You very clearly didn’t read the story. Most households are paying LESS than they were when they were allowed to discard unlimited trash for a flat rate. Hopefully because they are being encouraged to recycle more and produce less waste, rather than just dumping it on the side of the road. It’s a simple case of demand elasticity in response to a pricing-structure change. If people can save money by throwing away less stuff, they throw away less stuff.
I agree that corporations should pay their share to handle their own cleanup, but I don’t see any direct link between that and household waste disposal, or any indication from this story that corporations are getting any breaks. It’s a very small township in rural Massachusetts. They don’t even have municipal trash collection. People have to take their own trash to the transfer station/landfill.
I read it.
You’re missing my point, which isn’t your fault. I’m clearly not explaining myself correctly, and frankly. I’m too tired to try again, so I bow out.
You very clearly didn’t read the story. Most households are paying LESS than they were when they were allowed to discard unlimited trash for a flat rate. Hopefully because they are being encouraged to recycle more and produce less waste, rather than just dumping it on the side of the road. It’s a simple case of demand elasticity in response to a pricing-structure change. If people can save money by throwing away less stuff, they throw away less stuff.
I agree that corporations should pay their share to handle their own cleanup, but I don’t see any direct link between that and household waste disposal, or any indication from this story that corporations are getting any breaks. It’s a very small township in rural Massachusetts. They don’t even have municipal trash collection. People have to take their own trash to the transfer station/landfill.
I read it. You’re missing my point, which isn’t your fault. I’m clearly not explaining myself correctly, and frankly. I’m too tired to try again, so I bow out.
Good evening