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

Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 213 posts

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#51

Post by oftenwrong »

Reminds me of this FEMA contracting failure:

>FEMA Contract Called for 30 Million Meals for Puerto Ricans. 50,000 Were Delivered.

>For this huge task, FEMA tapped Tiffany Brown, an Atlanta entrepreneur with no experience in large-scale disaster relief and at least five canceled government contracts in her past. FEMA awarded her $156 million for the job, and Ms. Brown, who is the sole owner and employee of her company, Tribute Contracting LLC, set out to find some help.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/us/fema-contract-puerto-r...

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#52

Post by askaboutit »

exabrial wrote: post #40

Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money. Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent. Before than we discussed the astronomically comical cost of healthcare.gov. It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractor…

I would say government run and government funded is actually best. Government applied, government funded, contractor executed is garbage and a rort.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#53

Post by arandr0x »

j_m_b wrote: post #8

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…

I'm not sure what it says about me or Friedman, but if I'm choosing to buy someone a gift I don't care about the cost but I will attempt to make it something they like, and refrain from gift-giving if I don't think I can do that. (Or give money, I suppose.)

On the other hand, when spending other people's money on myself, for example lunches for business travel, I am incredibly cost conscious. I've skipped dinner a couple times because I felt the airport meals were too expensive. (The same was true when I was a child and spending my parents' money.)

Clearly they should put me in charge of governement budgets.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#54

Post by texmex20 »

j_m_b wrote: post #8

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…

I like this quote ... and agree with the spirit of it.

That said, some central governing body does need to make sure certain needs of the community are taken care of. That way, we ensure that the whole community is taken care of and we're not in an every man for himself scenario where the "strong" prevail and the "weak" die off. When the government provides military to protect it's citizens, it does so for all citizens, not just the rich, not just the city dwellers. I guess the question is -to what else does this apply and to what extent?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#55

Post by gaius »

enraged_camel wrote: post #17
j_m_b wrote: post #8

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…

It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are…

the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are committees, reviews, approval chains out the wazoo

Those committees are very expensive, tho'. Every one of them is an example of a bureaucrat spending money on his or her colleagues, and in return they will be appointed to committees and boards and fact-finding junkets and all the rest.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#56

Post by ryanmercer »

golergka wrote: post #35
adwhit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sold, let’s get rid of the part of the government that costs the most and delivers the least. I’m talking about the military, of course.

There hasn't been a world war for two thirds of a century now, and US and their trade partners enjoy safe trade routes. I wouldn't call it "not delivering".

>and US and their trade partners enjoy safe trade routes

Bingo, and that's from the Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard actively patrolling GLOBAL waters.

Maritime piracy alone is a considerable economic threat, yes in the 21st century. An estimated 2 BILLION dollars a year is spent on naval operations just off the coast of Somalia (PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING - PDF WARNING http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Piracy-Docs/... )

In this article from 2014 ( https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/134829/annual-global-... ), again just Somalia, "The OEF estimates the total cost of piracy off the coast of Somalia at US$7–US$12 billion in 2010; US$6.6–US$6.9 billion in 2011 42 and US$5.7–US$6.1 billion in 2012".

Between 2008 and 2012 alone JUST the U.S. Navy responded to 1139 piracy incidents https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/antipiracy/index.html that's an average of 0.78 incidents a day.

It's not just the U.S. patrolling either. China has launched at least 20 anti-piracy floatillas since 2009 http://cimsec.org/chinas-anti-piracy-flotillas-by-the-number...

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#57

Post by geofft »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14
j_m_b wrote: post #8

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

I wonder the extent to which the problem is merely "Government should have moral people." (With the obvious caveat that those who proclaim their morality loudly are probably not the most moral.)

In the private sector there are plenty of cases where you're spending someone else's money on someone else and you care about doing a good job of it—and often without the requirement of personal mores as motivation. Banks and investment managers, for instance, basically do this. Some of course are awful, but some (loosely correlated with the ones who have been around for a while and built a reputation) actually do care about getting good results without excessive risk and without deception. Do the people who agree with Friedman's statement about government also conclude that private banks are bad too and people need to look out for their own money?

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#58

Post by dagw »

isostatic wrote: post #39
jki275 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military in the US is 18% of the budget. SS and medicare are something like 70%. If you want to live in a country without a military there are a bunch of them. I wouldn't personally want to live in any of them, but of course everyone is free to do as they see fit.

Iceland has no military spending Ireland spends 0.4% of it's GDP on military Switzerland 0.7% Sweden 1% Finland (who have actually been invaded in living memory) 1.4% The U.S. spent $574b on defence and $79b on veterans last year, both increased way above inflation - total of $57b. Education by comparision dropped by 14%, or $9b. Health by 18% or $15b. The largest slice of the U.S. budget is healthcare (mainly medica…

Iceland has no military spending

Not entirely true. It has no standing army, but it does have a militarized coast guard, air defense systems and an air force base it maintains, as well as a small Crisis Response Unit that can be deployed internationally. In addition it is a full NATO member for which it has certain costs.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#59

Post by ryanmercer »

jaclaz wrote: post #49

As a side-side note: >Border Patrol jobs with the CBP have been notoriously difficult to fill, in large part because of the polygraph exam applicants are required to undergo. The AP reported that 2 out of 3 applicants fail the exam Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars? I mean, even if it is not applicable/valid in court, I believe most federal and government a…

>Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars?

Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange contraption can cause false positives.

Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police does for example.

Re: Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2

#60

Post by zeroname »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14
j_m_b wrote: post #8

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can…

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

...implying that the Keynesians are really empathetic and that the Chicago school folks are cold-hearted technocrats.

That kind of emotionality is what keeps people from making reasonable decisions on economic policy. It would be nice if the kind of naive Keynesianism that politicians love to apply actually worked. It would be nice if you could spend yourself out of a recession. Unfortunately, politicians only like the spending part of the equation, not the savings part.

It's important to note that the Chicago school does build on Keynesian insights. It's an attempt at improving upon its failures.

Post reply on HN