Read on Twitter
Here’s a (longish) tale of unintended consequences and the limits of service design, based on a true no-brainer - that ended up increasing inequality:
Garbage collection.
Garbage collection.
A long time ago, when the world was new and I was young, we didn’t have garbage collection. You periodically brought stuff to the dump when you needed to, and this was enough of a social event that cops sometime set up RIDE checks.
It was also a swap meet. Rural *and* poor meant a lot of our furniture and appliances came from the dump; mom & I would also fix up old electronics for resale.
People who didn’t want to go to the dump paid others cash to take stuff for them, and neighbours helped folks who couldn’t do either.
But the folks in the ever-expanding town nearby decided that what the county needed was garbage collection.
They outvote rural folks 2:1. So they contracted out and curbside collection came to town & country.
They outvote rural folks 2:1. So they contracted out and curbside collection came to town & country.
You’d think everyone’s better off, right?
All the folks who used to earn cash driving other people’s stuff down to the dump all lost income.
All the folks who used to earn cash driving other people’s stuff down to the dump all lost income.
The contractors had crusher trucks, so there was far less salvageable furniture and gizmos for folks to use and repair.
In the old days, if you paid someone, they got your garbage at the door - now you had to get it to the roadside. Town driveways are short - rural, could be a km or more, and in my uncle’s case, you had to ford a stream or row a boat. Less good for the elderly or disabled.
It also sucked for animal control. Used to be you controlled the timing. There’s no putting trash out the night before, so up early, even if you work at night... and watch your garbage from the window, lest it be spread across the lawn before the truck came by.
Property taxes went up, of course. Few years later they started charging per bag. The local waste transfer station soon closed, more jobs gone, and ending any opportunity to do things the old way.
After that, some folks started chucking trash in the woods in a way they’d never do before - when going to the dump was just as close. County pays strangers to come and clean it up.
And all this happened *instead of* replacing a rural bridge that had washed out (townsfolk didn’t care) https://twitter.com/lordevinj/status/1264361864223510535?s=21
Service design is hard, even for a no-brainer like garbage collection, and has unintended consequences.
The service was designed by and for the wealthier people (in town); it helped them more than the marginalized, some of whom it hurt, increasing inequality.
Underlying this is a problem that the rural folk and town folk had different priorities (a bridge) and different needs but were in the same political jurisdiction. And while this is an urban/rural example it could be differences between any group.
As jurisdictions gets larger and more diverse they include more groups with different priorities and it becomes nigh impossible to design services fairly. And for the same reason, to cut them once they are in place. That reinforces the starus quo.
Sometimes the smallest jurisdictions are still too large and they resist all pressure to divide themselves.
At some point, the best option is cash, to let people and smaller jurisdictions work things out for themselves…
Provided you can stop rent-seekers from grabbing it. Which is what regulations are for.
Provided you can stop rent-seekers from grabbing it. Which is what regulations are for.
