20 ms·

As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay th

by z3c0 4y ago

As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. It may raise more money, but I can't imagine that it would deter consumption much, as it's already the rich using the most water.

lalaland1125 4y ago
> it's already the rich using the most water That's not true. The main water use is agriculture, which is a pretty small portion of our GDP and would cut down usage if we raised prices.
- z3c0 4y ago
  Given the context of the article, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to domestic use, but if it was not, I was.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor. The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced. The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor. Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        The rich aren't the primary issue, though. The total water used by wealthy people in their own homes is utterly negligible. The article cites celebs like Kevin Hart, who has used (gasp) 150% of what LA would prefer him to use. This is simply a non-issue. It does not need to be addressed, at all.
gruez 4y ago
>There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. Good. The money they're paying for water can now fund projects to get more water for everyone else (eg. desalination plants, water diversion, or buying water rights from current farmers).
- z3c0 4y ago
  So... let them use up the water so that it's affordable to stop them from using up the water?
  - gruez 4y ago
    The goal isn't to "stop them from using up the water", it's to charge them the true price of providing that water, and charging a bit extra so we can subsidize the price of water for the poor.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      I think this premise is sufficient in any scenario where there are disparities in the distribution of a plentiful resource, as is the case in countries with privatized water. However, when the resource is no longer plentiful, it is unwise to try the "let the market fix it" route (always a popular one on HN), because the resource in question can be consumed much faster than the systems you are describing can combat it (or can even be gotten off the ground.)
      - gruez 4y ago
        >However, when the resource is no longer plentiful My previous comment mentioned acquisition methods up to and including desalination, which would make the resource virtually unlimited. If the rich want to water their huge mansion grounds and are willing to pay for a desalination plant to do it, why stop them? If they're willing to do that, and we can take a portion of that money to subsidize water supply for the poor, all the better.
sillystuff 4y ago
> when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor. This is true, but only because the amount of fines are typically identical regardless of income/wealth. Fines should be based on a percentage of income/wealth. A poor person being fined $1000 may end up homeless as a result. For a rich person, $1000 would, at most, be annoying and depending on how rich, might not be noticed even as much as that same poor person accidentally dropping a penny and being unable to retrieve it. Fine the rich person a more equivalent $100K, $1M or $100M, and their compliance level would increase dramatically. Fixed monetary fines brings to mind this quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France
manholio 4y ago
> "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." And there is nothing wrong with that: if you are poor and waste 10000 gal watering your lawn during draught, you should be punished because your are just as anti-social as the millionaire next door. I'm ok with that as long as there exists a free/low cost tire that covers the basic necessities of a regular family, so that even the poor are guaranteed a certain level of service.
avalys 4y ago
What is the distribution of total consumption by income range? Yes, the rich use more water per capita, but there aren't all that many rich people compared to the rest of the population. Does the top 1% of the income distribution use more water (in total) than the bottom 99%?

by z3c0 4y ago

lalaland1125 4y ago

> it's already the rich using the most water That's not true. The main water use is agriculture, which is a pretty small portion of our GDP and would cut down usage if we raised prices.

z3c0 4y ago
Given the context of the article, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to domestic use, but if it was not, I was.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor. The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced. The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor. Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      The rich aren't the primary issue, though. The total water used by wealthy people in their own homes is utterly negligible. The article cites celebs like Kevin Hart, who has used (gasp) 150% of what LA would prefer him to use. This is simply a non-issue. It does not need to be addressed, at all.

gruez 4y ago

>There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. Good. The money they're paying for water can now fund projects to get more water for everyone else (eg. desalination plants, water diversion, or buying water rights from current farmers).

z3c0 4y ago
So... let them use up the water so that it's affordable to stop them from using up the water?
- gruez 4y ago
  The goal isn't to "stop them from using up the water", it's to charge them the true price of providing that water, and charging a bit extra so we can subsidize the price of water for the poor.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    I think this premise is sufficient in any scenario where there are disparities in the distribution of a plentiful resource, as is the case in countries with privatized water. However, when the resource is no longer plentiful, it is unwise to try the "let the market fix it" route (always a popular one on HN), because the resource in question can be consumed much faster than the systems you are describing can combat it (or can even be gotten off the ground.)
    - gruez 4y ago
      >However, when the resource is no longer plentiful My previous comment mentioned acquisition methods up to and including desalination, which would make the resource virtually unlimited. If the rich want to water their huge mansion grounds and are willing to pay for a desalination plant to do it, why stop them? If they're willing to do that, and we can take a portion of that money to subsidize water supply for the poor, all the better.

sillystuff 4y ago

> when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor. This is true, but only because the amount of fines are typically identical regardless of income/wealth. Fines should be based on a percentage of income/wealth. A poor person being fined $1000 may end up homeless as a result. For a rich person, $1000 would, at most, be annoying and depending on how rich, might not be noticed even as much as that same poor person accidentally dropping a penny and being unable to retrieve it. Fine the rich person a more equivalent $100K, $1M or $100M, and their compliance level would increase dramatically. Fixed monetary fines brings to mind this quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France

manholio 4y ago

> "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." And there is nothing wrong with that: if you are poor and waste 10000 gal watering your lawn during draught, you should be punished because your are just as anti-social as the millionaire next door. I'm ok with that as long as there exists a free/low cost tire that covers the basic necessities of a regular family, so that even the poor are guaranteed a certain level of service.

avalys 4y ago

What is the distribution of total consumption by income range? Yes, the rich use more water per capita, but there aren't all that many rich people compared to the rest of the population. Does the top 1% of the income distribution use more water (in total) than the bottom 99%?