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

41–50 of 213 posts

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

#41

Post by AsyncAwait »

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's quote is particularly ironic considering his Chicago Boys were particularly notorious for "spending somebody else’s money on themselves" by shifting public money to their own pockets, often by awarding ridiculous contracts.

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

#42

Post by arcbyte »

enraged_camel wrote: post #17
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…

It is a funny quote, but obviously not true. Anyone who has worked in, and for, government will tell you that: "And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." Is 100% incorrect. In fact, much of the bureaucracy we have in government is used for ensuring these types of things don't happen. It's why there are…

It's a great generality, but it's not only 100% correct, your example of bureaucracy PROVES it is correct.

Those committees, reviews, and approval chains are just distributed responsibility mechanisms to remove the responsibility to think critically about the entire expenditure, which is Friedman's point.

10 people thinking about narrow, nonoverlapping aspects of a large thing will never be as effective as less people considering all aspects of that large thing.

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

#43

Post by consp »

dalbasal wrote: post #24

"CBP had paid Accenture Federal Services approximately $13.6 million of a $297 million contract to recruit and hire 7,500 applicants " - $40k per hire

30-40k hiring bonuses to recruiters are not uncommon. Especially if it is the only income and competitive in nature.

Doing this under a fixed contract is however.

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

#44

Post by ckastner »

adwhit wrote: post #20
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 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.

> 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.

This is the same tortured logic that leads to cost-cutting with regards to IT security expenditures.

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

#45

Post by atmosx »

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".

The mess the US foreign policy of the previous administration caused in Middle East alone ( not counting Ukraine and Libya ) has an immense cost and no real benefit. Of course others are left alone to pay the bill.

I would call that a total failure by any possible interpretation.

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

#46

Post by seibelj »

isostatic wrote: post #39
jki275 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military in the US is 18% of the budget. SS and medicare are something like 70%. If you want to live in a country without a military there are a bunch of them. I wouldn't personally want to live in any of them, but of course everyone is free to do as they see fit.

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.

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

#47

Post by oo0shiny »

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.

1. [citation needed] 2. How is this relevant to this article?

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

#48

Post by hopefulengineer »

adwhit wrote: post #20
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 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.

1. US military is only 16-18% of federal spending. Entitlements like social security, medicaid, and welfare make up 65-70% of federal spending. The majority of military spending is on salaries and benefits anyway, it's essentially a welfare program itself

>delivers the least

2. most major advancements in tech and healthcare are due to the military. Silicon Valley was built on military spending. Self driving cars were initially funded by DARPA. AI was funded by military. If you have a job in the tech industry you can thank the US military

There's also the minor detail of the US navy making global trade possible and the strength of the US military making traditional war pointless which has resulted in the last few decades being the most peaceful in human history in terms of probability of dying in combat

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

#49

Post by jaclaz »

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 agencies use them internally, there was something on HN some time ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683

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"?

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

#50

Post by collinf »

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…

It's so true. People take these stories as hard truth, when in fact many studies on economics (and social sciences in general) are hard to replicate. [1]

1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w13026

Post reply on HN