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

At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 457 posts

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#61

Post by freyir »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #37
dabbledash wrote: post #16

Not commenting on the specific numbers, but maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that a year of college costs less than food, housing, healthcare, security, and programs combined?

As a non-American, what I find mostly surprising are these two things: 1) that a society that mostly believes that a system of private businesses competing in a free market is the be all and end all of optimal resource allocation end up having the most expensive health care, higher education and apparently, prison system in the world; that this fact does not trigger more thought and discussion; 2) that despite incarc…

I think I see what you’re saying.

We should send all criminals to Harvard. We’ll save money, and they’ll become productive members of society.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#62

Post by unionpivo »

mruts wrote: post #49
maxehmookau wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong unions are part of a sensible free market economy.

What about unions that force dues to be paid even without membership? Are those part of a sensible free market? The Supreme Court recently overturned this, but for a long time unions just extracted monopoly rents from all employees whether they liked it or not.

Not the sensible part. But still part of the free market.

Just like the corporations that abuse their monopoly powers.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#63

Post by jillesvangurp »

zensavona wrote: post #3

As much as I disagree with mass incarceration, I don't like these "it costs $nK to house a prisoner", since usually it's not quite true - costs are amortised over many thousands of prisoners and the state wouldn't actually regain $75k by releasing one prisoner. That being said, I am sure they would regain enough money to seriously help that person, which is more likely what they need than to be locked in a cage to ge…

It's not cost but profit. The prison business is a huge business in the US and there are lots of people profiting from it. Some prison companies are on the New York stock exchange even. We are talking billion $ companies backed by institutional investors.

It's a great business because your primary customers are clueless politicians trying to look tough on crime paying whatever they are being told to pay.

Prisoners are also laborers, slave laborers that is because they don't actually earn a lot. Somebody profits from that as well. The reason so many people are in prisons in the US is that it is good business for a lot of people.

So, to spell this out, US prisons are funneling tax money straight to institutional investors. Cost has nothing to do with it. Meanwhile they are cutting corners left right and center on cost and exploiting the prison population via lucrative corporate contracts.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#64

Post by pfisch »

fxj wrote: post #60
throwaway13337 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. None of the things you listed are anywhere near a free market in the US. You've created a compelling argument against government intervention, actually. 2. I agree with the second point. The US government officially does, too. Prison should be about rehabilitation and not retribution. It's just that the government doesn't act like it agrees.

If this is a compelling argument against gouvernment intervention, then why does it work so much better in europe where all three sectors are state-owned? The best example is switzerland, where the costs are a fraction of the costs in the U.S ( and which is not a "socialist" country at all).

Switzerland doesn't lead the world in pharmaceutical development. Our health system has been captured by special interests specifically because we have let it grow so big.

Whenever I bring up this point I see downvotes. What I would love instead is a counter example of a country whose largest economic sectors do not capture the government and then have a huge hand in dictating policy in those sectors.

Our government intervention in the education market with student loans is just an awful system that encourages prices to continue to rise.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#65

Post by CraigJPerry »

fxj wrote: post #52
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-American, what I find mostly surprising are these two things: 1) that a society that mostly believes that a system of private businesses competing in a free market is the be all and end all of optimal resource allocation end up having the most expensive health care, higher education and apparently, prison system in the world; that this fact does not trigger more thought and discussion; 2) that despite incarc…

I think the problem is that all three sectors that you cite, health care, higher education and prison system, there is no free market but they are oligopols where only a small number of big players can lever their weight and keep others out.

Is that not just a "no true Scotsman" argument?

"there is no free market but they are oligopols"

There used to be 12 private prison companies in 2000 but it appears there are only 3 now.

The start of the journey was privatization of prisons. This is where that path has currently led. It is what it is, ergo free market didn't work?

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#66

Post by jordanbeiber »

freyir wrote: post #61
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-American, what I find mostly surprising are these two things: 1) that a society that mostly believes that a system of private businesses competing in a free market is the be all and end all of optimal resource allocation end up having the most expensive health care, higher education and apparently, prison system in the world; that this fact does not trigger more thought and discussion; 2) that despite incarc…

I think I see what you’re saying. We should send all criminals to Harvard. We’ll save money, and they’ll become productive members of society.

In a way, yes, but society should be formed to proactively deal with this.

After the fact, it’s a bit late.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#68

Post by maxehmookau »

jMyles wrote: post #54
maxehmookau wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally the job of a union. To further the financial interest of its members.

Even if I agree that a public sector union has zero obligation to the public good - and I don't - I still don't think you can "thank goodness" for an organization that advocates for its financial interest of its members if that interest is bad for everyone else.

> I still don't think you can "thank goodness" for an organization that advocates for its financial interest of its members if that interest is bad for everyone else.

But it's ok for every single for-profit private company to do the same thing in the interest of its shareholders? Even when the company's aims are to the detriment of society as a whole?

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#69

Post by fxj »

fxj wrote: post #60
throwaway13337 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. None of the things you listed are anywhere near a free market in the US. You've created a compelling argument against government intervention, actually. 2. I agree with the second point. The US government officially does, too. Prison should be about rehabilitation and not retribution. It's just that the government doesn't act like it agrees.

If this is a compelling argument against gouvernment intervention, then why does it work so much better in europe where all three sectors are state-owned? The best example is switzerland, where the costs are a fraction of the costs in the U.S ( and which is not a "socialist" country at all).

Top pharmaceutical companies with revenue greater than $10 billion

Rank Company 2016 USD billions

1 Johnson & Johnson NYSE: JNJ 71.89

2 Roche SIX: ROG 50.11

3 Pfizer NYSE: PFE 52.82

4 Novartis NYSE: NVS 48.52

Number 2 and Number 4 are swiss companies.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#70

Post by silvestrov »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #47
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-American, what I find mostly surprising are these two things: 1) that a society that mostly believes that a system of private businesses competing in a free market is the be all and end all of optimal resource allocation end up having the most expensive health care, higher education and apparently, prison system in the world; that this fact does not trigger more thought and discussion; 2) that despite incarc…

1. None of the things you listed are anywhere near a free market in the US. You've created a compelling argument against government intervention, actually. 2. I agree with the second point. The US government officially does, too. Prison should be about rehabilitation and not retribution. It's just that the government doesn't act like it agrees.

So why isn't it a free market in the USA when free markets is clearly seen as the way things should be?

Why doesn't lack of free market trigger a demand for reform of the sectors but only hand-waving excuses/acceptance?

When credit card companies in Europe started to price gouge with high fees the EU responded by putting a cap on fees. Why does the US government not respond by putting a cap on prices for hospital treatments?

In Denmark when the doctor sends you to the drug store with a prescription for e.g. pain medication, the drug store is required by law to tell you about cheaper alternatives (with the same active ingredient) even if they do not stock the cheap alternative. We simply do not accept being locked into a corner by medical companies. https://min.medicin.dk/Generelt/Nyheder/50

Post reply on HN