On Economists:
Harvey Mansfield, writing in this month's New Criterion:
The building where I used to work was shared with economists, who, living the sort of life they describe, had no incentive to flush and sometimes failed to do so.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Specifically, I have noticed that many of my colleagues at work fail to flush, but still wash their hands.
This strikes me as being somehow hypocritical.
Mind you, most of my family are economists, so this is all said with love.
We respect the Earth and sun
And never flush just number one
IF YOU FLUSH AT HOME, FLUSH HERE.
IF YOU FLUSH AT HOME, FLUSH HERE.
Feel free to stink up your own house, not a public bathroom.
Install waterless urinals if you want to feel better.
Hmmm -- my children tell me that the reason they keep failing to flush at home is that there are automatic toilets at school, and they've gotten out of the habit. (It's true there are automatic toilets at the school, else I would have suspected that had it come up at school they would have told those who monitor this that the reason they forget is that they have automatic toilets at home. Or that they have rationally realized that if they don't flush, their parents will do it for them -- maybe they have a future as economists.)
Hmmm -- my children tell me that the reason they keep failing to flush at home is that there are automatic toilets at school, and they've gotten out of the habit. (It's true there are automatic toilets at the school, else I would have suspected that had it come up at school they would have told those who monitor this that the reason they forget is that they have automatic toilets at home. Or that they have rationally realized that if they don't flush, their parents will do it for them -- maybe they have a future as economists.)
That seems an unintentionally risky ultimatum, Redman!
1. Externalities: an economist still may internalize the costs of this action if he walks out of the bathroom and is found out by a coworker. I assume economists are not homogeneous goods and that there are some who are annoyed by the habit. Furthermore, I am sure that, no matter where this is, more humans than economists enter the lavoratories. Indeed, even economists should discount the probability that they might be be called "Johnny NoFlush" or "Assy McAsparagupiss" the rest of their lives.
2. Efficiency: Is it really inefficient to flush (low flow or not)? The allocation of natural resources may not be maximized (as opposed to, say, optimized), but, I don't think it's plausible to suggest that stale urine presents any sort of Pareto-Improving result. I find it hard to believe that, in satisfying a deeply held belief in the ridiculousness of flushing, nobody is made worse off at the expense of the economist's allocation of his resources.
Likewise, and while conceding that it might possible that stale urine saturating a toilet bowl whose molecules'are now diffusion throughout the room, and, should the inevitable occur, into the olfactory passages of fellow humans could be Kaldor-Hicks efficient (and well, you'd have to be the weirdest of the subset of weird humans we call economists), I suggest that the gainers gain less than the losers lose....... And of course, all economists are losers (just kidding, one of my majors).
But, then again, what are you gonna do, measure the janitor's and my own utils? Sheeeeesh.... Sytlized fact number 1: you're disgusting. Stylized fact number 2: how about you flush next time or I dip your pencils into toilet bowls in the future, eh, Assy McAsparagapiss?
Ronald Coase coralary:
Are property rights involved here, and was this a government building?
In loo (sic)(sick) of governmenent regulation such as sign work or auto-flush toilettes, Coase Theorem would hold the price mechanism would solve this situation most simply.
To correct any externality, were Ronald Coase alive and working in the same building, would he have privately bargained a price with the non-flushers that incentivized flushing?
Back in my California drought days, it was: "If it's yellow, leave it for the next fellow. If it's brown, flush it down."
I'm just saying, is all.
Coase aside, I think calling them names would work better than paying them, in this case. If you pay them, they will inevitably bargain for a higher price and default on their end of the bargain so that you are reminded of why you are willing to pay them.
You would be paying for something that social norms should make the norm, thereby providing hidden incentive for some to create a subset of norm-breakers in order to extend the payments to those who follow the norm. Increasing the punishment to norm-breakers should achieve a better result.
Guess he doesn't entertain at home much.
Believe me, I would not have posted the sign but for the fact that they are all married men.
(You know who you are, and the rest of us are gunning for you.)
I'm sure there are some places where the economists outnumber the humans.