4 ms·

There is a significant difference between water pipes and the pension system, which is that water pipes are easily affordable by the federal government and pens

There is a significant difference between water pipes and the pension system, which is that water pipes are easily affordable by the federal government and pensions for everyone are not. Getting the pricing "right" is a stupid game; people need water and are willing to pay the current rates, and the federal government can afford to fund necessary improvements to infrastructure. What exactly is the benefit of getting pricing "right" here? Avoiding water wastage? Environmental benefits? I'd wager that a group of environmental scientists could find a "correct" price that addresses these concerns much more accurately than could market forces. (Actually, I see no reason why market forces would get the price "right" here, but even if they did it misses the point--there is no reason to allocate water to people based on how much money they can pay for it. If you cared about this sort of thing a rationing system would make much more sense. The idea that the infrastructure has to be funded directly and primarily by water usage is just baffling to me, especially when--as numerous commentators have already pointed out--it doesn't really work that way in a lot of cities).

rayiner 7y ago
> There is a significant difference between water pipes and the pension system, which is that water pipes are easily affordable by the federal government and pensions for everyone are not. The water/sewer infrastructure crisis is on the same order of magnitude as the public pension crisis (into the single-digit trillions of dollars). > What exactly is the benefit of getting pricing "right" here? Avoiding water wastage? Environmental benefits? All of the above. For example, when connection charges are too low, people are incentivized to engage in greenfield development rather than infill development. Having the federal government further subsidize things only exacerbates that problem. > I'd wager that a group of environmental scientists could find a "correct" price that addresses these concerns much more accurately than could market forces. They have. And elected municipal entities uniformly ignore those results.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  It's kind of funny how calling it a trillion dollar problem is real scary, but also identifies it as easily managed, given the will to address it. (0.5% of the US economy over 10 years is a massive amount of resources but would have ~0 negative impact if diverted from other economic activity to water infrastructure)

rayiner 7y ago

> There is a significant difference between water pipes and the pension system, which is that water pipes are easily affordable by the federal government and pensions for everyone are not. The water/sewer infrastructure crisis is on the same order of magnitude as the public pension crisis (into the single-digit trillions of dollars). > What exactly is the benefit of getting pricing "right" here? Avoiding water wastage? Environmental benefits? All of the above. For example, when connection charges are too low, people are incentivized to engage in greenfield development rather than infill development. Having the federal government further subsidize things only exacerbates that problem. > I'd wager that a group of environmental scientists could find a "correct" price that addresses these concerns much more accurately than could market forces. They have. And elected municipal entities uniformly ignore those results.

maxerickson 7y ago
It's kind of funny how calling it a trillion dollar problem is real scary, but also identifies it as easily managed, given the will to address it. (0.5% of the US economy over 10 years is a massive amount of resources but would have ~0 negative impact if diverted from other economic activity to water infrastructure)