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

111–120 of 457 posts

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

#111

Post by icedchocolate »

bko wrote: post #91
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…

Re 1: In regards to health care, US public spending on health care is similar to that of other western countries, although it does spend more on private. Make of that what you will but saying that the US doesn't spend on public healthcare is just incorrect. > While the U.S. has similar public spending, its private sector spending is triple that of comparable countries [0] Same is true about public eduction > In 2014,…

Re: Healthcare, that’s not true. The US spends more on health care per capita than many systems with free healthcare (Australia, UK, Canada). You pay the most and receive the least. Like the previous commenter, I am increasingly surprised that this system is still supported, instead of one that costs less and provides more (e.g. the fact that states bargain with drug companies individually, rather than federally, means you pay much more for drugs).

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

#112

Post by anilakar »

vkhorikov wrote: post #80
anilakar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Except that you can point to cases where free market does work.

Whoosh. Luckily I have karma to burn.

If there is a real free market where consumers have a real choice, it can be argued that the system works, even if it's a race to the bottom. Even you indirectly admitted that most markets aren't free.

There are numerous cases where "socialism" (as laissez-faire Americans like to define it) achieves its goals better and cheaper, like healthcare and pretty much all natural monopolies such as infrastructure. Need any hard evidence with A/B tests? Look at the results of the privatization of European national railways.

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

#113

Post by fxj »

bko wrote: post #91
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…

Re 1: In regards to health care, US public spending on health care is similar to that of other western countries, although it does spend more on private. Make of that what you will but saying that the US doesn't spend on public healthcare is just incorrect. > While the U.S. has similar public spending, its private sector spending is triple that of comparable countries [0] Same is true about public eduction > In 2014,…

Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)

U.S. 655 Switzerland 81 Japan 41

http://www.prisonstudies.org/

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

#114

Post by jMyles »

maxehmookau wrote: post #68
jMyles wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

...wait, did I say that?

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

#115

Post by ashelmire »

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.

So you think Californians at large get to dictate terms to security guards? They shouldn’t get to negotiate their own terms?

They get paid shit even with the union.

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

#116

Post by minikites »

The United States didn't end slavery after the Civil War, we just started using the justice system to mask the original justifications for slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/20/prison-labor...

>More than 800,000 prisoners are daily put to work, in some states compulsorily, in roles such as cleaning, cooking and lawn mowing.

>The remuneration can be as woeful in states such as Louisiana as 4 cents an hour.

>The idea that such lowly-paid work in a $2bn industry is equivalent to slavery is leant weight by the 13th amendment of the US constitution. It banned slavery and involuntary servitude, with one vital exception: “as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”.

>Prisoners, in other words, have no constitutional rights and can be blatantly exploited.

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

#117

Post by jMyles »

ashelmire wrote: post #115
jMyles wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you think Californians at large get to dictate terms to security guards? They shouldn’t get to negotiate their own terms? They get paid shit even with the union.

> So you think Californians at large get to dictate terms to security guards? They shouldn’t get to negotiate their own terms?

Did I say any of those things?

No no, I think that there need to be dramatically fewer prisons, and dramatically fewer prison guards, and the union advocates exactly the opposite of that. That's not OK.

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

#118

Post by jordanbeiber »

freyir wrote: post #98
jordanbeiber wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, yes, but society should be formed to proactively deal with this. After the fact, it’s a bit late.

I see. So instead of the SATs, we could administer a psychological test to detect antisocial tendencies. We’ll send the worst of the bunch straight to the Ivey Leagues. That will teach them.

Well there seems to be a lot of anti-social tendencies in the US judging from the number of incarcerated individuals.

Perhaps there are mechanics in place that goes a bit deeper?

Are humans born stictly social or anti-social, and will anything accentuate these effects in the life of an individual?

Research is quite clear on this matter I believe, but of course there will always be exceptions.

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

#119

Post by pnutjam »

chrisco255 wrote: post #109
silvestrov wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tre…

Your first point is sort of debatable. The U.S. is diverse and there's a wide variety of viewpoints. It's hard to fight against political inertia at the Federal level. Policies in motion tend to stay in motion. There is demand for reform but there's almost an equal demand for status quo. Cutting financial fees is one thing. Healthcare is a capital AND labor intensive industry. Cutting fees carelessly could cause mass…

There's no equal demand for status quo in the US. There is a political system that lets voices be amplified enough for those with vested interests to pretend they have an equal demand.

big difference

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

#120

Post by benj111 »

pfisch wrote: post #64
fxj wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're getting downvotes because the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

You can lead the world in pharma and have it captured by special interests. Infact I would say its almost inevitable.

Now that's not to say that your point about it being bad isn't legitimate.

Post reply on HN