Government Hired a Firm for $13.6M to Hire Recruits. It Hired 2 • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by KineticLensman » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

Yes. In some cases it feels as government procurement agencies exist specifically NOT to procure things, there are so many checks and balances.

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

#92

Post by exabrial » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #64

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…

> Government is nearly always the least effective use of a citizen's money These kinds of broad, factless statements do not deserve to be on HN. > Huge discussion on HN a few days ago about the IRS barely making $7 for every $1 spent Are you suggesting that the totality of taxes we pay to the IRS are only 1/7 of the IRS cost? What are we... paying for roads with? The military? Is the entire government going down in f…

Why, because the facts don't conveniently align with your world view? Because you completely misunderstood my comment?

Here, take a moment to read: https://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/0...

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

#93

Post by nonbel » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #61

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 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...

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

#94

Post by astura » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:05 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #59

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…

>Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars? Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange contraption can cause false positives. Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police does for example.

While true, that doesn't explain why the CBP polygraph fail rate is twice that of other police departments. (The CBP itself is a police department)

https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f

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

#95

Post by Uehreka » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:06 PM UTC

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,…

I'd argue there's a big difference between my company paying for dinner and a friend or family member taking me out to dinner. In the latter case I'm definitely not going to run up a huge bill. Looking back to the quote, I suppose the definition of "someone else" can mean a lot.

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

#96

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

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...

An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them. If the entire US was 100% aligned with your own politics then taxes wouldn't be very burdensome.

If my political faction ran the country like a dictatorship, I wouldn't mind them taking my money, because they'd spend it on getting me what I want (which may include "a better world," prioritized according to my subjective view of which world problems are the worst). However because there is more than one political faction in power, the money taken from me will sometimes be spent on things I don't want, including things that I am actually opposed to. Clearly the solution is either cough "greater unity," or the more practical answer which is having minimal taxes to fund only the lowest common denominator of services that everyone wants.

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

#97

Post by schnevets » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

I'd say this summarizes post-recession America pretty well. A demand for jobs that no one seems qualified and willing to do, and a bloated paycheck to the keepers of some "analysts" who scramble to keep doing what doesn't work.

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

#98

Post by Retra » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #36

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.

I felt the same way on first reading, but then decided that I misinterpreted "someone" to mean "someone really close to me": spouse, kids, parents, etc. This is similar to buying things for myself. I believe in MF quote "someone" is better described as "someone you do not personally know or maybe see once". A model for that is buying a gift for a Yankee Swap party. Or for a child I do not know: something to cheer the…

Seems that this is the problem empathy was meant to solve.

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

#99

Post by DSingularity » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

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…

Eloquently put but I do not appreciate the conclusion the rhetoric is driving. It is not impossible to structure these efforts in way which maintains effeciency and performance:$. How? Accountability and a payout which rewards good performance and punishes bad performance.

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

#100

Post by rchaud » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

bobjordan wrote: post #71

According to this article, the contract amount to be paid to Accenture is USD $297,000,000 to help the Government hire 7,500 employees. Nearly USD $40,000 USD per hire. Definitely makes me think about going all in on turning pure Libertarian.

I'm interested to know what part of this story sparked your comment about Libertarianism?

Was it the use of taxpayer dollars to expand a border force that didn't seem understaffed to anyone but the Pres?

I ask because the other part, namely government contracting work to the "more efficient" private sector sounds perfectly in keeping with Libertarian principles.