A Stitch in Haste

There were two items in today’s New York Times Magazine that share a common theme: the folly of what can be called “narcissistic altruism” — the selfish (yes, selfish) urge to “feel good by doing good.”

First was an admittedly satiric piece by a writer for Conan O’Brien about the other incarnation of “pooper scoopers” –

I live in a big city, and I have always been disgusted by how people just let their dogs freely urinate on garbage bags, on newspaper boxes or even right on the sidewalk. There’s no consideration or respect for the sanitation workers who have to handle the bags, the people who get newspapers or even their neighbors and neighborhood. So several years ago, I started carrying a water bottle with me when I took my dog for a walk, to do the thing that makes me better than you.

This is, of course, utter nonsense (as I’m sure the author intended it to be).

It’s quite simple really. Diamond is a taxpayer — an oppressive $8.50 per year. And she gets nothing, absolutely nothing, for her taxes. (The dog run is part of the Parks Department and funded by general revenues, not dog license fees.)

So, there is only one legitimate justification for her license fee: a Pigou tax (i.e., a tax on an activity that attempts to compensate for the negative externalities that the activity generates). Stated differently, Diamond’s dog license is precisely a “license to pee,” and she will continue, unapologetically, to pee and I will continue, unapologetically, to leave it undiluted.

As for the sanitation workers — screw ‘em. They’re government employees, unionized, and they wear gloves. I shed no tears, and dilute no pee, for them.

—

Going “Number Two” (pun intended):

Dear Ethicist,

I have employed housecleaners, paying them $25 an hour through a maid service that recently shut its doors because of a legal dispute. I would like to hire some of these now-unemployed women directly. Must I match the rate I paid to the company, which presumably included a cut for the now-eliminated management?

As Lewis Black might say, “when did that go up for grabs?”

Do we really need to keep reinventing this wheel? There is never any ethical compulsion to pay someone more than they’re willing to accept. All trade is, or should be, voluntary. I would think that the maid might be pretty nervous about her situation and should be happy (and proud) that her services are sought at any price. (Let the record reflect that the Ethicist fully agrees.)

How come no one ever postulates the reciprocal situation? If the maid is willing to work for, say, $20 per hour but successfully negotiates a $22.50 per hour wage, then is she “exploiting” her employer? Of course not.

If I’m willing to sell you something for $40, and you’re willing to pay $50, then any and every mutually agreed price between and including $40 and $50 would be “ethical.” End of discussion. (For a recent asymptotic case, see here.)