You are derailing the discussion - we were talking about the practicality of covering toilets with a slick substance while touting the water-saving potential of said act. To which I stated that instead of covering the toilet with that slick substance we'd save more if we made water a little more costly to dissuade people from wasting water on a large scale.
Now all of a sudden that got turned into some poor family in an undisclosed location not being able to feed themselves because water is too expensive ... quite the logical hyperjump ...
No, you dismissed a techno-industrial solution by proposing to raise water prices instead.
I happen to agree that techno-industrial solutions are band-aids best addressed with social and self-growth.
However, your proposed method of social change is more complicated that you let on. People on the margins are not some hypothetical "poor family in an undisclosed location not being able to feed themselves because water is too expensive"
They are literally the set of marginal individuals, marginal as defined in Econ 201 (marginal rates, marginal profits ect). That is people who are not so poor that they are already skipping meals (or on food stamps), but they cannot save an extra $10/month either. At the end of the month the net change in their net value is zero.
If we expand the set to include people and families who are in the red or in the black by about $50/month, that includes millions of Americans. And, for these people, $10/month of added water bills hurts. A lot.
That's not to say raising prices is a bad idea. I happen to agree with it. I also happen to agree with raising gas taxes, levying road tolls, and, in general, attaching the externality cost to the first user as much as possible (I.e. the gas tax to transport the tomato you eat is paid by the shipping company whose job it is to find economic ways to ship).
However, I'm under no delusions that this tax scheme is regressive. Should the repressiveness be addressed or dismissed is another question.
now does being motivated to fix a leaky toilet that otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to do count as a quality of life decrease?