy, socially isolating and aesthetically depressing. All of those are descriptions I'm comfortable using regarding a post that amounts to "I prefer unhealthy prepackaged foods they let me maximize my TV watching time." Sorry but I'm going to go ahead and say you should buy some rice, some veggies, and some dry pasta, familiarize yourself with the stove and oven, and maybe leave the TV off for the evening and crack open a book when you're all done. Many of us are physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted by the time we get home at night. It makes the prospect of doing anything but sitting on the couch and unwinding from that near suicidal form is really unpalatable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the state owned all the water infrastructure and just let you do whatever with it, then funded the infrastructure by raising a tax instead of by getting people to pay for it directly, what would really change? Do you avoid leaving the tap on all day because you don't like paying for it or do you just not see the point in doing it? Are you seriously asking what would happen if water was unmetered? Usage would increase drastically and large amounts of it would be wasted because people would find all sorts of uses that are currently not done because water isn't free. Not to mention all incentive to conserve water would be lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Are you seriously asking what would happen if water was unmetered? Usage would increase drastically and large amounts of it would be wasted because people would find all sorts of uses that are currently not done because water isn't free. Not to mention all incentive to conserve water would be lost. I'm sure usage would increase but, for example, water is not always metered where I live, peopel still don't just leave the tap on for no reason. As water is not destroyed when used the issue then becomes the reprocessing capacity. If you can't expand the reprocessing capacity to meet demand then you can consider meters which cut off after very excessive use but I think it would be pretty easy with a bit of investment in infrastructure to meet the water usage demands of the population without requiring much at all in the way of restriction of use, except possibly in drought conditions. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm sure usage would increase but, for example, water is not always metered where I live, peopel still don't just leave the tap on for no reason. There's a broad spectrum of waste that falls short of "I'm gonna leave my taps at full blast all day because gently caress the water supply"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a broad spectrum of waste that falls short of "I'm gonna leave my taps at full blast all day because gently caress the water supply" Yes, as I said, usage would likely increase, but my point is not infinitely. The issue is not with waste, really, as much as ensuring an available supply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:41
|
|