Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2 • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by ptero » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #98

ptero wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt the same way on first reading, but then decided that I misinterpreted "someone" to mean "someone really close to me": spouse, kids, parents, etc. This is similar to buying things for myself. I believe in MF quote "someone" is better described as "someone you do not personally know or maybe see once". A model for that is buying a gift for a Yankee Swap party. Or for a child I do not know: something to cheer the…

Seems that this is the problem empathy was meant to solve.

I am not sure I understand. My claim is the situation where you spend your money on someone else is not that "I do not care" (which the empathy can help solve), but "I do not know", so I will make an optimal choice: decent gift at reasonable cost; paying more can give poor ROI since I do not know what exactly to spend more money on.

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

#122

Post by bobjordan » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #100

bobjordan wrote: post #71

According to this article, the contract amount to be paid to Accenture is USD $297,000,000 to help the Government hire 7,500 employees. Nearly USD $40,000 USD per hire. Definitely makes me think about going all in on turning pure Libertarian.

I'm interested to know what part of this story sparked your comment about Libertarianism? Was it the use of taxpayer dollars to expand a border force that didn't seem understaffed to anyone but the Pres? I ask because the other part, namely government contracting work to the "more efficient" private sector sounds perfectly in keeping with Libertarian principles.

Spending $40,000 USD per hire for a border patrol job, strikes me as inefficient, regardless of whether or not the private sector or Government is doing the hiring. But most likely, what sparked my comment about libertarianism, was simply the fact I'd visited the Libertarian party website earlier today at https://www.lp.org/ and happened to be thinking about their tagline "Libertarian Party | Minimum Government. Maximum Freedom." when I read this article.

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

#123

Post by Retric » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #102

whatshisface wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them. If the entire US was 100% aligned with your own politics then taxes wouldn't be very burdensome. If my political faction ran the country like a dictatorship, I wouldn't mind them taking my money, because they'd spend it on getting me what I want (which may include "a bette…

> "An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes. If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other. The only time taxes are required is when people will not free…

Just because everyone is like me is not enough to for voluntary payment to work. The issue is when people can not pay and get what they want they will simply not pay.

If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built. Or, we can vote to make payment mandatory and get what most people want, but nobody wants to pay for.

Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good.

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

#124

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

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 are about as good for what they pretend to do as phrenology is.

> I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally

They are used for positions with certain security clearance levels, despite having been repeatedly shown to be junk science, because they national security establishment is attached to security theater and/or full of people in decision-making positions that disrespect science when it disagrees with what they want to believe.

Or maybe because they are really good at detecting the degree to which people are susceptible to cracking under theatrical pressure, which isn't what they are advertised as being used for but is something that rationally matters to the national security establishment, and which they might actually be good at.

> So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower

You can't set that aside: how accurate it is at assessing “quality”, however you define that, is the key thing you need to establish to justify that conclusion.

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

#125

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

Worth comparing with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18679767 , where we actually had something resembling a discussion rather than just descending into government-is-bad tropes.

There are really three separate questions:

1) Whether the thing is worth doing at all

2) Having decided to do it, is there enough commitment and leadership to actually doing it properly?

3) Given the desire to do it properly, is that best served by doing it in-house through a line management system of control, or outsourcing it and running it through a contract management system of control?

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

#126

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

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".

> There hasn't been a world war for two thirds of a century now

African World War (1998-2003). Five million people killed. With nine countries fighting, I think that it qualifies perfectly as a world war.

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

#127

Post by saas_sam » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #102

whatshisface wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them. If the entire US was 100% aligned with your own politics then taxes wouldn't be very burdensome. If my political faction ran the country like a dictatorship, I wouldn't mind them taking my money, because they'd spend it on getting me what I want (which may include "a bette…

> "An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes. If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other. The only time taxes are required is when people will not free…

>>The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government.

I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, you see!"). I always ask them, "Then why don't you? The Treasury accepts donations, you know."

It would be a persuasive gesture for folks like Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders who are insisting their tax bracket should be higher to write big checks to the Treasury for what they think is morally right.

But of course, they won't. Nor should they -- top charities deliver much higher societal ROI than government, in my opinion. And apparently Gates et al. agree with me privately. Publicly... they are all for higher taxes as long as it's forced by threat of imprisonment, apparently.

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

#128

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:37 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #61

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 very elegant, and encapsulates the problem with America. Well, many other countries as well, but certainly us, America. Not government -- but our conception of "ourselves". HN occasionally has articles about education and the comparison of, say, Finnish education and American education comes up. I am firmly of the opinions that Finnish education works, when it works, because it is a service that the populatio…

The problem with American opposition to government, especially Federal government, is that it's inextricable from the outcomes of the civil war.

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

#129

Post by Retric » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:37 PM UTC

saas_sam wrote: post #127

nonbel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes. If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other. The only time taxes are required is when people will not free…

>>The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government. I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, y…

Taxes are more than just a revenue source, they also change people’s bahavor. So, donating money to the government and raising taxes results in different outcomes. I don’t think the US government needs more money, but the current tax structure distorts the economy and creates inefficiency.

Longer term, having the rich pay little taxes destabilizes the nation. Democratic rule is not perticularly stable over time and the US is heading down a very dark path.

In the end their are not enough billionaires where revenue from them really matters. Higher taxes on competent wealthy people has little real impact. However, ultra low capital gains is crital for creating a group of people who are incompetent, inherited lots of money, and stay powerful.

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

#130

Post by crispyambulance » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

saas_sam wrote: post #120

crispyambulance wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how much Milton Friedman applies here. It's not like the government is being wantonly careless. They are investigating, after all. This is partly a consequence of the bidding process and the push to keep costs as low as possible-- there could also be a bit of crony-ism here. These kinds of stories usually start out with some bidders putting together a killer power point deck and making a pitch, just like…

> It's not like the government is being wantonly careless. They are investigating, after all. So, if someone does something seemingly egregiously careless, but they investigate after being found out, that nullifies the carelessness, in your mind? I think we may agree to disagree on that point.

Well, the government is made up of humans after all. These things are _always_ going to happen.

The questions now are who screwed up the oversight, whether or not there was fraud or crony-ism, and what actions can be taken against this contractor in terms of cancelling/auditing their other contracts.