Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hidden Cost of Privatization

ineteconomics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#141

Post by thingification »

subverter wrote: post #81
bjl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about the millions of people with poor family/friends? Are they supposed to just roll over and die if they get sick? And don't say 'but charity', we already know charity is massively insufficient.

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that if the government didn't mandate health insurance, nobody would step in to help those people, which I don't believe is true. Lots of different groups – religious, businesses, municipalities, etc. – could fill that role. Individuals could even give directly to strangers in need through something like https://donorsee.com/ .

Here is a good reason to think that people would help others less even when everybody is in agreement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzBJF5Q7Vw#t=3m29s

This is Dan Ariely describing "The public goods game" and the instability of 'cheating'. Cheating in scare quotes because the conclusion stands -- in fact is enhanced -- even when the 'defect' choice is regarded as a choice that members of society are free to take (in fact that is the case he discusses).

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#142

Post by subverter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #123
subverter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in fact, the ability for these institutions to choose who they help is key. A business being able to choose to help only its own workers makes it possible to even help them in the first place. If they had to help anyone , it wouldn't be feasible. Same for a church or any institution. Being able to discriminate is important; it's not a dirty word. Now before you go and doomsay about all sorts of discrimination hap…

>Case in point: most of the major tech companies. The ones that have recently faced age discrimination suits, criticism for the lack of diversity in their employees, and a whole range of reports of terrible conditions in their manufacturing plants? For some bizarre reason, I'm sceptical. >And if one did, would you really want to be associated with them and/or have them paying for your healthcare When compared to dyin…

No, the myriad that say "we care deeply about diversity and inclusivity" in their job posts. The ones that come out against banning travelers from Muslim-majority countries. The ones that care about climate change and the effects it has on people of this planet.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#143

Post by subverter »

thingification wrote: post #139
subverter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree that people should help one another. In fact, it's inherently built in to a lot of people. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against being forced to help others who I have no relationship with, live in far off places, hold different health standards than me, etc. Believe me, if a family member of close friend needed help with medical expenses, I'd be the first to volunteer.

This idea, which lies behind a lot of American libertarianism, says that theft (as taxation is construed here) outranks most or all other moral values, but does not explain why. Instead, it hopes dogmatically that other moral values will be met as a side effect of following this one.

Not just theft, but aggression of any sort, including the most serious offenses such as rape and murder. Is there not a more fundamental moral value that we can all agree on?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#144

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #133
bjl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, instead of depending on utopic ideals and discredited economic theories, we can just make people buy liability insurance if they want to drive a car.

We obviously have different ideas about what's utopian and what's not. I think it's utopian to believe a centralized, federal government has all of the necessary knowledge and best intentions to make blanket decisions for hundreds of millions of people. This really goes to prove my initial point in all of this: Why can't we get to a place where you can live somewhere more aligned with your utopian vision, and I can l…

Because, under your 'utopia', we never would have had the civil rights movement. Or woman's suffrage. Or gay marriage.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#145

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #128
bjl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing the paradox of tolerance has been solved for over a century! Now if only we could get the message out to people like you that seem to delight in ignoring centuries of philosophical discussion on this topic.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with. I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

All I can say is that I'm glad the vast majority of academia, and the population in general, think your position is indefensible.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#146

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #122
maxerickson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The banality of saying that cheaper goods are good is impressive and doesn't have much to do with the argument rayiner was making.

Then perhaps I misunderstood his/her argument. If I look at it strictly in terms of child labor, there's nothing stopping those opposed to child labor from leaving Virginia and/or discriminating against products made there. Just as we can today with products produced by brands that we know use child labor.

In other words, you believe states should have the right to allow children to work in factories, with no worker protections. The total lack of moral sense in right-libertarianism never ceases to amaze me.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#147

Post by Consultant32452 »

pdeuchler wrote: post #134
Consultant32452 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to apply context to this. A minimum wage, among other things, forces businesses to prejudice against lower skilled workers. If the minimum wage is negotiated by the union to $18/hr but you only produce $10/hr due to lack of experience, disability, below average IQ, or you went to a failing public school then you're simply unemployed. If we remove this contractual minimum wage, you're right, it would li…

The incorrect assumption here is that people earn what value they produce. People actually earn (value_produced - profit + bargaining power). The reason for upping the minimum wage is all minimum wage worker unions have disappeared and an increase in the low skill labor market supply (mostly due to the loss of manufacturing in the US) have decimated bargaining power across the board. Plus, due to automation, a single…

Two key things occurred during the time period you're talking about where wages stagnated in spite of massive increases in productivity growth. The first is that we actually started letting women get jobs. We increased the labor supply by nearly 40%. It's amazing that wages are not even lower than they are. The second thing that happened is that millions upon millions of unskilled immigrants crossed the border. This also, obviously significantly increased the pool of labor at the bottom of the economic ladder further suppressing wages.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#148

Post by xapata »

rayiner wrote: post #136
xapata wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cross the border as soon as they get sick One solution is to put a delay on eligibility. In your example, Maryland would provide free healthcare to anyone who has lived in Maryland as a permanent resident for 5+ years. Much like state universities. There's two different costs and in-state tuition is much cheaper. No more freeloading. Or less, anyway. Whenever someone tells me, "It's too complicated!" I just think t…

See the case I linked. Such laws are unconstitutional because they discriminate against new residents from other states. State universities are a weird special case in constitutional law.

An interesting read. However, there are many differences of regulation across state lines. For example, insurance is quite fractious (pun intended). I'll bet there's some way to innovate, even if politicians haven't stumbled across it yet. Perhaps the trick is to avoid calling it welfare, just as "credit default swaps" stayed unregulated because they pretended to not be insurance.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#149

Post by boomboomsubban »

subverter wrote: post #142
boomboomsubban wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Case in point: most of the major tech companies. The ones that have recently faced age discrimination suits, criticism for the lack of diversity in their employees, and a whole range of reports of terrible conditions in their manufacturing plants? For some bizarre reason, I'm sceptical. >And if one did, would you really want to be associated with them and/or have them paying for your healthcare When compared to dyin…

No, the myriad that say "we care deeply about diversity and inclusivity" in their job posts. The ones that come out against banning travelers from Muslim-majority countries. The ones that care about climate change and the effects it has on people of this planet.

So adding a line to your job postings and sending out press releases is a better indicator than their actual acts? As you're probably talking about the same companies as me.

I understand what you're saying with "the ability to discriminate is important," but free discrimination has led to the trampling of human rights repeatedly in history.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#150

Post by ajurna »

subverter wrote: post #106
dragonwriter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy? How do you justify those whose property isn't on fire paying for firefighters?

I don't. I think paying for firefighters should be voluntary. Either I pay for it individually, or as part of my neighborhood, or at some other level that's much closer to me. If I don't want to protect against my house burning down, why should I pay for it? And before you go and say, "because your neighbor's house could burn down too", they could choose to pay for firefighters and have them come out to douse my hous…

> they could choose to pay for firefighters and have them come out to douse my house in defense of their own.

Good to see you support others taking on your risk. This is the essence of universal healthcare.

Post reply on HN