Knightfox

It's complicated, typically US rates aren't a flat $/gallon. Most have flat fixed costs (meter fee, availability fees, etc) and then the actual volumetric rate charge is tacked on top of that. In my city the rate is additionally tiered, so the more water you use the more those later gallons cost. Most residential users fall into Tier 1 though, up to 4 CCF (Centicubic Foot or 748 gallons) per month, which is billed at $1.89 per CCF or $0.002526 per gallon.

So it's hard to use the rates alone as there are additionally fixed rate costs (around $10 a month) and other usage is billed differently (commercial and industrial have higher flat rates as well as higher flat volumetric rate). The result is that commercial and industrial users pay higher rates than residential.

Luckily, my city also publishes raw statistics which indicates that, all things averaged together, the water costs around $0.04 per gallon.

But furthers the point I'm making. If your water costs more than mine then the potential price of this machine is even higher and the base price is already expensive as is. If this was truly a cheap and affordable alternative for people's in need then it likely would have made that price point a major point of the article.

Just because it's cheaper than an alternative doesn't make it affordable.

EDIT: Also the article says

"the team estimates that the overall cost of running the system would be cheaper than what it costs to produce tap water in the United States."

Great point, sorry for the error!

While this is a cool development I would recommend tempering expectations. The cost of tap water is exceptionally cheap and the claims made here likely take these estimates to the extremes. The economics of scale likely don't match up.

For example, tap water in my city costs ~$0.04 per gallon, at 5 liters per hour, 0.264 gallons per liter, 24 hours per day, for 5 years is $2,312. So saying they can make it for less than the cost of tap water doesn't mean it's affordable.

EDIT: Forgot to convert from liters to gallons

I like the customer service and overall quality of the place, I've never seen a bad store. I'm not crazy about their chicken (Popeyes is better imo), it's not the best but you'll never roll the dice on whether you got what you ordered or if there is a problem. Also, from what I hear, they pay very competitively and take care of their employees (could be wrong).

I haven't deliberately eaten there in years (occasionally I'll have it if it's catered or if everyone else wants to go), because they have really terrible politics and support things I disagree with.

Also, the place has a vibe I hate, like preppy kids mixed with a church function. It just feels fake, the smiles, the "my pleasure", etc. it feels so fake it's unsettling to me. I like Popeyes because while I have to check my order to make sure it's ok, the person behind the counter is a normal person not a plastic cutout.

That’s still going to be a second residence, it may not be a $2500/month residence, but it’s not going to be free.

I think you're confused by my original reply, I wasn't saying it should be free or that they could just drive from their primary residence. I was saying that using the cost of DC housing as a reason for higher pay doesn't make sense when they don't have to live in DC itself. It's perfectly reasonable that they may have to have a place outside of DC and commute in.

So, while there isn’t a rule that says specifically “congresspeople may not sleep in their offices”, there are all kinds of rules about what constitutes housing in DC that are not met by congressional offices:

Part of the issue is that you're applying normal rules to an abnormal group. Traditionally I would agree with you that people shouldn't sleep in their work offices, but this is hardly the weirdest thing that is normal in Congress. Also it doesn't really matter if it meets the fire code or DCs building standards, Federal law has priority over local law. Even the DC Fire Code specifically says that it does not apply to any building or premises owned by the US Government.

Heck, there are a ton of special laws which Congress has passed which only apply to Congress, including prohibiting DC local government from charging property tax or income tax on Congressmen. There are even laws regarding allowances that Congressmen get which essentially says that there are quantifiable benefits of the job which cannot be counted as income for taxes.

The only rule that matters is whether Congress has specifically blocked it.

EDIT: I just double checked and the DOB link you sent says at the very top

"The Department of Buildings (DOB) is mandated to ensure public health, safety, and welfare by enforcing property maintenance codes on all residential and non-residential structures in the District of Columbia, excluding federal government buildings."

They’re not allowed to do that though. Most of them get away with it, but it’s against the rules.

Do you have a source on that, because when I googled it the only thing to come up was Jackie Speier recommending banning it in 2020. There is even a recent Business Insider which talks about Mike Johnson doing it and makes no reference to it being against any rules.

https://www.businessinsider.com/speaker-mike-johnson-sleep-in-his-capitol-hill-office-2023-11

Here is a 2015 NPR article that says there are no rules against it https://www.npr.org/2015/12/26/458207661/meet-the-lawmakers-who-sleep-shower-work-all-on-capitol-hill

From California?

How about Arlington or Alexandria?

I am not fundamentally against giving Congress a pay raise, their last pay raise was in 2009 and it's probably time to give them a cost of living adjustment. I'm not opposed to giving Congress a pay raise to encourage a wider range or people to run in the hope that we can have better Congressmen. There are Congressmen who come from already expensive areas where $174,000 isn't a lot (such as AOC) and so they may need more pay. Washington is an expensive place and so are the surrounding areas, there is an argument that they need high pay to run their house in their home state and pay for expenses in DC.

The problem I have is with the argument that paying Congress more would either help eliminate corruption or that Congressmen can make more money working somewhere else.

The first paragraph of arguments is a real discussion and should be solved. Patrick McHenry doesn't fit that criteria. $174k is a very good wage in his district and a quick search of some public records shows he has owned multiple properties and even owns a separate lake property as well.

So if living very comfortably, almost lavishly in comparison to the people in his district, isn't enough then what is? What is the lifestyle expectation for a Congressman? I personally don't think a Congressional job should be about making people wealthy. If this isn't enough then nothing would be.

I 100% agree, if you'd take a bribe at $174k as a civil servant then you'd take a bribe at any price point. Raising pay doesn't stop corruption, at best it just raises the price a bit. Trump was supposedly selling pardons for $2 million, he issued 143 pardons (let's say he was only paid on 10% of those). That's $28 million in bribes.

If we have to match the bribes to stop corruption then $28 million times 535 members of Congress is $15 billion.

One problem is that they're legally required to have two residences, one in their district, and another one in DC

They are not required to have a residence in DC, many members of Congress sleep in their offices to save money. There's nothing saying they couldn't commute to work.

Also, the House only meets for 4-5 hours, approximately 160 days a year, and they regularly skip sessions.

I'm sure there's another rule requiring them to have an actual residence in DC as well, not just a PO Box, for example.

This is not true, they don't have to have a residence in DC. Also, the House only is in session about 4-5 hours per day, ~160 days a year and they aren't actually required to show up (they might not get reelected if they are skipping but voters rarely actually care)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/missed-votes

With that kind of schedule I'd fucking commute or like many congressmen, I'd sleep in my office.

I think that federal wages should be supplemented by state pay to account for high cost of living states and counties.

$175k may not be a high wage in areas of California, but in most parts of the country it's enough to outright buy a house and live very very well.

California has a cost of living problem