All houses in LA pay for weekly trash service. I pay $45 per quarter to have trash removed from my house once a week. My neighbor, the little old lady next door, always has much less trash than we do. I believe it would be good for the total economy if all houses had to pay for trash service by the pound. If we had to pay per each pound of trash that was removed rather than the current system of paying for a weekly pick-up of all trash. What are the possible incentive behaviors or unintended consequences that would happen if the city government instituted such a policy?
Ye gads! Who is going to weigh each household's trash? What expensive equipment would they need?
Paying by the pound does not sound like a profitable enterprise.
Why do you think paying by the pound would be good for the economy?
Thanks. I want to know what is INCENTIVE BEHAVIOR if goverment instituted this policy. For example, Seat belt law, the probabiliy of surviving an auto accidents rises. but this law also affects behavior by altering incentives.
Think a bit outside the box. What would you do if such a policy was enacted? What would a cheapskate do? (e.g., start burning his trash). What would a sleezeoid do? (e.g., dump his trash in someone else's bin).
Remember to think like an economist. The MC of tossing more trash under the current system is zero. Under the proposal it is > 0)
I hope this helps. Lotsa luck.
If the city government were to institute a policy where residents had to pay for trash service by the pound, there would likely be several incentive behaviors and unintended consequences. Let's explore some of them:
1. Reduction in waste generation: Since residents would have to pay for each pound of trash removed, there might be a shift in behavior towards reducing waste generation. People may become more conscious of what they throw away and try to minimize waste to save on costs.
2. Increase in recycling and composting: With the pay-per-pound policy, residents might be more incentivized to recycle and compost to reduce the weight and cost of their trash. This could result in higher recycling rates and a decrease in the amount of waste going to landfills.
3. Illegal dumping: One unintended consequence could be an increase in illegal dumping. Some individuals might try to avoid paying for their trash by illegally disposing of it in unauthorized locations such as vacant lots, public spaces, or even dumping it in someone else's bins. These illegal dumping activities could lead to environmental and health risks.
4. Disproportionate burden on certain demographics: The policy might disproportionately affect certain demographics, such as low-income individuals or families with medical conditions that generate more waste. Paying per pound could place a financial strain on these households, potentially leading to inequities in waste management.
5. Mismanagement and abuse: There is a possibility of residents attempting to manipulate the system or engage in fraudulent practices to reduce their trash costs. This could include misclassifying waste, underreporting trash weight, or creating unauthorized waste disposal methods. Such actions would undermine the effectiveness and fairness of the pay-per-pound policy.
6. Increased monitoring and administration costs: Implementing a pay-per-pound system would require additional monitoring and administration to accurately measure and charge for each resident's waste. This could involve investing in weighing equipment, staffing, and data management systems. These added costs might need to be passed on to residents through higher service fees.
Overall, it is important to carefully consider the potential incentives and unintended consequences before implementing a new waste management policy. Analyzing the social, environmental, and economic impacts can help ensure that any changes to the system improve efficiency and fairness while minimizing negative effects.