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

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81

Post by gtCameron »

tboyd47 wrote: post #68
exabrial wrote: post #40

Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money. Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent. Before than we discussed the astronomically comical cost of healthcare.gov. It's good that people are demanding social change and action; the answer should bbe private charity and community leadership, as the current system just funnels money into contractor…

Why would private charities be any less corrupt than public ones?

Because private charities rely on someone making an affirmative choice to give them money. In theory, if they are corrupt or incompetent enough the flow of money dries up.

If the government is corrupt or incompetent, people get angry at them and then ... nothing changes. The flow of money isn't stopping, in fact the most likely outcome is their budgets keep going up year after year.

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

#82

Post by pesmhey »

The initial payment of ~$2000/recruit sounded reasonable, and then you realize that the total expenditure was for $40,000/recruit. Even if Accenture Federal Services delivered, is that price tag an accurate reflection of the true value of recruiting agents? What part of the recruitment process could warrant such a high price?

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

#83

Post by beatgammit »

arandr0x wrote: post #53
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 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…

I'm the same way, most of the time. But I think many (most?) people are not. Also, even if they are, it's really hard to visualize large sums of money, so spending $1B on something is really hard to reason about.

But I think it makes sense in general. If I were to buy something with someone else's money for someone else, I honestly wouldn't care too much about either the cost or the gift, I'd get the thing that seemed reasonable to both parties. For example, if I bought gift for someone who performed a service for my company, using my company's money, I would not be very cost conscious, and I'd only put minimal effort in (after all, it's just a task I need to complete). I don't want to be stingy (we want the person to like us), but I also don't want to get flak from accounting.

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

#84

Post by Mary-Jane »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #13
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…

That's why many mature governments have an office whose job it is to care about those things, e.g. [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi...

True, but you're not taking into account the government budgeting model. Organizations in government budgets' are based on last year's budget. If the OU spends last year's budget or more, their budget is increased (because they account for inflation). If they spend less, their budget is decreased. In other words, there is a built in incentive to spend money, and anyone can find ways to justify spending money "to improve their OU". GAOs merely verify the paperwork is in order.

Don't misunderstand me. This isn't an argument against government; it's an argument against this budgeting model. There has to be a way they to structure private sector budgeting efficiency into public organizations.

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

#85

Post by conanbatt »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14
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…

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

The majority of gifts, and thus their aggregate, are worth less than their cost to the receiver.

This is because if the receiver can afford it and thought it was good, he would already have it. Because he doesn't, getting it as a gift is worse than getting money.

Alternative economic interpretation: if you gave someone the choice between item X and money worth X, the gift is good only if the recipient would choose item. If they were to choose the money, then they are always short-changed.

Gifting is economically inefficient.

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

#86

Post by AbrahamParangi »

zeroname wrote: post #60
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

...implying that the Keynesians are really empathetic and that the Chicago school folks are cold-hearted technocrats. That kind of emotionality is what keeps people from making reasonable decisions on economic policy. It would be nice if the kind of naive Keynesianism that politicians love to apply actually worked . It would be nice if you could spend yourself out of a recession. Unfortunately, politicians only like…

I’ll ignore the greentext style intro.

I suspect that the truth of the matter is that conscientiousness varies across the human population and that the best analysis takes into account this fact.

To ignore rational self interest is naive and plainly wrong- but it is also wrong to ignore the impact of high conscientiousness on decision-making. I say this without condoning or condemning either configuration.

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

#87

Post by mkohlmyr »

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…

IIRC The stated goal of our (Sweden) armed forces is something like the ability to defend 1-2 regions for a single week if we are faced with an invasion.

Our defence budget is 1% of GDP because we are betting on the US (and a few others) continuing to spend as it does, and that it will be in their national interest to help us if the time comes.

If the US slashed its defence budget to a 'reasonable' level, we would have to increase ours in turn to the best of our abilities. If the US brought theirs down all the way to 1%, the only people laughing would be the PLA and Putin himself.

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

#88

Post by astura »

perfunctory wrote: post #9

We should see this for what it really is - hidden unemployment benefit for people "working" at Accenture. Or hidden basic income, call it whatever you want. Our level of economic development and accumulated wealth is so great that without these sorts of "stimulus" the majority of the population would be unemployed or work just a couple of days per week [0]. And the conspiracy theorist inside me suspects that the gove…

The most appropriate word I think is "corporate welfare"

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

#89

Post by beatgammit »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #14
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…

This is a good quote and I like it, but it's funny- I feel like what this quote best demonstrates is a basic difference in conscientiousness between the Chicago school folks and the Keynes folks. If I buy a birthday present for someone, I care very much about the content of the present.

I do too, but I'm probably going to do less research into it. I may spend a little more on a single item instead of buying two less expensive "diamonds in the rough" like I would for myself.

When buying for someone else, my biggest concern is to not look cheap. When buying for myself, my biggest concern is getting the best value. When using someone else's money, I'd be less cost conscious because I'm not feeling the hit.

I definitely care about what I give someone, but I care about different things than when buying for myself. You can see this in politics. Politicians have the best benefits in government, and when they pass a bill, they want to significantly affect the most people, even if the impact isn't as good as a better thought out system. Case in point: the ACA impacts most Americans, but prices for medical care overall have gone up. For those 87%, it sure seems like a good deal because they don't see the true cost (lots of deficit spending and worse care than a single payer system).

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

#90

Post by astura »

jaclaz wrote: post #49

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 a…

I read in another article couple years ago thag a lot of people taking the CBP polygraph actually admit to very serious illegal/disqualifying behaviours during the polygraph.

Here's the article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-p...

>Polygraph results are of questionable scientific value, but the interviews have an unexpected benefit apart from their dubious powers of detection: under pressure from interviewers, applicants frequently admit to wrongdoing. The Verge obtained a document under the Freedom of Information Act that lists cases where CBP polygraph interviews were “referred” for further investigation. When a polygraph interviewer determines an applicant has done something potentially disqualifying, the information is referred to an “adjudicator.” The adjudicator is vested with the power to stop the applicant from being offered a job. The list of referrals for further investigation, produced by CBP’s Credibility Assessment Division, includes 205 cases over the course of last year, and highlight stunning admissions of crimes flagged by the division.

Post reply on HN