3 ms·

Free market didn't improve living conditions? The supply and demand for more spacious housing and fuel to boil water didn't help things?

lukeschlather 14y ago
For the upper 50%, sure, but the free market failed and generally fails to give the lower 50% of earners access to sufficient resources to do proper sanitation. Treating clean water as a commodity rather than a public utility is a public health disaster. Each household needing expertise and equipment for water purification does not scale.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Define failure in this case. Yes the poor have less than the rich, but so what? What is the cost of clean water today? How much for a fridge? As it turns out, 99.9% of us households have a fridge (http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/appliances/appliances.html http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/appliances/appliances.html). Those weren't really available in 1900, yet I don't remember any huge government subsidy for those (and by keeping your food fresh they prevent diarrhea and improve hygine). I do remember huge, private, factories making them, however. But even then soap is likely also one of those things that really help prevent deceases through proper sanitation -- yet how poor do you have to be to not be able to afford soap?
  - lukeschlather 14y ago
    > What is the cost of clean water today? How much for a fridge? A fridge is much more expensive, but it's also much more a luxury. You don't need to refrigerator to avoid diarrhea, it just helps. Pure running water on the other hand is extraordinarily cheap and makes avoiding waterborne illness easy. (Due to the fact that running water is provided by public utilities, not free markets.) I'm not saying the free market doesn't have a part to play in good hygiene, but trying to rely on the free market for a water supply and food handling regulations has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it's been tried.
    - tosseraccount 14y ago
      "unmitigated disaster everywhere it's been tried". England is served by private water companies. Is this a disaster?
      - lukeschlather 14y ago
        Public utilities aren't necessarily public companies. Private companies own and manage the lines, yes, but prices are fixed by the government, and companies are required to supply water to residents, often even in cases of non-payment. Hardly a free market, and definitely what I would call regulated public utilities.
    - ensignavenger 14y ago
      There are many private water systems in the US- I own my own well and septic system, as do all of my neighbors. There are developments nearby that have their own private systems- and it works very well, so I really don't get the unmitigated disaster statement. Perhaps you could share some examples, because that has not been my experience.
ahoyhere 14y ago
No, the free market didn't. People like Sara Josephine Baker did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker The free market creates slums. "People are willing to pay for it!" is the phrase that defines the free market. And yes, people are willing to pay to live in slums… when there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, to protect their interests, because they are powerless, ignorant, undocumented, poor.

lukeschlather 14y ago

For the upper 50%, sure, but the free market failed and generally fails to give the lower 50% of earners access to sufficient resources to do proper sanitation. Treating clean water as a commodity rather than a public utility is a public health disaster. Each household needing expertise and equipment for water purification does not scale.

tomjen3 14y ago
Define failure in this case. Yes the poor have less than the rich, but so what? What is the cost of clean water today? How much for a fridge? As it turns out, 99.9% of us households have a fridge (http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/appliances/appliances.html http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/appliances/appliances.html). Those weren't really available in 1900, yet I don't remember any huge government subsidy for those (and by keeping your food fresh they prevent diarrhea and improve hygine). I do remember huge, private, factories making them, however. But even then soap is likely also one of those things that really help prevent deceases through proper sanitation -- yet how poor do you have to be to not be able to afford soap?
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  > What is the cost of clean water today? How much for a fridge? A fridge is much more expensive, but it's also much more a luxury. You don't need to refrigerator to avoid diarrhea, it just helps. Pure running water on the other hand is extraordinarily cheap and makes avoiding waterborne illness easy. (Due to the fact that running water is provided by public utilities, not free markets.) I'm not saying the free market doesn't have a part to play in good hygiene, but trying to rely on the free market for a water supply and food handling regulations has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it's been tried.
  - tosseraccount 14y ago
    "unmitigated disaster everywhere it's been tried". England is served by private water companies. Is this a disaster?
    - lukeschlather 14y ago
      Public utilities aren't necessarily public companies. Private companies own and manage the lines, yes, but prices are fixed by the government, and companies are required to supply water to residents, often even in cases of non-payment. Hardly a free market, and definitely what I would call regulated public utilities.
  - ensignavenger 14y ago
    There are many private water systems in the US- I own my own well and septic system, as do all of my neighbors. There are developments nearby that have their own private systems- and it works very well, so I really don't get the unmitigated disaster statement. Perhaps you could share some examples, because that has not been my experience.

ahoyhere 14y ago

No, the free market didn't. People like Sara Josephine Baker did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Josephine_Baker The free market creates slums. "People are willing to pay for it!" is the phrase that defines the free market. And yes, people are willing to pay to live in slums… when there are no laws, or no enforcement of laws, to protect their interests, because they are powerless, ignorant, undocumented, poor.