Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Is the reason most restaurants in the US don't have pay toilets the same as the reason that many grocery stores in the US don't have a bring your own bag/buy a bag policy? Both pay systems seem to be more common in Europe. Also, both the grocery stores and the types I restaurants that would seem most likely to have a pay toilet policy (fast food-type joints, I guess) seem to have low profit margins. Is there something that would cause a business that has low profit margins to have "give aways". I would think that customers to either type of business would be very value orientented and the firms would do all they could to lower the price- i.e. no freebies. But, is it just the opposite, if a firm has small profit margins, it can't gain much from lowering the price any more, but can gain from promotional type things such as free bathrooms and free bags? Jason
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
athroom is a >reasonable enticement / externality / public good / what-have-you. > >* Sit-down meals tend to be larger than take-out meals. You can bring a >large party into a restaurant that caters to sit-down meals (the soccer team >after practice, your high school buddies after a late evening, etc). In an >establishment where meals are expressly take-out, you're limited by the >patience of everyone else who's waiting to order. If it's a late-night >drive-through window, for instance, you're even limited in how large your >party can be in the first place (by how many people you can fit into a car >or van). > >* Therefore, if the presence of bathrooms determines an orientation towards >sit-down meals rather than take-out, then bathrooms encourage larger OR more >diverse orders (though they may not allow for higher prices). There may not >be a change in price per item, but it's reasonable to assume a change in >revenue. > >... I think I strayed almost entirely from the point we were discussing, but >it's a train of thought I found interesting, nonetheless. > >-JP > >> >>That's what I was thinking originally. As I mentioned >>before my assumptions may be wrong. I'm also >>neglecting "secondary" effects, e.g. pee for free = >>repeat business, etc. >> >>Anyway, let me know if I make no sense or if my >>reasoning is totally out of whack. I don't want to go >>through life with a head full of bad economics! >> >>Best to you, >>jsh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--- John Perich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, I made the comment originally because, in the >> > neoclassical framework, >> > would one have any reason to assume that any given >> > cost WASN'T included in >> > the final price? >> > >> > -JP >> > >> > >> > >From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets >> > >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:20:34 -0700 (PDT) >> > > >> > >John Perich wrote: >> > > >> > >"Why do you assume the cost of bathroom maintenance >> > >isn't already included in the price charged?" >> > > >> > >I hadn't thought about it. I guess I had assumed, >> > >perhaps incorrectly, that bathroom maintenance >> > costs >> > >would be idependent of the prices charged for goods >> > at >> > >the establishment. Thus bathroom maintenance costs >> > >would not bear on optimizing decisions, in much the >> > >same way that lump-sum taxes are non-disortionary. >> > > >> > >On reflection it has occured to me that prices may >> > >affect bathroom maintenance costs: if Mc.D's >> > charges >> > >less for burgers and obtains more customers, then >> > they >> > >may have more bathroom use which may require more >> > >bathroom cleaning, i.e. an increase in bathroom >> > >maintenance costs. If such were the case (it seems >> > >reasonable), then maintenance costs would enter >> > into >> > >the profit max. problem and would therefore affect >> > the >> > >price, right? That's not a rhetorical question; if >> > >I'm wrong please tell me. >> > > >> > >Well--I think that was what I was thinking anyway: >> > >that bathroom use would be independent of the >> > price. >> > >Of course Michael Etchison may be right as well (if >> > I >> > >read him correctly), in that firms engage in >> > hueristic >> > >pricing and just toss bathroom maintenance into the >> > >mix. (If I read you wrong, Mr. Etchison, I >> > apologize >> > >for that.) That possibility just never crossed my >> > >mind. >> > > >> > >-jsh >> > > >> > > >> > >= >> > >"...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation >> > to another merely >> > >because that other has done him no wrong." >> > >-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. >> > > >> > >__ >> > >Do You Yahoo!? >> > >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >> > >http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>_ >> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: >> > http://mobile.msn.com >> > >> > >> >> >>__ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >> > > > > >-- >I'm never gonna work another day in my life. >The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. >I'm never gonna work another day in my life. >I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. > >- Monster Magnet, "Powertrip" > > >_ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > Kevin D. Sachs, Ph.D. Assistant Professor phone: 513.556.7198 University of Cincinnatifax: 513.556.4891 Department of Accounting/IS email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 302 Lindner Hall, P.O.Box 210211 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0211
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
>From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Your question seems straight forward, yet I'm not sure >I understand. Assuming the problem is at my end, let >me try again and you can tell me where I'm going >wrong. That I may poorly articulate what I'm thinking >is a given, so please bear with me. Everything you've written makes sense, indicating that the question is deeper than I first gave it credit for being. But I'm still going to be stubborn and defend my answer. >I face a certain state of the world and I optimize. >Suppose that the government then levies a lump-sum >tax. Since it doesn't affect any marginal values, it >is non-distortionary, so I don't change my opitimizing >behavior--I just suffer a loss of utility from the >taxation (I have to enjoy less across the board). > >Analogously, the firm with the free bathroom >experiences the cost of maintenance as just a lump-sum >expense. It may be spread out, but it affects no >marginal values. Since it affects no marginal values, >it doesn't affect the firm's optimizing behavior--the >firm just suffers lower profits as a result. The >prices the firm charges for goods are the same with >and without the free bathroom. Hence toilet >maintenance is not a part of the prices. The reasoning makes sense, until we take a step back and ask ourselves something: namely, "Since the cost of bathroom maintenance has no effect on price, does that mean that a McDonald's(tm) would be able to charge the same prices WITH a bathroom as they would WITHOUT one?" Let's look at this quandary in detail. Suppose it's common practice in the city of Boston for fast-food restaurants to allow free access to their restroom facilities. One restaurant manager wakes up one morning with the idea that the bathrooms are just one big cash sink (no pun intended), and decides to brick up his men's and women's lavatories. He reasons that customers will still come in to enjoy his hot, delicious McSomethings, and can just use the bathroom in Wendy's across the street. Now, this is just a thought experiment; we're unfortunately short in empirical data. But I think the following is reasonable to assume (challenge me if I'm wrong): * Facilities with bathrooms cater to sit-down meals moreso than take-out meals. 7-11, for instance, will sell you a whole meal for $5.00 (hot dog, chips and soda), yet doesn't expect you to sit there and eat it. The Dunkin' Donuts kiosk in the Harvard Square train station doesn't even have any seats; no one's expected to stick around. But if a customer's going to invest a certain amount of time at a restaurant location, a bathroom is a reasonable enticement / externality / public good / what-have-you. * Sit-down meals tend to be larger than take-out meals. You can bring a large party into a restaurant that caters to sit-down meals (the soccer team after practice, your high school buddies after a late evening, etc). In an establishment where meals are expressly take-out, you're limited by the patience of everyone else who's waiting to order. If it's a late-night drive-through window, for instance, you're even limited in how large your party can be in the first place (by how many people you can fit into a car or van). * Therefore, if the presence of bathrooms determines an orientation towards sit-down meals rather than take-out, then bathrooms encourage larger OR more diverse orders (though they may not allow for higher prices). There may not be a change in price per item, but it's reasonable to assume a change in revenue. ... I think I strayed almost entirely from the point we were discussing, but it's a train of thought I found interesting, nonetheless. -JP > >That's what I was thinking originally. As I mentioned >before my assumptions may be wrong. I'm also >neglecting "secondary" effects, e.g. pee for free = >repeat business, etc. > >Anyway, let me know if I make no sense or if my >reasoning is totally out of whack. I don't want to go >through life with a head full of bad economics! > >Best to you, >jsh > > > > > > > > > >--- John Perich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I made the comment originally because, in the > > neoclassical framework, > > would one have any reason to assume that any given > > cost WASN'T included in > > the final price? > > > > -JP > > > > > > >From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets > > >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:20:34 -0700 (PDT) > > > > >
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
- Original Message - From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On reflection it has occured to me that prices may > affect bathroom maintenance costs: if Mc.D's charges > less for burgers and obtains more customers, then they > may have more bathroom use which may require more > bathroom cleaning, i.e. an increase in bathroom > maintenance costs. If such were the case (it seems > reasonable), then maintenance costs would enter into > the profit max. problem and would therefore affect the > price, right? That's not a rhetorical question; if > I'm wrong please tell me. > Do you include water usage in maintenance costs? Are pay toilets more common in areas of water scarcity? Are costs of water higher in Holland or Spain? Is there any strictly economic rationale that would account for pay toilets being common in some countries and rare in others? Or is the assumption here that businessmen in some countries prefer policies which are economically irrational? How would either a businessman a priori or an economist after the fact go about estimating or determining which policy was more profitable? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
John Perich wrote: "Well, I made the comment originally because, in the neoclassical framework, would one have any reason to assume that any given cost WASN'T included in the final price?" Your question seems straight forward, yet I'm not sure I understand. Assuming the problem is at my end, let me try again and you can tell me where I'm going wrong. That I may poorly articulate what I'm thinking is a given, so please bear with me. I face a certain state of the world and I optimize. Suppose that the government then levies a lump-sum tax. Since it doesn't affect any marginal values, it is non-distortionary, so I don't change my opitimizing behavior--I just suffer a loss of utility from the taxation (I have to enjoy less across the board). Analogously, the firm with the free bathroom experiences the cost of maintenance as just a lump-sum expense. It may be spread out, but it affects no marginal values. Since it affects no marginal values, it doesn't affect the firm's optimizing behavior--the firm just suffers lower profits as a result. The prices the firm charges for goods are the same with and without the free bathroom. Hence toilet maintenance is not a part of the prices. That's what I was thinking originally. As I mentioned before my assumptions may be wrong. I'm also neglecting "secondary" effects, e.g. pee for free = repeat business, etc. Anyway, let me know if I make no sense or if my reasoning is totally out of whack. I don't want to go through life with a head full of bad economics! Best to you, jsh --- John Perich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I made the comment originally because, in the > neoclassical framework, > would one have any reason to assume that any given > cost WASN'T included in > the final price? > > -JP > > > >From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets > >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:20:34 -0700 (PDT) > > > >John Perich wrote: > > > >"Why do you assume the cost of bathroom maintenance > >isn't already included in the price charged?" > > > >I hadn't thought about it. I guess I had assumed, > >perhaps incorrectly, that bathroom maintenance > costs > >would be idependent of the prices charged for goods > at > >the establishment. Thus bathroom maintenance costs > >would not bear on optimizing decisions, in much the > >same way that lump-sum taxes are non-disortionary. > > > >On reflection it has occured to me that prices may > >affect bathroom maintenance costs: if Mc.D's > charges > >less for burgers and obtains more customers, then > they > >may have more bathroom use which may require more > >bathroom cleaning, i.e. an increase in bathroom > >maintenance costs. If such were the case (it seems > >reasonable), then maintenance costs would enter > into > >the profit max. problem and would therefore affect > the > >price, right? That's not a rhetorical question; if > >I'm wrong please tell me. > > > >Well--I think that was what I was thinking anyway: > >that bathroom use would be independent of the > price. > >Of course Michael Etchison may be right as well (if > I > >read him correctly), in that firms engage in > hueristic > >pricing and just toss bathroom maintenance into the > >mix. (If I read you wrong, Mr. Etchison, I > apologize > >for that.) That possibility just never crossed my > >mind. > > > >-jsh > > > > > >= > >"...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation > to another merely > >because that other has done him no wrong." > >-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. > > > >__ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > >http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: > http://mobile.msn.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Robin Hanson asked: > > Plausible, but then the question is: *why* do people have a disutility > of paying for toilets? Does this fit into any pattern of the sorts > of things people have a disutility of paying for? Apparently using a toilet is something that people have tradiotionally seen as something of a human right!! I recall seeing on discovery channel (that oracle of truth) that an old irish statute made it unlawful to refuse anyone "in a lavatory state" the access to one's toilet - jacob braestrup ps: BTW: pay toilets are unheard of at restaurants here in Denmark. they are found on train stations and in public squares etc.
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Well, I made the comment originally because, in the neoclassical framework, would one have any reason to assume that any given cost WASN'T included in the final price? -JP >From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:20:34 -0700 (PDT) > >John Perich wrote: > >"Why do you assume the cost of bathroom maintenance >isn't already included in the price charged?" > >I hadn't thought about it. I guess I had assumed, >perhaps incorrectly, that bathroom maintenance costs >would be idependent of the prices charged for goods at >the establishment. Thus bathroom maintenance costs >would not bear on optimizing decisions, in much the >same way that lump-sum taxes are non-disortionary. > >On reflection it has occured to me that prices may >affect bathroom maintenance costs: if Mc.D's charges >less for burgers and obtains more customers, then they >may have more bathroom use which may require more >bathroom cleaning, i.e. an increase in bathroom >maintenance costs. If such were the case (it seems >reasonable), then maintenance costs would enter into >the profit max. problem and would therefore affect the >price, right? That's not a rhetorical question; if >I'm wrong please tell me. > >Well--I think that was what I was thinking anyway: >that bathroom use would be independent of the price. >Of course Michael Etchison may be right as well (if I >read him correctly), in that firms engage in hueristic >pricing and just toss bathroom maintenance into the >mix. (If I read you wrong, Mr. Etchison, I apologize >for that.) That possibility just never crossed my >mind. > >-jsh > > >= >"...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely >because that other has done him no wrong." >-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
John Hull: >Of course Michael Etchison may be right as well (if I read him correctly), in that firms engage in hueristic pricing and just toss bathroom maintenance into the mix.< What firms think they do, and what they actually do, are neither identical nor even coextensive, of course. A firm may well adopt a policy of instituting and rigorously following procedures at the end of which an array of goods and prices will univocally emerge. Just between us, the rigor is not what it seems, in my book. It is, rather, a way of presenting what is at bottom an inherently and unavoidably imprecise, possibly inarticulate (if not inchoate) hunch about what the consequences of such an array might be. It is a matter at least as much of rhetoric, as of calculation: The act of calculation is itself rhetorical. And, not only is such an approach rhetorical, it is _not falsifiable_. The firm's response to what happens after the array is instantiated is, at bottom, heuristic, a reasonably disciplined search for a reasonably coherent and administrable plan for how to identify data as relevant and interpret them, and of what to do about the (reasonably disciplined) inferences the heuristics set up. Put the other way 'round: From the _customer's_ point of view, the entire experience of deciding to enter the premises, deciding what to do there, and so on is a "mix," which is subjectively taken and assessed all at once (though much of what happens has something to do with particular parts of the experience and particular stated prices, and so on). If that is so, then whether he knows it or not, all of the seller's presentation is a "mix," into which every component is willy-nilly thrown. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
I think it is good example for "bundling" or vertical integration. Like a free Microsoft Internet Explorer (see S. Landsburgs Slate column) the buyer is better off, if the seller offers two complementary goods like meals and toilets in a bundle than a seperate offer. If you are in a restaurant the barkeeper owns a kind of monopoly with regard to meals and a indoor toilet. Of course he can offer both seperatly and get a price where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. If he offers both together he can only charge a lower price (because marginal revenue goes up and thatswhy monopoly price goes down), but the buyer is better off and the restaurant gets more customers. Steffen
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
William Sjostrom: >This says people behave differently because they have different tastes. This isn't helpful unless you have some way to observe and explain differences in tastes. To an economist, if you say so, it may be unhelpful. For a mere businessman, it is vital information. Every businessman must _at least_ know that such differences in behavior actually exist -- and, pace Sjostrom, they are readily observable everywhere, at every time. The more thoughtful may also inquire about patterns into which such differences may be usefully seen to fall. Folks get rich doing exactly that sort of thing, regardless of whether it is helpful. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
William Sjostrom >Not at all obvious. Two goods, A and B, with marginal cost CA and CB, Within what may be a narrow range, the approximate marginal cost of two goods may actually be knowable by an experienced person of good judgment. >and independent marginal value VA and VB Neither we nor the seller can know the "marginal value." Indeed, neither we nor he can know the price at which each could "best" (i.e., most [apparently] profitable over a fairly brief span of time in fairly-well constrained circumstances, including a vigorous belief that buyers', and their tastes and preferences, will not change appreciably in response to either what the seller or anyone else [i.e., more or less remote competitors] does) price at which to sell either product. And, as I mentioned in another thread, neither we nor the seller can _know_, either ex ante or ex post whether the seller's decision was "correct," among other reasons because the experiment is hardly controlled. >with VA>CA and VB>CB. A buyer will pay VA+VB for the bundle This is true _only_ of a person who would, in _any_ event, have bought one and only one of each, in a single transaction. Most of us, in fact, will buy an add-on as part of a bundle -- but _only_ if the bundle is less than the sum of the separate items. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
John Perich wrote: "Why do you assume the cost of bathroom maintenance isn't already included in the price charged?" I hadn't thought about it. I guess I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that bathroom maintenance costs would be idependent of the prices charged for goods at the establishment. Thus bathroom maintenance costs would not bear on optimizing decisions, in much the same way that lump-sum taxes are non-disortionary. On reflection it has occured to me that prices may affect bathroom maintenance costs: if Mc.D's charges less for burgers and obtains more customers, then they may have more bathroom use which may require more bathroom cleaning, i.e. an increase in bathroom maintenance costs. If such were the case (it seems reasonable), then maintenance costs would enter into the profit max. problem and would therefore affect the price, right? That's not a rhetorical question; if I'm wrong please tell me. Well--I think that was what I was thinking anyway: that bathroom use would be independent of the price. Of course Michael Etchison may be right as well (if I read him correctly), in that firms engage in hueristic pricing and just toss bathroom maintenance into the mix. (If I read you wrong, Mr. Etchison, I apologize for that.) That possibility just never crossed my mind. -jsh = "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
> Plausible, but then the question is: *why* do people have a disutility > of paying for toilets? Does this fit into any pattern of the sorts > of things people have a disutility of paying for? As noted earlier, people did pay for toilets before and it is common in Europe. So it seems we are trying to pay for a rather specific fact, not a general disutility for paying for toilets. Let me also add a peice of anecdotal evidence that retailers offer free toilets to attact customers: A recent NPR show interviewed Hong Kong residents who said they would congregate in McDonald's in the 1960's becuase it was the only place open in the evening that was public, you could hang out and use the facilities. Eventually many such hang outs popped up all over Hong Kong. Fabio
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
> There has been some work on whether or not "boycotts" actually change > corporate behavior; the absense of pay toilets might be an example > where the market is telling firms to abide by the sensibilities of the > public. The presence of pay toilets in other countries may just > indicate that other "publics" have other sensibilities. > --Robert Book > [EMAIL PROTECTED] This says people behave differently because they have different tastes. This isn't helpful unless you have some way to observe and explain differences in tastes. William Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
> This is an example of 'bundling' goods. It pays to offer some good for > 'free' to entice the purchase of others. > > Tim James. Not at all obvious. Two goods, A and B, with marginal cost CA and CB, and independent marginal value VA and VB, with VA>CA and VB>CB. A buyer will pay VA+VB for the bundle, and profit is (VA+VB)-(CA+CB). Price them separately and profit is (VA-CA)+(VB-CB), which is obviously the same thing. I grant the problem becomes more difficult if the goods are not independent. It is worth keeping in mind that any theory of free toilets, including ad hoc theories about the indignity of paying for a toilet, has to explain why McDonald's does not usually charge for the toilets or parking, but charges for the fries and soda. I note as well that there is huge and often seemingly odd (no practice is really odd, but economists aren't always willing to do the hard work of figuring it out) variation in toilet pricing. It is common in much of Europe, and in my experience it is very common in Eastern Europe (perhaps because wages are low enough to have a monitor), but it is also common in very fancy clubs, where you had better tip the guy who hands out towels and the like. William Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Robert Book wrote: >I think we are leaving something out here. Many people, or at least >many Americans, seem highly offended at the notion of having to pay to >use a toilet. ... such people have a strong disutility >associated with paying for the toilet, to the point that they are >willing to pay a little extra for the goods sold at the establishment. Plausible, but then the question is: *why* do people have a disutility of paying for toilets? Does this fit into any pattern of the sorts of things people have a disutility of paying for? Tim James wrote: >Probably because of what some Burger King guy called the "veto-vote." >Let's say you have a group of four or five people, and one has to use the >bathroom. They are in an area with a McD's and a Burger King, but the >McDonalds charges $0.25 to use the facilities. Burger King, on the other >hand, is free. Which are they more likely to stop at? BK. And the other >four people are likely to buy some fries, a soda, whatever. A creative suggestion, but it seems to require a correlation between people who don't want to eat and people who want to use the bathroom. That sort of correlation is what makes your veggie burger example work. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
--- John Perich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why do some public restrooms in restaurants / bookstores require > either coins OR free tokens to use? There are 2 sets of users: customers and free-riding non-customers. It seems the intent is for customers to get tokens and non-customers to pay, so that if someone just walks in off the street, he could not get a free token, but would pay. Some restaurants say that the restrooms are for customers only, and it would be an interesting experiment to find out the minimum payment they would accept to have a non-customer use it. The price would probably be high if the owner instructed "customers only" but is out of the premises, so it would be a matter of how high the bribe would be in order for the supervisor to overturn the instructions. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
>From: "Technotranscendence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:25 AM John Perich [EMAIL PROTECTED] >wrote: > > But it's just >awkward to > > state it the right way. :) ) QED: >Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that an entrepreneur must find a >price above cost in order to make it worth her or his while to make the >product? Of course, this is based on predictions -- that the price will >be at or above the expected price and the cost will be at or below the >expected cost -- which can be and often enough are wrong. I.e., a good >or service won't be produced over the long run, if it can't sell enough >above cost to make it worth someone's while to provide. This would >apply to things like toilets where the cost is bundled with other good >and services. The business owner still needs to make enough profit >above the cost of the toilet to make it worth her or his while -- or, >more accurately, believe this will be the case. > >This, I believe, captures the Austrian position, though I'm not sure if >non-Austrians don't hold the same view. Any takers? > >Cheers! > >Dan >http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ > >"... the goal for all art... is to explain to the artist himself and to >those around him what man lives for, what is the meaning of his >existence. To explain to people the reason for their appearance on this >planet; or if not to explain, at least to pose the question." -- Andrei >Tarkovskii -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, "Powertrip" _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:25 AM John Perich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (Yes, I know, the Austrians on the list would kill me for assuming cost > dictates price, rather than the other way around. But it's just awkward to > state it the right way. :) ) Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that an entrepreneur must find a price above cost in order to make it worth her or his while to make the product? Of course, this is based on predictions -- that the price will be at or above the expected price and the cost will be at or below the expected cost -- which can be and often enough are wrong. I.e., a good or service won't be produced over the long run, if it can't sell enough above cost to make it worth someone's while to provide. This would apply to things like toilets where the cost is bundled with other good and services. The business owner still needs to make enough profit above the cost of the toilet to make it worth her or his while -- or, more accurately, believe this will be the case. This, I believe, captures the Austrian position, though I'm not sure if non-Austrians don't hold the same view. Any takers? Cheers! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ "... the goal for all art... is to explain to the artist himself and to those around him what man lives for, what is the meaning of his existence. To explain to people the reason for their appearance on this planet; or if not to explain, at least to pose the question." -- Andrei Tarkovskii
Prices and costs WAS In Praise of Pay Toilets
>(Yes, I know, the Austrians on the list would kill me for assuming cost dictates price, rather than the other way around. But it's just awkward to state it the right way. :) )< This Austrian has no difficulty with that way of putting it _in the context of this discussion_. What we are talking about is the price which appear on the restaurant menu. The owner manifestly looks at, and takes seriously, his costs when he sets them, and, generally speaking, intends to set prices which will in fact maximize his net revenues (as modified by other, non-price, considerations). How his suppliers set their costs is of no great immediate interest to him. But to his suppliers, what he is willing and able consistently to pay matters a great deal, and their prices to him take that into effect. When he, and his peers, slack off their buying, then that tends to lower the prices which the suppliers are able to charge. That is why Austrians insist that in the long run, looking at the system as a whole, prices do tend to have a strong effect on "costs" -- because one guy's costs are another's prices. But in the short run and narrow view, costs (and expected net revenues at different costs -- and, consequently different prices charged by the restaurant) indeed have a strong effect on prices. So you have a wholly unofficial and worth what you paid for it imprimatur to write as you did. About the short run and narrow view . Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
>From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Serious question: If the firm is already charging a >profit maximizing price, how can it pass the cost of >bathroom maintenance to customers as a whole? > Why do you assume the cost of bathroom maintenance isn't already included in the price charged? (Yes, I know, the Austrians on the list would kill me for assuming cost dictates price, rather than the other way around. But it's just awkward to state it the right way. :) ) -JP _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
> > "Providing this free service [public restroom] for > > their customers only serves to reduce businesses' > > profits, or else the cost is passed on > > indiscriminately to all their customers." > > Serious question: If the firm is already charging a > profit maximizing price, how can it pass the cost of > bathroom maintenance to customers as a whole? No doubt they can't, except for the (small) marginal cost of having another person use the restroom (averaged over all customers, some of whom don't). I think we are leaving something out here. Many people, or at least many Americans, seem highly offended at the notion of having to pay to use a toilet. Hence, the existence of groups like the "Committee to Eliminate Pay Toilets In America." (Or as John Perich put it, "Committee to Eliminate Pay Toilets In Communities" (C.E.P.T.I.C.). I love it!) This is another way of saying such people have a strong disutility associated with paying for the toilet, to the point that they are willing to pay a little extra for the goods sold at the establishment. It's quite possible that if, say, McDonald's started charging for toilets, people would be willing to pay higher prices for food at Burger King to avoid the indignity (disutility) of having to pay for the toilet. If people are suffifiently offended, they might even avoid patronizing McDonald's on occasions when they only want food and don't need to use the toilet (i.e., boycott the company that offends them). This phenomenon is not particular to toilets -- people will sometimes pay more for a product made in a country they like (or not made in a country they don't like) or avoid patronising a company which makes political contributions they disagree with or does something they think is immoral but which is unrelated to the transactions at hand. Examples: "Buy American" campaigns in the USA; the boycott of Domino's pizza by feminists (the owner is pro-life); the boycott of California table grapes by various groups for 20+ years. The list goes on and on. There has been some work on whether or not "boycotts" actually change corporate behavior; the absense of pay toilets might be an example where the market is telling firms to abide by the sensibilities of the public. The presence of pay toilets in other countries may just indicate that other "publics" have other sensibilities. --Robert Book [EMAIL PROTECTED] First Law of Work: If you can't get your work done in the first 24 hours, work nights.
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
john hull: >Serious question: If the firm is already charging a profit maximizing price, how can it pass the cost of bathroom maintenance to customers as a whole?< 1. There is no a priori reason to think that either * he is in fact charging a profit-maximizing price, or * he believes that he is charging a profit-maximizing price. The former is the case because he does not know enough about the present, existing array of prices, costs, production/marketing/administration/et many cetera situations of his existing competitors, or about the usual preferences and capacities of those who will be his customers during the relevant period, or about the present capacities and intentions of competitors both immediate and remote. Even if he _wanted_ to charge the p-m p, he would not know what it was. The latter is the case because (even if he is not sophisticated enough to recognize and articulate the uncertainties [and, of course, the risks] involved in the first reason) he knows that he has not even tried to acquire the information necessary to achieve exactly _the_ p-m p. What he does believe is that he is doing well enough, all things considered. 2. A restaurant with pay toilets is, as several have pointed out, not exactly the same good as a restaurant with free toilets. What that difference might be for a particular restaurant is, of course, impossible to know, for the same sorts of reasons as above -- and then some, because in addition to those, he must also reckon, somehow, what _his_ difference will be. He may well, in the exercise of good business judgment, conclude that in the long run the extra cost will (not) pay for itself, in higher revenue per unit or greater number of units, lower overall costs, transformation of customers and/or goods produced, and so on. There is, for reasons already alluded to, no a priori way for him to _know_ that his judgment is correct. On the other hand, there is also no way for him to _know_ a posteriori that his judgment was correct, even if it turns out that his net profits were higher (lower) (unchanged but from a different array of costs and income) -- because _that one thing_ was not the only part of the overall picture which changed (as Loasby says, more than one hypothesis is tested by every business decision). Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
"Providing this free service [public restroom] for their customers only serves to reduce businesses' profits, or else the cost is passed on indiscriminately to all their customers." Serious question: If the firm is already charging a profit maximizing price, how can it pass the cost of bathroom maintenance to customers as a whole? -jsh = "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
This is an example of 'bundling' goods. It pays to offer some good for 'free' to entice the purchase of others. Tim James. Probably because of what some Burger King guy called the "veto-vote." Let's say you have a group of four or five people, and one has to use the bathroom. They are in an area with a McD's and a Burger King, but the McDonalds charges $0.25 to use the facilities. Burger King, on the other hand, is free. Which are they more likely to stop at? BK. And the other four people are likely to buy some fries, a soda, whatever. BK actually offers a veggie burger (in some places) because of this. Four or five people out for a quick bite, one is a vegetarian, they all go to Burger King. The restaurant makes its money not on the veggie burger, but on the other sales. The same principle should hold true for pay toilets at places like McDonald's. Dan Lewis
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Point taken. But now we're back to the problem of SR/LR MC in an auction and the lowest sustainable offer. Tim James. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Etchison Sent: 27 May 2002 17:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets Tim James: >The marginal cost of toilet use must (in most cases) be approximately zero.< If the question is -- as "marginal" seems to imply -- the cost of _one more_ user, then you're right. But, of course, the difference in usage between pay and non-pay would be far greater than that. In many venues, I would expect the porcelain equivalent of the Broken Windows effect to occur -- as we can see in many rural convenience stores. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
At 12:05 AM 5/27/02 -0400, you wrote: > >- Original Message - >From: fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently >> use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, >> etc. Ie, there are real competitors. >> >> Fabio >> > >Yet this is just the point. The few pay toilets that I have seen in my life >were in the very places you describe as 'competitors.' Why don't >McDonald's, convenience stores, etc., make their restrooms pay their own >way? Why pay for the maintenance out of their profits? > >~Alypius Skinner > Probably because of what some Burger King guy called the "veto-vote." Let's say you have a group of four or five people, and one has to use the bathroom. They are in an area with a McD's and a Burger King, but the McDonalds charges $0.25 to use the facilities. Burger King, on the other hand, is free. Which are they more likely to stop at? BK. And the other four people are likely to buy some fries, a soda, whatever. BK actually offers a veggie burger (in some places) because of this. Four or five people out for a quick bite, one is a vegetarian, they all go to Burger King. The restaurant makes its money not on the veggie burger, but on the other sales. The same principle should hold true for pay toilets at places like McDonald's. Dan Lewis
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
So the choice could be to avoid the indigents or to cover costs of cleaning restrooms. We could put location in your puzzle, if you don`t mind. So, in zones with more indigents it could be thought that pay toilets would be often (or, alternatively, in a world of only paid toilets, the prices would be higher), the contrary occurring in zones with relatively less indigents. I don`t know much about empirics of toilets (humm...it seems like a good joke), but I would like to see the data of: number of toilets (free and paid) price (0 or ...) locationlevel of income or/and number of indigents That could be a good starting, I presume. Bests Claudio JP wrote: > > > > I thought the point of requiring coins to access a public restroom (like > many restaurant bathrooms in Boston require) was to keep the indigent out in > the first place. If not, then I suppose that's another economic puzzle for > the forum: why do some public restrooms in restaurants / bookstores require > either coins OR free tokens to use? > > -JP > > _ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > >
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
But, wait. The quasi-public restrooms aren`t so clean as the paid restrooms. There is a difference here in quality standards. - Original Message - From: "Anton Sherwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:10 PM Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets > fabio guillermo rojas wrote: > > > 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently > > use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, > > etc. Ie, there are real competitors. > > > But in the old days those also often had coin-locks. > > > > -- > Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ > > >
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
John Perich: >why do some public restrooms in . . . bookstores require either coins OR free tokens to use?< Starting with the observation that bookstore customers can be very odd indeed, and adding in what appears to be an observed propensity no less than average to do weird things in (semi-)private, the bookstore manager may figure that the chances of someone's secreting books on his person, or shooting up, etc., are diminished by the extra bother of paying, and in particular by having to present oneself, in a visible (hence, potentially memorable) way, to a store employee even to get into the place where one intends to do weird things. (I managed bookstores, including one very large one, for three years. And, I hardly need add, hang out in them even now, decades later.) Michael
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
they do it. in holland. (it`s not a joke). - Original Message - From: "Alypius Skinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 9:05 PM Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets > > - Original Message - > From: fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently > > use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, > > etc. Ie, there are real competitors. > > > > Fabio > > > > Yet this is just the point. The few pay toilets that I have seen in my life > were in the very places you describe as 'competitors.' Why don't > McDonald's, convenience stores, etc., make their restrooms pay their own > way? Why pay for the maintenance out of their profits? > > ~Alypius Skinner > > >
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Tim James: >The marginal cost of toilet use must (in most cases) be approximately zero.< If the question is -- as "marginal" seems to imply -- the cost of _one more_ user, then you're right. But, of course, the difference in usage between pay and non-pay would be far greater than that. In many venues, I would expect the porcelain equivalent of the Broken Windows effect to occur -- as we can see in many rural convenience stores. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
I guess this is as good a subject as any for my first post to the list. 1. Pay toilets are practically the norm throughout Europe. In fact, a company, operating under the oh so clever name of "Mc Clean", operates restrooms in train stations across the continent. Train station restrooms that were formerly a haven for drug addicts and the homeless are now efficiently (and profitably?) managed and cleaned by an international firm. 2. Many fast food restaurants in Europe charge a small sum for the use of their bethrooms. 3. It makes sense for fast food giants to keep their bathrooms free even if they know that people will use them for free and not buy anything. It is a form of customer service, since chances are that at some point everyone will be a McDonalds customer. It keeps the public happy and perhaps improves their opinion of the fast food giants. MH >From: "Tim James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets >Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:46:10 +0100 > >The marginal cost of toilet use must (in most cases) be approximately zero. > >There is a (relatively) competitive market in toilet provision in most >commercial >environments. > >Suppose retailers introduced charging. In the absence of a cartel, a Dutch >auction >would probably occur and the price be driven to the marginal cost. Thus >pay >toilets >cannot pay. > >Retailers also have the opportunity of bundling the 'free' toilet good with >other sales. > >Tim James. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Alypius Skinneer >Sent: 26 May 2002 22:43 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: In Praise of Pay Toilets > > >It seems one can scarcely find a pay toilet any more, yet their >disappearance seems to fly in the face of economic rationality. Public >toilets have to be maintained, and, in fact, their maintenance in terms of >labor and cleaning supplies probably exceeds the cost of other >non-productive assets. Providing this free service for their customers >only >serves to reduce businesses' profits, or else the cost is passed on >indiscriminately to all their customers. It would be both more rational >and >more fair to re-institute a user-pays system. In fact, it might even be >possible to turn public toilets into a modest profit center. Yet not only >do I see no evidence of a revival of rationality in regard to public >toilets, but, as economically irrational as it is, pay toilets have been >disappearing for decades, and today are on the precipice of extinction. > >In fact, if the pay toilet were to be revived, travelers--which we have >more >of than ever before in history--might well find there would be more and >cleaner public toilets available for their use. > >Why are private businessmen operating in this economically irrational and >money-losing fashion? Can modern economic theory explain this behavior? > > And do free public toilets encourage an entitlement mentality that >expects >something-for-nothing as the norm, undergirds support for the welfare >state, >and threatens the high level of general prosperity that economic >rationalization has made possible? Is it just a coincidence that massive >expansion of the welfare state has coincided with the disappearance of the >pay toilet? > >(Of course it may work the other way around: perhaps the expansion and >legitimization of the welfare state has contributed to the disappearance of >the pay toilet, with all the adverse consequences that entails for >businesses and consumers.) > >Save the American way of life: bring back the pay toilet! > >~Alypius Skinner > > > > > _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
The marginal cost of toilet use must (in most cases) be approximately zero. There is a (relatively) competitive market in toilet provision in most commercial environments. Suppose retailers introduced charging. In the absence of a cartel, a Dutch auction would probably occur and the price be driven to the marginal cost. Thus pay toilets cannot pay. Retailers also have the opportunity of bundling the 'free' toilet good with other sales. Tim James. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alypius Skinneer Sent: 26 May 2002 22:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: In Praise of Pay Toilets It seems one can scarcely find a pay toilet any more, yet their disappearance seems to fly in the face of economic rationality. Public toilets have to be maintained, and, in fact, their maintenance in terms of labor and cleaning supplies probably exceeds the cost of other non-productive assets. Providing this free service for their customers only serves to reduce businesses' profits, or else the cost is passed on indiscriminately to all their customers. It would be both more rational and more fair to re-institute a user-pays system. In fact, it might even be possible to turn public toilets into a modest profit center. Yet not only do I see no evidence of a revival of rationality in regard to public toilets, but, as economically irrational as it is, pay toilets have been disappearing for decades, and today are on the precipice of extinction. In fact, if the pay toilet were to be revived, travelers--which we have more of than ever before in history--might well find there would be more and cleaner public toilets available for their use. Why are private businessmen operating in this economically irrational and money-losing fashion? Can modern economic theory explain this behavior? And do free public toilets encourage an entitlement mentality that expects something-for-nothing as the norm, undergirds support for the welfare state, and threatens the high level of general prosperity that economic rationalization has made possible? Is it just a coincidence that massive expansion of the welfare state has coincided with the disappearance of the pay toilet? (Of course it may work the other way around: perhaps the expansion and legitimization of the welfare state has contributed to the disappearance of the pay toilet, with all the adverse consequences that entails for businesses and consumers.) Save the American way of life: bring back the pay toilet! ~Alypius Skinner
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
- Original Message - From: fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently > use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, > etc. Ie, there are real competitors. > > Fabio > Yet this is just the point. The few pay toilets that I have seen in my life were in the very places you describe as 'competitors.' Why don't McDonald's, convenience stores, etc., make their restrooms pay their own way? Why pay for the maintenance out of their profits? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
fabio guillermo rojas wrote: > 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently > use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, > etc. Ie, there are real competitors. But in the old days those also often had coin-locks. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
>From: Anton Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >In the Seventies I remember reading of something called the Committee to >Eliminate Pay Toilets In America. If they'd changed it to "Committee to Eliminate Pay Toilets In Communities," they could have named themselves "C.E.P.T.I.C". Opportunities like that don't come along every day. OK, now for the real contribution: > >San Francisco has a few public loos, on the street in tourist zones. >Before they were installed, there was bitter controversy over their >design: it would be unthinkable not to accommodate wheelchairs, but that >would make them big enough for drunks and junkies to sleep in. If >memory serves (it's often faulty) this was resolved by giving them a >price and a time-limit; as first conceived, they were to be supported >entirely by advertising. > I thought the point of requiring coins to access a public restroom (like many restaurant bathrooms in Boston require) was to keep the indigent out in the first place. If not, then I suppose that's another economic puzzle for the forum: why do some public restrooms in restaurants / bookstores require either coins OR free tokens to use? -JP _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Just a note, I was in Madrid a few years ago, and they have pay toilets. Ana L. Balcarcel Dept of Finance- ASU -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of fabio guillermo rojas Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets Some ideas: 1. Zoning. Maybe pay toliets are the NIMBY victims. Most people admit they might be nice to have, but I can imagine businesses not wanting them in front of their shop or street corner. 2. Most pay toilets sit on the street. I can also imagine them being a victim of urban planning - city gov't types simply hate them because they don't fit into their view of what cities should be like. 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, etc. Ie, there are real competitors. Fabio
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
Some ideas: 1. Zoning. Maybe pay toliets are the NIMBY victims. Most people admit they might be nice to have, but I can imagine businesses not wanting them in front of their shop or street corner. 2. Most pay toilets sit on the street. I can also imagine them being a victim of urban planning - city gov't types simply hate them because they don't fit into their view of what cities should be like. 3. They aren't as profitable as you think because people can frequently use quasi-public restrooms such as fast food places, hotels, gas stations, etc. Ie, there are real competitors. Fabio
Re: In Praise of Pay Toilets
In the Seventies I remember reading of something called the Committee to Eliminate Pay Toilets In America. It announced its disbandment when one state enacted a ban. Perhaps people found that pay toilets were not in fact cleaner as a rule than freebies. There was not much competition in the market. San Francisco has a few public loos, on the street in tourist zones. Before they were installed, there was bitter controversy over their design: it would be unthinkable not to accommodate wheelchairs, but that would make them big enough for drunks and junkies to sleep in. If memory serves (it's often faulty) this was resolved by giving them a price and a time-limit; as first conceived, they were to be supported entirely by advertising. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
In Praise of Pay Toilets
It seems one can scarcely find a pay toilet any more, yet their disappearance seems to fly in the face of economic rationality. Public toilets have to be maintained, and, in fact, their maintenance in terms of labor and cleaning supplies probably exceeds the cost of other non-productive assets. Providing this free service for their customers only serves to reduce businesses' profits, or else the cost is passed on indiscriminately to all their customers. It would be both more rational and more fair to re-institute a user-pays system. In fact, it might even be possible to turn public toilets into a modest profit center. Yet not only do I see no evidence of a revival of rationality in regard to public toilets, but, as economically irrational as it is, pay toilets have been disappearing for decades, and today are on the precipice of extinction. In fact, if the pay toilet were to be revived, travelers--which we have more of than ever before in history--might well find there would be more and cleaner public toilets available for their use. Why are private businessmen operating in this economically irrational and money-losing fashion? Can modern economic theory explain this behavior? And do free public toilets encourage an entitlement mentality that expects something-for-nothing as the norm, undergirds support for the welfare state, and threatens the high level of general prosperity that economic rationalization has made possible? Is it just a coincidence that massive expansion of the welfare state has coincided with the disappearance of the pay toilet? (Of course it may work the other way around: perhaps the expansion and legitimization of the welfare state has contributed to the disappearance of the pay toilet, with all the adverse consequences that entails for businesses and consumers.) Save the American way of life: bring back the pay toilet! ~Alypius Skinner
