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

The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#61

Post by throw_m239339 »

markus_zhang wrote: post #27
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

I mean seriously, you really believe this?

No they don't... they are playing the devil's advocate I think or being sarcastic. This is just plain corruption and fraud but it's legal because defense sector...

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#63

Post by cushychicken »

scotty79 wrote: post #50
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

> It keeps people employed, ... What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?

[flagged]

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#64

Post by DanTheManPR »

hypeatei wrote: post #16
niffydroid wrote: post #4

If its going on an aircraft and it's no longer made or stocked, then yes there will be extra cost as it has to go through certification, testing, flammability, tooling and various other things. So while the top line price may be high for the bin, but a breakdown of costs would indicate where the money is going. Overcharging? perhaps and possible, but more info needed.

Umm, no. A 17,000% increase in price for a TRASH CAN is not justified under any circumstance. That is straight up robbery that Boeing knows they can get away with.

I'm guessing that what's happening here is that Boeing could be making more money doing something other than building trash cans, and so is sending an absurdly exorbitant quote to their customer to communicate "stop buying this".

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#65

Post by cushychicken »

danhor wrote: post #51
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re buying four trash cans at a time via a process that can take months of paperwork by the contractor. It’s simply not designed for such low volume scenarios. It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em. The Stinger missile example fu…

Bad example, JLCPCB will do PCBA for just a few dollars.

...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#66

Post by moffkalast »

InTheArena wrote: post #30

Part of the problem here is that the mechanism designed to protect tax-payers (the incredibly complex framework around government procurement) shield players from competition (Aka, the same effect as healthcare market in the USA. This is why modern USA subs use Xbox controllers for joysticks. You can walk out and expense them. The same, if subject to the program, would be a $1k unit cost based on the twin reasoning o…

I'm starting to suspect that Microsoft may have had a hand in sinking that Titanic sub as a promotional move, because people have been dragging the damn xbox controller into every possible discussion since.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#67

Post by pastacacioepepe »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Explain then how Boeing managed to stay afloat when it was forced to charge "only" $300 per trash can.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#68

Post by t0suj4 »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

> The problematic element of it is when companies charge these sorts of absurd fees for a design that was produced decades ago (the E-3 is not a new aircraft by any means) and not adding meaningful value on top of it.

I think the problem is that they're so disconnected from the value of money that they are willing to pay that much.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#69

Post by lobochrome »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Agreed. Alas, there is an aspect of over regulation. Does the trash can need to be certified to an extreme level of depth or can some solider in the machine shop quickly throw something together?

I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety.

Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 50% of the time in democratic societies which accumulates a kind of “risk-avoidance-debt”.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#70

Post by pastacacioepepe »

cushychicken wrote: post #63
scotty79 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It keeps people employed, ... What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?

[flagged]

Why don't you ask Boeing why exactly they need to charge $50k per trash can, before justifying them with an imaginary explanation of how their economy works?
Post reply on HN