11 ms·

You're essentially saying that people won't be able to survive and that's the reason Free Market Water is a bad idea. People will pay a premium to keep their l

You're essentially saying that people won't be able to survive and that's the reason Free Market Water is a bad idea. People will pay a premium to keep their lawns green and if you can't afford to hydrate or bathe, tough. People will die so people like this can continue living like they aren't in a desert: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-washpost-bc-calif-water13-20150613-story.html#page=1 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-washpost-bc-calif-... -- This was an autokilled post by another poster, if you have showdead on you might see it.

Asbostos 11y ago
Poor choice of word "survive" there. I meant economically survive in high-priced-water areas such as what California might be if it had a free water market. I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert. For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall.
- task_queue 11y ago
  > For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That's the problem. Millions of people are already living in places where water is scarce / becoming scarce. This would call for a mass exodus from the desert, an infeasibility for almost all and the communities they belong to. Workers would abandon local economies and have to enter ones that most likely have no room for them. Chances are that the people that will need to abandon their homes do not have the economic means to do so nor have the skills to enter a new market and find work. > That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall. People need to bathe and wash their clothing / dishware as well. > I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert. Ideally, that wouldn't be an option because regulations would be set to prevent excess waste of a vital resource.

Asbostos 11y ago

Poor choice of word "survive" there. I meant economically survive in high-priced-water areas such as what California might be if it had a free water market. I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert. For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall.

task_queue 11y ago
> For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That's the problem. Millions of people are already living in places where water is scarce / becoming scarce. This would call for a mass exodus from the desert, an infeasibility for almost all and the communities they belong to. Workers would abandon local economies and have to enter ones that most likely have no room for them. Chances are that the people that will need to abandon their homes do not have the economic means to do so nor have the skills to enter a new market and find work. > That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall. People need to bathe and wash their clothing / dishware as well. > I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert. Ideally, that wouldn't be an option because regulations would be set to prevent excess waste of a vital resource.