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

171–180 of 213 posts

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

#171

Post by forkLding »

swebs wrote: post #131
kaitai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I think that brings up the question, does the homogeneity of a country really mean less concern for "paying for other people's kids", and how do we define homogeneity: culture? income level? family size? ethnic background? net wealth?

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

#172

Post by wongarsu »

nonbel wrote: post #93
kaitai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sense that government takes our money and gives it to someone else" If something else was going on, then taxes would be voluntary...

The European interpretation is closer to "everyone pays into a big pot and we collectively decide how to spend it to make our country better"

Even if I don't get that money directly, I benefit massively because fire brigades prevent fires from burning down entire neighborhoods, health insurance keeps the work force healthy, unemployment programs keep crime rates low and provide training, free education attracts profitable industries etc.

I don't need to have a child to benefit from free education, and I don't need to be unemployed to benefit from unemployment programs. I'm very much spending all that tax money on myself.

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

#173

Post by HillaryBriss »

dalbasal wrote: post #31
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…

Friedman had a talent for conveying these ideas simply. The problem with these economicist "stories," as they call them, is that people (including economists themselves) believe them too much. Once stories like this are embedded in the way we think, we constantly see ways of interpreting the world in a reinforcing way. Every case of inefficiency is found to be an example of principal-agent problems. Not specifically…

> believe them too much

I definitely agree. The public reaction to how "someone else's money is spent on someone else" is sometimes very passionate.

e.g. feelings about government funding for the proposed border wall, support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, Planned Parenthood, prisons, police military-grade weaponry, etc

At the very least, in cases where value systems and ethical considerations come into play, people are extremely concerned about how government spends other people's money on other people.

Furthermore, people have efficiency concerns: plenty of people in big cities like Los Angeles are very concerned about the way the city spends its money in general, given the state of the roads and streets, levels of crime and traffic, mediocre education, etc

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

#174

Post by nonbel »

wongarsu wrote: post #172
nonbel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The sense that government takes our money and gives it to someone else" If something else was going on, then taxes would be voluntary...

The European interpretation is closer to "everyone pays into a big pot and we collectively decide how to spend it to make our country better" Even if I don't get that money directly, I benefit massively because fire brigades prevent fires from burning down entire neighborhoods, health insurance keeps the work force healthy, unemployment programs keep crime rates low and provide training, free education attracts profi…

>'The European interpretation is closer to "everyone pays into a big pot and we collectively decide how to spend it to make our country better"'

This sounds great, but if everyone was in favor of it there would be no reason to make this payment mandatory.

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

#175

Post by nonbel »

Retric wrote: post #165
nonbel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen." So you claim people won't voluntarily fund a project like a wastewater treatment plant since it doesn't make them feel rewarded or some other mental thing.…

Cancer research is only one example, a new road also requires a minimum amount of money. Many people would happily pay for their chunk of a new road/bridge if it made the difference between having it and not because the cost is less than the utility. But, you don’t see charities to build roads because that model does not work in that context. As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is d…

If taxes didn't fund roads, businesses would fund them to transport their stuff around. Since an empty road is wasteful, they would also likely be toll/subscription/customers-only based for whoever else. So you would need to pay if you wanted to use the road. Now if a bunch of people want to donate a road to the world (like open source, it would happen), that is great too.

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

#176

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

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,…

The kind of company culture that doesn't have an opinion on spending $30 for fast food... can eventually have a real impact on profitability eventually.

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

#177

Post by sctb »

robertsd247 wrote: post #12
robertsd247 wrote: post #10

In other news, Obama paid millions for a broke health exchange website coded by people in a 3rd world country whose day job was tending to livestock.

You can downvote this all you want...that IS what happened and you all know it.

You're breaking the guidelines a whole lot, and we ban accounts that keep on like this. Could you please stop, read, and start following them?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#178

Post by sctb »

mkirklions wrote: post #5

[dead]

We've asked you a number of times to please post civilly and substantive, but since we're still getting troll comments like this we've banned the account. If you'd like to use the site as intended please email hn@ycombinator.com.

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

#179

Post by jki275 »

isostatic wrote: post #166
jki275 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get to have that system because the US has taken on the role of global police and funds our military at a level commensurate to that role. If you funded your military appropriately, we wouldn't have to fund your defense. Your comment about healthcare is so simplistic it's not even worth a reply, but I'll simply note that the vast majority are not on medicare or medicaid and are covered by private insurance. Your…

The US spends $10200 a year per head on healthcare, most of it ($8k a year) government or compulsory spending. Canada spends $4800 a year on healthcare in total -- under half that of the U.S. Israel spends $2800. That's a sign of a broken system. Use Canada's system, cut your mediacare/aid tax, and your companies no longer need to spend money on healthcare when employing them. Using Canada's system removes the tax on…

You act as though "invading Iraq" is the only thing the US military has ever done. That's a little myopic, don't you think?

Again, your numbers don't really have any meaning on the healthcare thing. It's a far more complex discussion than you are attempting to make it.

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

#180

Post by jki275 »

cryoshon wrote: post #137
seibelj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It doesn't take millions to make that kind of aggression politically unpalatable.
Post reply on HN