Modern economies are addicted to growth, and asset prices are pinned to showing continued growth more than ever. As soon as any global power proposes to take a beat and re-evaluate the trajectory of innovation, they will be left behind. Global leadership is also effectively non-existent and aside from trade, no one seems to be able to really make inroads on big ticket issues. In a time where we need more collaboration that ever, governments seem to be skewing more nationalistic than ever.
Well, to be fair, the whole "enough growth" thought happened to spring into existence at the exact moment where we (the west) have comfortable living standards.
Something other developing nations would need growth for to achieve.
So that's kinda interesting, because degrowth is seen as this conceptual antagonist to the people letting the global south burn, but they both are letting them down - just marginally differently.
With politicans, "atleast they're trying" is the worst option.
Either you know what you're doing ... or don't.
Destroying local vital industries with tax burden, to pay subsidies to green bullcrap, and importing everything from other side of planet, that's "leftard ecology".
I think there is lots of nuance between theory and application. Some people are really good teachers, and good teachers can give us mental models are abstract enough to get the gist of things.
Roger Federer would say he never knew what kind of grip he used on his shots(which is one of the first things one learns as a beginner), and I think Roger might not be an elite coach, because so much of his greatness may have come from a very intuitive understanding of tennis. (Would I still take him as my coach, heck yeah).
I think some people have really intuitive understanding of their subjects and can express that understanding in amazing applications, but they lack the communication skills, patience, or language to properly pass on the knowledge to others.
You don't see how maintaining a bathroom where the worst of society engage in public sex, do drugs, and shit it up in general - is more of a liability than without those things happening?
Try hiring someone for a job where the job could sometimes be cleaning up bodily fluids and odors in a bathroom. Even the government deems it infeasible.
Or, think about how much someone would have to pay you to do that job.
My first job was "stockboy" at Kmart in 1996, at 1996 American minimum wage, and part of the job involved cleaning toilets.
And, honestly? If more people had to clean toilets in use by other people, maybe we wouldn't have so many folks expecting other people to clean up after them. I see countless posts in my Facebook group about trash on the street. In the time it took to take a photo and post it to social media, they could have picked up the trash and taken it to a nearby bin.
But I suppose that experience goes two ways. Some people think they're above the human condition, to the point where they won't even clean up after themselves, even in their own homes. And other people recognize that it's actually not that hard to clean things up, if you just do it. We all have good and bad days.
OK, come on, you don’t know that. I doubt we have any serious data that bodily fluids in public bathrooms are likely to come from drug users. And if you’re cleaning it up, presumably you have equipment and are not using your tongue, the residual drugs won’t jump on you. Don’t stigmatise hard drug users, many of them (maybe most) were given a rotten hand early on and now want help. Policies such as Portugal’s decriminalisation have shown we can make a bigger difference when we treat those people as people.
Either way, the point of your parent comment is that most people don’t even pick up trash, which is itself a problem.
I do know that. For a time I was GM for a convenience store. I started requiring people to come ask me or the manager on duty for a key to the bathroom, which I started having locked by default.
There was an immediate 90% reduction in bodily fluids outside the toilet bowl and 100% reduction in stolen plumbing (they were taking part of the p-trap for drug use) and in finding discarded paraphernalia. Correlation isn't causation, maybe all the crack heads were still using the bathroom but decided to be civilized, IDK, but keeping the bathroom under literal lock and key was a big benefit.
It was inconvenient for customers, that was true, and I didn't like that aspect, but it was hard getting staff (or even myself) that had the will to hose poop off a bathroom wall.
Which I can tell from your comment you've never done. "presumably you have equipment" Yeah, a hose. A mop and bucket. You're still in close proximity, you still step in it, it still splashes. And nothing prepares you for the smells. And you can never unsee it. I won't even describe the things I saw in the womens bathroom. Way less common for things to go down in there, but when it did... It's wretched work.
The toilets you cleaned in 1996 were no where near as disgusting/dangerous as what the public toilets look like now from fentanyl zombies and meth heads. I doubt you had to worry about pricking yourself on a recently used needle ever. Those people simply didn't exist on this level back then and there were more options. Please stop with the 'I hiked uphill both ways' routine... life is worse now than in 1996 in almost every way. We shouldn't be expected to ignore it and just put up with it. People should stop making excuses for it and address the root of the problem.
Meth and heroin were massive problems in the 80s and 90s. Go and watch Trainspotting which was literally made in the year you mentioned and then come back and defend your point about public toilets in the 90s not being drug litter riddled.
Yes, they existed, but definitively not in the same potency (i.e. fentanyl) or volume and were more expensive and harder to get. Not every public toilet in the 80s/90s was completely taken over by deranged homeless drug addicts like it is now. The problem is much more difficult. It's not the same at all.
When I was a kid growing up in the 80s/90s, you rarely saw homeless camps like they are now where they openly use drugs. You never saw public restrooms that were completely disgusting. Fast food bathrooms were clean back then.. now they are horrible. Things are not the same... The worst bathrooms back then were at the public parks where they were covered in pee and not cleaned well, but weren't destroyed by drug usage like they are now. I don't remember seeing piles of needles (or even one needle) like you do now.
Yeah, I did this at 16 at a gas station and got paid 8.75 an hour, there are lots of people out there doing this type of work in the private sector. Its not glamorous thats for sure but supply/demand will dictate the labor market. The government doesn't deem it infeasible because hiring is difficult, its because they aren't willing to pay a reasonable wage for the work.
I won't do your homework for you but there's people that have done the work of reporting out the numbers it takes to operate a clean government bathroom. It's not just "reasonable wage" territory. It's "civilization can't afford this" level expensive, the type of problem you can't throw money at because it's so bad it's obvious that the real problem and solution exists elsewhere.
And it's only in the West that public restrooms are that expensive. Japans are less expensive because the locals use them like civilized people and they don't have enormous on-going cleaning and repair costs.
So, the problem isn't in paying the cleaners. It's upstream. No pun intended.
I don’t disagree that the problem is difficult and has various surface areas to address, but everyone can’t blame the drug users when even putting up the stall costs north of $500,000. That’s just governmental bureaucracy at play.
Additionally, not all areas of the country are infested with the “homeless and drug addicts”. People can spin that all they like but areas where people take care of their local services are plentiful.
Lastly, don’t talk to me about prohibitive pricing in government initiates. When we stop spending hundreds of billions bombing other countries, then come talk about things being too expensive.
Nice condescending comment about the homework though, you must have been pleased with that one.
Infeasible for a government would mean it is sufficiently expensive that it is not politically popular to spend that much money on public bathrooms.
Also, Buc-ees does not offer free bathrooms in urban, dense areas with higher proportions of mentally ill and drug addicted populations, so that comparison makes no sense.
I used Buc-ee's as an example because they're famous for their clean bathrooms. But there certainly exist clean bathrooms in urban areas. I'd venture to say that those aren't all in high-end establishments that exclude any "riff-raff". It's possible to find clean toilets in urban McDonald's or Wal-Mart; maybe not all of them, but certainly not none either.
And regarding expense on public bathrooms:
* San Francisco spent $1.7M on a single toilet
* Seattle spend $5 installing 5 toilets.
* NYC's public restrooms routinely cost $2M-$4M
Now, those are building projects rather than ongoing operations. But it shows that governments are willing to spend absurd amounts on toilets.
I don't know exactly what the problem is, but there's something about government (mis)management in the issue.
Sure, but why is it that government-run institutions are (we're being told in this thread) uniquely vulnerable to the problem? Why isn't it happening at Buc-ee's or at McDonald's in the same degree?
Obviously there exists a price at which people will do it. But if the government isn't willing to pay it, it seems unfair to expect businesses to pay it.
How many likely Heptitis-infected needles and excrement smears did you clean up? per week or per day? Try 10x that and see if 8.75/hour is still setting your 16 year old mind with visions of dancing Super Nintendos and Segas.
I think it is infeasible because I saw restrooms become less numerous and more restricted over the past 4 decades. If it was feasible, the OP’s article wouldn’t be describing a real phenomenon.
As for the class I was raised in, my parents worked 24/7, my mom cleaned 20+ bathrooms every day, and my parents, myself and my sister slept in one room until I was 16 years old. I have also worked at places where public restrooms were obliterated, and caused quite a bit of rancor among the staff, resulting in restrictions on who could use them.
But that is neither here nor there on the current supply and demand of people willing to do that job.
>I think it is infeasible because I saw restrooms become less numerous and more restricted over the past 4 decades.
Cool.
My point was that I was a minimum wage worker and still cleaning toilets. Did it for minimum wage. There were many other coworkers doing the same.
You said
> Try hiring someone for a job where the job could sometimes be cleaning up bodily fluids and odors in a bathroom. Even the government deems it infeasible.
That's only plausible if you were unwilling to do so yourself and couldn't conceive of anyone else doing the job.
Its literally one of the lowest paid jobs there is.
If you are claiming its infeasible to pay for someone to do that job, you are just saying you dont think that anyone should be paid to do the job.
No, I am writing that supply and demand curves can shift such that the job you used to for minimum wage is no longer a job one can expect to hire for minimum wage in Aug 2026.
>Its literally one of the lowest paid jobs there is.
Today, real life says that is not sufficient pay if we want more public bathrooms (in the places lacking them, such as urban, high density areas).
My conclusions are not based on my feelings or opinions, but a simple observations of real life market trends.
Doesn’t literally every bathroom need someone to clean up body fluids and odors from time to time? At the last gas station, big box hardware store, and McDonalds I visited in the West, log sheets hung inside the bathrooms indicating they’re supposedly cleaned as often as hourly.
It doesn’t really bother me. At many of the places I work and volunteer, our norm is to establish a rota, so as not to shove the job onto whoever’s lowest paid, least experienced, or most willing to be bullied into it.
Every single front end employee in the new england grocery chain has cleaned the toilets.
Every single employee in a fast food establishment has cleaned toilets, including the horrors you blame on homeless people, like shit smeared on things.
Every single Circle-K employee has cleaned toilets.
The cost for hiring someone to clean toilets is minimum wage.
What are you taking about? Literally every restaurant and retail worker has had to do this. I was cleaning toilets in high school. You think restaurant restrooms are clean before the workers go in to clean them? You think people aren't shitting in urinals in Best Buy?
Obviously, it is priced into operating a restaurant, where there have to be restrooms. In the context of the comment I replied to:
>How is maintaining public restrooms a "massive liability"? Surely its an inconvenience but massive liability seems a bit of a hyperbole.
The labor costs of having a bathroom be cleaned (in certain regions) might very well be cost prohibitive, hence the OP’s linked article. For example, Best Buy has to spend money to keep bathrooms clean, whereas online only vendors don’t. Maybe it can make sense for Best Buy (or smaller operations like coffee shops) to not have a restroom.
Given enough money, there would be people willing to do all that, buy proper gear and disinfectants, etc.
But that would cost so much that most municipalities or businesses would not afford that.
Some places, of course, do afford that; they are relatively few, as one might expect. Especially as people become more wealthy and the cost of their work grows.
If the government is underfunded enough to not be able to hire bathroom cleaners, how can anyone expect a barely surviving retail business to afford it?
It probably isn't as much about population growth as the increasing wealth gap. My hypothesis would be that a society where people don't feel fair distribution of wealth is more prone to this 'abuse' that you call 'overuse'.
Drug addicts don't become addicts all of the sudden. Lots of people with no place to go resort to awful things, people that feel like they have no place in society do not see a reason to take care of it. It doesn't make it right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the root cause.
I was in Nice as well and found one place that had a public urinal(my back was literally to people walking around). It was a bit odd...but I really had to go.
Even with a free tier, having the gall to charge 20% more than Red Hat does for their enterprise Linux workstation license is pretty ballsy. And Red Hat is putting actual significant software engineering into their offerings to make Linux more commercially viable, I don't know what this ~10 person HW/SW company did to Fedora to add $240/yr of value.
Nothing wrong with it. However what is right about it? The world needs research, and that means researchers. However for every person in research the world needs a very large number of people in non research. The guy who works at the local sewer plant isn't doing research, but the world would fall apart if nobody did that job, while the world would still continue with nobody in research (I wouldn't want to live in either world, but the world of no more research is better than the world of no more sewer systems)
If parenting and building are both truly aspirations, why not have people you admire that are great parents as well? I guess they don’t have many biographies for great moms and dads.
I admire the ambition. I wonder how many people out there are chasing both of these things, thinking they are being great parents and great builders, but are failing at one, or both.
reply