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

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#151

Post by pjc50 »

subverter wrote: post #72
bjl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy? Because we live in a society, and in a society people help one another.

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.

> forced to help others

It's good to know that you're against your tax money being used for the most expensive military in the world.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#152

Post by crdoconnor »

EGreg wrote: post #138
crdoconnor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because when providers compete, quality goes up and costs go down. Public Private Partnerships are not creating competition and that was never their intention. The legal set up of such agreements is set up, in fact, in order to purposely exclude competition. In the NHS it tends to both drive up costs and filter out money to companies run by the friends of politicians. It's simple parasitism. In general, if there isn…

And Keynes made the assumptions that there are no individual factors, cronies, and boosting aggregate demand won't have bad side fx.

He didn't make any of those assumptions. The latter is probably the most common misapprehension about what he said, in fact.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#153

Post by crdoconnor »

stale2002 wrote: post #107
crdoconnor wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your pay would be pegged to seniority, not ability to contribute That's pretty much how it works now. I've never had a boss who was able to accurately (or even non-accurately) gauge my productivity and I'll bet that unless your job is mind-numbing, you haven't either. I've had bosses who have counted SLOC though and stupidly tried to use that to gauge my productivity. Unions usually agree to formalize the existing p…

" Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad?" Because I should be able to do what I want, instead of being forced to go along with whatever stupid ideas the union chooses to do. It is called freedom of choice. What if I want to negotiate for myself? What if I want to wear multiple hats? What if I want to work without getting a BS certification? If I negotiate, and convince someone to hire me, then I can get all…

>Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that.

I'm struggling to see what your problem is. If you don't like the idea of democratic control over your workplace and the commensurately higher pay that goes with it you've always been free to go and work somewhere else where they let you "wear many hats".

It seems more like that you want to prevent others from doing it:

>Forcing people to join unions is, thankfully, illegal in many states.

i.e. you're thankful groups of people who negotiate with other groups of people and form voluntary agreements are prevented from doing so.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#154

Post by leroy_masochist »

Mindcraft wrote: post #92
leroy_masochist wrote: post #44

Article is a summary of others' thoughts (mostly Keynes) without a clear thesis. Would have been nice to read, say, an analysis of why privatizing air traffic control is a bad idea despite the fact that the tech the gov't uses in that space is super antiquated, which in terms drives a bunch of inefficiencies and safety hazards in that particular sector.

Evidence that private air traffic control use/would use more modern tech?

I mean, I think it's self-evident as a general point...but in this specific case they don't have any satellite data driving their weather analysis because the government bureaucracy is mired in an ongoing process to upgrade. Anyone who has done gov't software contracting has probably seen cases like this.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#155

Post by Mindcraft »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #154
Mindcraft wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence that private air traffic control use/would use more modern tech?

I mean, I think it's self-evident as a general point...but in this specific case they don't have any satellite data driving their weather analysis because the government bureaucracy is mired in an ongoing process to upgrade. Anyone who has done gov't software contracting has probably seen cases like this.

Why a private company would invest on better technology if it doesn't have competitors? It's not profitable for a service provider to invest, and even if there are competitors, most of the time, like with cellphone carriers, they agree not provide a better service so they can all take their portion of the cake without expending a dime.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#156

Post by subverter »

pjc50 wrote: post #151
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.

> forced to help others It's good to know that you're against your tax money being used for the most expensive military in the world.

Absolutely.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#157

Post by subverter »

ajurna wrote: post #150
subverter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is it's completely voluntary for everyone involved. No one is being forced into anything.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#158

Post by subverter »

bjl wrote: post #144
subverter wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#159

Post by subverter »

bjl wrote: post #146
subverter wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? That's not what I said at all. In fact, as I initially said, "Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor." How can I make it more clear?

My point is, in the hypothetical situation that a state did allow child labor – which I do not at all condone – people could choose not to buy products from that state, as people already do in not buying products from certain brands and countries that use child labor.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#160

Post by Simulacra »

mljoe wrote: post #28
Simulacra wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, the pay you can get elsewhere might be higher. I tend to think anything over $60k a year to be pretty good, which a GSA scale employee can get to in just a few years. Pay raises are almost guaranteed unless there is a budget issue, but even then you get it all eventually. They do max out at about $140k, though. The magic is to retire after 20 years, get the pension, and then get another job in the private…

In DC/NOVA area $60k a year qualifies you for rent subsidy and other welfare benefits. That said $60k is not what federal employees in the DC area start at, nor is $140k what they normally end at. It's more around $80k - $155k ($180k-$190k if you hit management).

I'm in the NoVA area. Really? I've got to look into this. Thank you! I will report back with what I find.
Post reply on HN