Rationing versus pricing

[erudito]

There are situations when rationing is perfectly sensible. A besieged city, for example. There is only a certain amount of food to go around, there is no way to increase the amount, everyone is in it together, everyone needs roughly the same amount. So rationing makes perfect sense

Comments

[tyggerjai]

My father, when I discussed this with him recently, suggested that you don't even need to give discounts or rebates for low-income folk, simply step the pricing up massively above the average household consumption level.

Though arguably reducing the average is the desired effect, but you can of course adjust the steps accordingly. I know the 4 of us in this household use approximately half the 4-person average per month, with no real effort, so maybe 3/4s of the average is the sweet spot.

sol.
.

Sensible

[erudito]

Your father is very sensible. Some sort of increased premium for usage did strike me as a possibility, though I decided not to complicate the point in the post, and you are probably about right with where the premium could start kicking in.

Possibly

[erudito]

See above comments.

[korgmeister]

I know the big problem in my house is my sister. She does everything in the shower. Brushing teeth, shaving, you name it. I've at times joked that if she could afford to get her books waterproofed she'd probably study in the shower.

All I can say to conservationists wanting to decrease my house's water consumption is "You try to get her out of there, I'm too young to die!"

[tcpip]

There is only a certain amount of food to go around, there is no way to increase the amount, everyone is in it together, everyone needs roughly the same amount. So rationing makes perfect sense.

A relatively static individual propensity to consume. *nods*. The same could be said about drinking water. But certainly not water for other household use and certainly not for industrial use.