Thanks for the perspective. I agree that improving efficiency is a fair counterargument. > picking up trash every day Yeah, I think that Gall should have star

Thanks for the perspective. I agree that improving efficiency is a fair counterargument. > picking up trash every day Yeah, I think that Gall should have started with "twice a week" instead of daily (he might actually use "twice a week" in the book, and the "daily" reference is an error on my part). When you start from bi-weekly to weekly, I'm not sure if the improving efficiency argument holds up that well. I could see twice a week being as efficient as once a week. Not sure about the automation argument in terms of improved efficiency. Brazilian trash collectors work very quickly and do not rely on automation. However I think they're also subjected to more occupational hazard by personally handling more trash. Maybe they're not more efficient. Even if you are more efficient, does the "anergy" (i.e. shifting the problem) idea mean that your improved efficiency essentially enables the community to generate far more trash per capita? Re: unions to be clear, there's no moral judgment intended. It's just another example of the system opposing its own intended function. The purpose is to collect trash, striking workers is one of the ways that the system opposes itself. Also it might be relevant to remember that Gall was writing back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure there strikes were a lot more frequent back then. You can replace the trash collection example with the US federal taxation system if the details of the trash example are distracting. Think of all the ways that the taxation system is set up to push against its own clear goal of collecting tax revenue. It's not really about explaining why it is that way, the most profound insight for me is this curiously common phenomenon of a system opposing its own purpose. One day I dream of coming up with a rigorous analysis of this in terms of entropy