Wow, I imagine your apartment buildings and commercial spaces are rat infested trash piles by now.
Kidding aside, every resident and business has to have a way of getting rid of their trash, whether they pay for it directly, or through their rent, they’re paying for trash service.
It is also trivial to see that trash service can be more efficiently delivered if 1 truck comes by per week instead of 5 or 6 coming by to service the exact same area. Government enforced monopolies can work when there is efficiency to be gained by having one provider, and those efficiencies get passed down to the end customer.
In a perfect utopian environment where other incentives didn’t make their way into the system, your proposal might be more efficient. The problem is more likely is that the labor force of the contracted provider doesn’t give a shit about customer service because his employer has a 5 year contract. The city then has to have a full time staff and department to manage the contractor, which was a cost that the city did not have to have before. The benefits of reduced # of trucks driving around doesn’t outweigh all of the negative in my opinion.
Really? How much of the cost of garbage pickup do you think comes down to fuel prices and wages? I don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing it’s quite a bit.
So say there are 50 houses on my street. How much does it cost a company to come in and pick up all of them vs. 1/5 of them? Fuel costs and costs due to miles driven will be almost exactly the same. It will take maybe twice as long to drive the route, because of extra stops, but the drive to and from the street will take exactly the same length of time, so labor costs won’t be nearly 5x.
I like the idea of awarding a city in zones, and each year, the bottom supplier, in terms of high cost and low customer satisfaction gets to renegotiate and reform, or they are out of the running.
Well, one possible reason is because now you are both paying more than you otherwise would. Another is that now I have to deal with his truck’s noise, pollution, and road damage and he has to deal with mine. I’m sure there are other reasons.
I’m not saying either system is universally better, but if a community comes together and decides to implement a community-wide contract I see no problem with it.
The suburban community next to me changed in the last year or so from letting residents contract their own trash collection to using a single contractor for the entire town. I have no idea what the average cost of service was for the open choice compared to the single contract.
The issues which led to the decision included too many trucks on the street, lack of accountability when curbs and lawns were damaged, some contractors picking up before or after approved hours and not knowing who to blame when loose trash was spilled on srtreets.
I should mention that the townspeople range from pretty well off to flat-out rich, and the town as a whole consistently votes conservative Republican, so I’m guessing they’re acquainted with the concept of a regulated monopoly vs. free-market competition.
You don’t need a perfect utopian environment to get benefits. You establish a standard of service, and include that standard in your contract. You do not lock yourself into a long term contract that has no service level requirements. You also do not need a full time staff to manage one contract with one supplier for one service.
You actually don’t reduce the number of trucks, but each truck gets to pick up all the trash it drives by, instead of skipping over 75% of the trash for the other 3 trucks to pick up. Trucks drive 4x as far to pick up the same garbage, it takes probably 2x as long to pick up the garbage. More time, more gas, more wear and tear on the trucks, more labor, same garbage.
Not true. Considerable sections of the United States are electricity deregulated, including Texas, Illinois, and much of the northeast. They don’t have any particualr trouble with it.
California did, but that was because they (in true California fashion) eagerly threw themselves into deregulation, only to run away in fear halfway through. This left with with a combination of overregulation and underregulation which was easily manipulated by Enron.
Sounds like a good business model for a private trash hauling service. Lower the cost and claim more market share. Drive the marginal trash hauler out of business.
smiling bandit is correct. Do a little research and you will find several markets in the US where people have numerous choices from whom they want to buy their power from.
Maybe you should consider a little research on your own part. Many places in the US you can choose between government regulated providers. No city in the US has unregulated providers. Electricity is not a free market. As electricity is regulated at the Federal, state, and local level finding a city without regulated electricity would be impossible, unless of course you find a place off the grid.
You’re welcome to keep plugging your ears and pretending the free market gets power to your house.
This is definitely one of the things that I hate about this fucking board. People love to put words in other poster’s posts.
I never said anything about unregulated power providers. J
Jas09 said that there was a need for government controlled monopolies such as water, sewer and power.
I said that for power no, there were many places in the US were there was free market power supply…i.e. meaning that there were not government controlled monopolies suppling electricity to the community. Many free market industries are regulated.
Then you popped in and said name me one city where power isn’t regulated.
We assumed that you meant government controlled monopolies…because that’s what we were talking about. Now if you want to shift the discussion away from monopolies to environmental regulations or whatever, then do so, but don’t hijack the discussion…please.
I wonder if a city that chooses one company may cause the other companies to go out of business…or at least make any competition less likely when the contract expires. I assume there are not a lot of trash companies in a city sitting idle waiting for a contract to expire.
I’ve noticed many HOA’s make deals with a particular company to provide trash pick-up at a reduced rate if a high enough percentage of the residents agree to it. This seems like the equivalent of awarding sectors of the city to different companies.
In MA each city used to negotiate and provide trash services for their residents. As town budgets got cut more and more of the smaller towns cut trash services out. Most smaller towns leave residents to fend for themselves with private contractors.
The end result is people pay more for less service and improper disposals increase.
When a private companies negotiate contracts individually with each person needing service they have huge leverage over those people in terms of knowledge and cost. I suppose if each person could hire a lawyer specialized in sanitation services to read over the contracts and demand they include all of the customers potential needs, that might be different, but as it stand an individual will never
What happens is the companies choose to provide only the most profitable services, generally curb side pick up, and either charge huge fees for other services or don’t provide them at all, appliances, furniture, chemicals etc.
Larger cities in MA still provide all needed services in a simplified manner easily understood by the populace. Things like simply call in for an appliance pick up or chemical disposal day. This leads to things getting taken care of in safe reliable manners.
In towns that don’t provide these services residents not able to afford the fees or simply left with no local option to handle them you’ll find more instances of refrigerators and paint cans left on the sides of the road.
I tend to favor more government regulation in sanitation because I prefer a healthier cleaner environment. I’d rather the government offer solutions for disposals rather than forcing the police investigate and prosecute those that where unable to find solutions on their own.
That’s how it’s done here in Minneapolis. In fact, even more competition: besides various private companies bidding, there are city-owned trucks driven by public employees who also compete with bids on districts.
Currently, I think the city employees have won about half the districts, a consortium of various garbage haulers has about 40%, and the remaining 10% is independent haulers.
The city provides garbage carts (standardized, designed for automated dumping), and handles all the billing (comes with your water bill) customer service, and requests for special item pickups. There is a base price, with discounts for people who recycle, and one for using a smaller cart.
The other Twin City, St. Paul, is right across the river, and it has no central system. Each resident has to negotiate a contract with one of the many garbage haulers, obtain carts from them, and make payment arrangements with them.
Most of my friends from St. Paul pay a higher price than I do.
They also report problems that I don’t have (required long-term contracts, constantly rising prices, and frequent ‘extra’ charges (for yard waste, special items like mattresses or old appliances, charges for Christmas trees, etc.) – almost sounds like they were dealing with a cell phone company!
Texas has deregulated parts of the market. So, we all deal with purchasing electricity from a provider but the actual juice is carried by a local monopoly (Centerpoint, in the case of Houston). So, if you lose power, you don’t call your provider but Centerpoint (or whoever the local company is). And since you’re not directly a Centerpoint customer, there’s not as much incentive to make sure you’re satisfied with service.
It’s also not the free market dream it’s made out to be. While current prices are pretty good (due to low natural gas prices), before that our prices shot up to well over twice what they were before deregulation in under 5 years. It’s not that deregulation was necessarily bad, but it was poorly implemented and gave perverse incentives to energy companies not to compete on price.
Like I noted earlier, I’m in one of the more conservative, free-market type areas in the country, but you’ll still find considerable support for going back to the old electricity model, if only because the supposed pricing benefits of deregulation never really materialized.