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

131–140 of 213 posts

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

#131

Post by swebs »

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…

I think the main reason is that Finland is also a very homogeneous country. There's much less of a concern for "paying for other people's kids".

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

#132

Post by irq11 »

arandr0x wrote: post #53
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 co…

Yes, one of the problems with Friedman and his adherents is that they take the most cynical view of any situation, and assume everyone thinks like they do. So real, complex problems get reduced to a joke about how everyone else is an asshole and shouldn’t be trusted.

It’s a cute quip, but if you presented the opposite political viewpoint with an equally cute quip from a liberal, these Friedman acolytes would be the first to yell at you about “anecdotes vs evidence.”

I personally think that all forms of this style of comment are lowbrow-highbrow, contribute nothing but a sense of self-satisfaction to the poster, and should be voted down.

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

#133

Post by arandr0x »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #73
arandr0x wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Do you work for the Boy Scouts? I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them. Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it,…

It's not that I actually think the company will go bankrupt. It's just I am more concerned about how others will think of my spending, than my own comfort. There are plenty of cultures where this is the case, and people feel uncomfortable indulging in luxury, especially when other people (fellow employees in my case) are not.

I was thinking of a reimbursement policy where there is no per diem, and they'll reimburse all meals and alcohol "within reason" (meaning so long as you indulge less than the VPs), but I just thought about it, and if I had a per diem I would also keep costs low. When others are paying, and you keep costs low, it's kind of signaling that you value them paying enough that you are willing to do the job of picking the most efficient resource allocation, just like they would do for themselves. I think of it as showing goodwill and that you are on the same side. I was raised in a business culture that is more relationship oriented than the US.

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

#134

Post by everdev »

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…

And if the government were a business with actual competition, no one would do business with them. It's a great example of how monopolies reduce quality and increase waste.

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

#135

Post by delecti »

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…

Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, but I don't understand a perception of the government that isn't in the first category. It's my money and I'm reaping the benefit, both through direct benefits and through the overall improvement of society.

And I realize that it's partly that not everyone in government shares that sentiment, which is probably where a big part of the problem comes in, but that's another thing I don't understand. How can people not care so much?

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

#136

Post by astura »

walrus01 wrote: post #4

One of the reasons why CBP loves the current administration, their new policies effectively lifted any limits on overtime. For a person with ten years seniority, if they're bored and want some OT, border patrol guys can sit around in a pickup truck listening to the radio clocking those 150% wage hours. It is not uncommon for a CBP or ICE officer, with OT, to be in the $130k+ salary range now. And these are in places…

I don't think it's fair to judge the "average" cost of living of a CBP officer, all ports of entry are staffed by CBP and the US has ports of entry all over the county. In fact, some of the busiest ports of entry are at airports located in major metropolitan areas with high costs of living.

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

#137

Post by cryoshon »

seibelj wrote: post #46
isostatic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Without the US military all of these countries would be required to fund a large military to avoid being conquered. Pax Americana has allowed Europe to shirk their responsibilities, but some people would argue its worth it to the US.

i keep seeing this canard whenever military spending arises.

tell me: who would invade?

germany has no ambition to conquer france. poland has a buffer to protect it from the russians. estonia is in NATO.

seriously, what threat is going to suddenly gobble up europe?

oh yeah, and where are the millions of US troops currently stationed in europe that would supposedly stop the threat?

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

#138

Post by eropple »

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…

Systemic issues are not solved by individual action. Software people (generally) seem to understand that in our field; it's why we have standards and code reviews. I don't understand why that understanding leaks out of one's brain when it's applied to the rest of the world.

The issues that proponents intend to address with greater taxation on the wealthy have remarkably little to do with "the government doesn't have enough money". They have to do with "taxes form economic incentives and the current set of incentives suck for everybody". An individual--yes, including Bill Gates--paying more taxes has marginal impact on the systemic issues of high-end under-taxation. Had the phrase not been co-opted by dirtbags, we'd probably file the act you are asking your "Democrat friends" about under...wait for it...virtue signaling.

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

#139

Post by arandr0x »

Uehreka wrote: post #95
jermaustin1 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work for the Boy Scouts? I am not going to spend in excess, but if a company is paying for me to fly somewhere, I doubt a $30 airport meal is going to break them. Now there have been times on site with a client, and I had a $120 per diem, where I might eat breakfast and lunch from a vending machine so that I can have a nice dinner, but I would never skip a meal at an airport if I had enough money left for it,…

I'd argue there's a big difference between my company paying for dinner and a friend or family member taking me out to dinner. In the latter case I'm definitely not going to run up a huge bill. Looking back to the quote, I suppose the definition of "someone else" can mean a lot.

Same, when out to dinner with friends, if I pay for everyone I will nag them to order the steak and every extra they might want, and if someone is paying for me I will try to pick something worth less than what they would have picked for themselves. I'm pretty sure they used to make menus with no prices for people like me. (It is common for my friends to also be generous and constantly try to get people to order more when they're the one paying. So I don't think this is a case of me being a Christlike figure of self-denial and the world being full of sharks. Economists just may not know enough good people.)

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

#140

Post by nonbel »

Retric wrote: post #123
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…

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…

>"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."

Ok, but my point is limited to the fact that taxes only serve a purpose when people will not voluntarily fund a project. So this agrees with me.

It delusional to think taxes are something more than a government taking your money and spending it on stuff (which may or may not benefit you).

>"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."

I could personally care less whether there is a wall or not. It seems irrelevant beyond as a symbol that immigration laws are being enforced.

Post reply on HN