10 ms·

Two Brothers Making Millions Off the Refugee Crisis in Scandinavia

117 points by rmxt 11y ago

tremguy 11y ago
The solution here I think is to open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service, with the government providing a certain amount of financial assistance to the individual asylum seekers. This way the reputation of a certain firm will rapidly hit rock bottom as word about bad service gets out. This will keep pressure high to provide good service.
- digbyloftus 11y ago
  Solution to what? The profit margins the article quoted seem fairly reasonable, for all we know the Government is already willing to deal with others and no one else can compete. Seeing as the Government is the customer I don't really see why they would want to move purchasing power over to the refugees. There's no reason to assume they share goals.
  - geomark 11y ago
    That profit margin seems really low, unless the contract they have is a cost-plus type where they are guaranteed to have their costs paid plus 3.5% profit. Otherwise the risk seems too high to settle for a profit margin that low.
  - iaskwhy 11y ago
    I'd say it's to avoid a monopoly.
  - tremguy 11y ago
    I wasn't so much disputing the reasonable-ness of the profit margins as much as the policies of the providers. How are you supposed to keep track of how much profit is actually earned? Balance sheets etc. are notoriously easy to manipulate. By letting the refugees vote with their money we need not be concerned with profit margins as the market would(ideally) take care of itself. Win-win for both parties if this kind of system could be made to work. It would essentially be removing the government as an intermediary.
- theodorton 11y ago
  I went to a meetup a few months back and learned how the system works here in Norway. The main reason this is a private industry is scalability issues. There are huge costs connected with establishing the refugee centers, and it's hard to know for how long the center will be in use. At least that's how things used to be. For the the most part of the last 35 years there have been 5-year cycles between 5-15k refugees coming to Norway, but after 2010 it has stabilized at 15k and last year it started rising. Norway accepted 30k refugees last year, and will probably receive another 100k this year. So the industry is "good" now, but at the same time the requirements for these centers and the maximum price the state pays are disproportionate. As noted in the other comments: not much room for profit.
- js8 11y ago
  > The solution here I think is to open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service Good news, the service you describe is already there! It's called "people smuggling".
  - tremguy 11y ago
    Fair point actually. But I think we can prevent money being poured in those kinds of "services" by implementing some kind of voucher system or one where the money flows directly from the government to the providers, while the refugees still get to decide.
    - js8 11y ago
      Thanks. I actually do support government helping refugees (although I don't see reason why not do it directly), but my point was that I am pretty skeptical about the "This way the reputation of a certain firm will rapidly hit rock bottom as word about bad service gets out. This will keep pressure high to provide good service." claim. The traffickers actually operate under the condition that you claimed as sufficient for this to happen, i.e. "open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service". So unless there is some additional framework that lets people evaluate the results, and takes care of fraudulent offers, I don't think empirical experience shows that the condition suffices. Here in Czech Republic there is a cottage industry of providing lodging to poor people and immigrants (from government support), and it's not very pretty - expensive with poor quality.
rubidium 11y ago
"For 2015, Hero Norway expects revenue of $63 million, with profits of 3.5 percent. " Title correction: Long-time hospitality business entrepreneurs expand business into providing refugee housing and services. The business made 2.2 Million profits in 2015 operating highly efficient refugee care centers. My guess is there would be at least that much money wasted if these centers were run by less experienced people in that business sector (e.g. the gov't). Also note: the government regulates the business. Overall from the article, it seems like a good way to care for the refugees.
- codyb 11y ago
  Yea the headline has more than a tad bit of click bait to it. It sounds like they're raking in money hand over fist but profits of 3.5% seem entirely reasonable for the work they're doing (and pretty low as for profit industries go).
- rmxt 11y ago
  Without access to their books, it's hard to evaluate their actual profit. But, later in the article there is this quote: "The Adolfsens claim that theirs is 3.5 percent, but Herning calls that figure “highly unlikely. All the other refugee companies that I’ve looked at have a much higher profit margin.” She says that in handling revenue from nursery schools and nursing homes, the Adolfsens have played a shell game, shifting profits from one business within their conglomerate to another. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they were doing that for Hero as well,” she says." Also, quick searches seem to indicate that for-profit prisons (in the US at least), an analogous industry, have profit margins significantly north of 3.5%. [1] I wouldn't be surprised if the actual profit margins for the refugee care companies, when all subsidiaries are included, are between 5-10%. I don't know if there's a perfect solution to refugee care that optimizes spending and societal harmony, but private enterprises running the show with close government oversight (and no shell games), seems like a somewhat happy middle ground. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/48675641 http://www.cnbc.com/id/48675641
  - theodorton 11y ago
    Their revenue and profit prior to taxes for 2014 was 549M and 27M. Corporate Tax for 2014 was 28 % so 19.4M profit after tax which gives a 3.5 % net profit. http://www.proff.no/selskap/hero-norge-as/stavanger/tolker-flere-språk/Z0IIRBZ5/ http://www.proff.no/selskap/hero-norge-as/stavanger/tolker-f...
madaxe_again 11y ago
Yes, but the state, not the refugees, are the buyers. This means that service and quality quickly become irrelevant, and the race to the bottom begins. Before you know it, you have unscrupulous folks taking government cash to lock refugees in a gritty basement without food and basic facilities. I'm not saying this is an inevitability, but it's the dynamic that this creates - and that's why this should be the responsibility of the state - or set up so the refugees have a choice where they're put.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  so your claiming that if wholly government managed they would be more accountable? Really? Who is a government agency ever truly accountable too? The solution of all this is simple, government sets standards to be met and has inspectors who insure they are met. If the standards are kept and one of them can be a "happiness factor" who cares if they profit. Plus the added benefit of these private groups is that can iterate faster, are more likely to bring new ideas to the table, and improve the lot of the refugees faster than government agencies which tend to persist problems to extend their own existence
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Right, but if you give the refugees freedom of choice in which residential centre they reside, market forces will eliminate poor providers. If you don't give them choice, regulation is necessary, as you say, but you're then back in the realm of self-perpetuating quangos, as you say.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      No, market forces will not eliminate poor providers. It may eliminate those who try to beat the market and drop their quality too quickly, but as the options to cut costs are exhausted, everyone will be pushed down to the minimum quality level they can still get away with selling. Regulation can be an effective way to establish a border below which the quality won't drop, thus making the market solution potentially desirable.
- 11y ago
ck2 11y ago
Just imagine how much smugglers made off the boats or lifejackets in greece. Have you seen the piles of lifejackets in greece? They are HUGE. Thousands upon thousands of them across the entire shore. Where are they all coming from and who bought all of them?
- DanBC 11y ago
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34073196 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34073196 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34675552 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34675552 There's also a news story today about a factory making fake life jackets, and stuffing them with packaging not proper floatation devices. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/refugee-crisis-turkish-police-find-factory-making-fake-lifejackets-izmir http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/refugee-crisis-...
tosseraccount 11y ago
Arming the refugees to fight ISIS may cost more now; but defeating ISIS will be worth it.
- seivan 11y ago
  Many of them didn't flee ISIS. They fled Assad. Attitude towards ISIS borders between "don't care" to "they're alright" Some may hate ISIS, but they like parts of ISIS. Like treatment of infidels, women and LGBT. http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18... Getting radical muslims out of muslim cities has not proved to make them less radical. My parents wish more "quality control" was imposed. My parents were refugees.
  - gotchange 11y ago
    Where are your parents from? Iran?
    - dang 11y ago
      That reads like you intended it as both a personal and national slur, which would be a bannable offence on HN. Please don't comment like this here.
      - gotchange 11y ago
        You have very low opinion of me to think that I was trying to insult him by just inquiring about his parents national origin. His family name just caught my attention "Heidari" and I thought it was the Persian "حيدرى", that's all. I thought people here give other people the benefit of doubt and not judge them based on mere speculation.
        dang 11y ago
        I completely misread you. I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction, and for repeating a core principle of HN that I also need to be reminded of. Moderating comments like that is probabilistic, since they don't come tagged with intent. In your case I guessed wrong because the form of the comment was similar to nasty ones (edit: I mean by other users) in the past. Your intent would have been clearer, and the comment more informative, if you had included the detail about the names in the original bit.
kristofferR 11y ago
> Neither Sweden nor Norway has plans to stanch the flow of newcomers This is just ridiculously wrong, and taints the journalistic integrity of the piece.
- ersii 11y ago
  It could be that the piece was written some time ago. Or that they hasn't kept up to date with recent developments (like the transporter responsibility to verify IDs on trains/buses on all traffic going into Sweden). In other words, it might not be intentional and the piece is still interesting and well written in general - disregarding the mentioned quote. I would like to see a piece about the private sector of refugee centers in Sweden. That would be interesting as well. I have gotten the impression that "Jokarjo AB" is (which "Bert Karlsson" is a proprietor of) a somewhat medium or large player in the Swedish market.
kauffj 11y ago
Many people seem to hold an intuition or belief that it is wrong to profit, or profit "excessively" when providing certain types of services, particularly related to "care", survival, or necessities (e.g. "price gouging" laws). I think this is misguided for (at least) two reasons: 1. Profit allows for the services to be sustainable, rather than charity-dependent. 2. The more profit, the stronger the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the market and/or innovate. Figuring out a way to profit and reduce the problems of refugees in any way is win/win for everyone.
- lentil_soup 11y ago
  until because of the profit you are tempted to support the continuation of the problem
- berntb 11y ago
  You are totally correct -- as long as competition isn't short circuited. Think regulatory capture and ol' boys networks. Also, there is a ridiculous level of general incompetence among Swedish politicians today; they often do nothing but politics inside the party system from their youth.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Its not a question of profits or not, but about the risk of rent-seeking.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  > 2. The more profit, the stronger the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the market and/or innovate. 3. The more entrepreneurs in the market, the tighter the margins will become, due to competition. The price for the service will fall as a result, and the companies will become more efficient.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    But also remember that: 4. The more low-hanging fruits in terms of efficiency have been picked, the more entrepreneurs will be pressured into saving money on quality of their product - which in this case means quality of care. This is the stage when serious abuse starts. The maximum benefit of a market solution is reached when you can stop companies from progressing from 3 to 4.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 11y ago
I would be extremely worried in their position about personal risk & risk to my property. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=fire+refugee+center https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=fire+ref...
bjourne 11y ago
So the idea is that private enterprises are able to run refugee centers cheaper and more efficiently than the government. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and is a myth. It's a myth that fits hacker news because we are all entrepreneurs here.. Private companies have just as much waste as the government. One random example: Pension funds. The private ones are all more expensive than the government run ones. A share of the income needs to go to marketing and profits -> higher prices. Common sense. All across the board it is the same situation, and it has been shown in study after study. Health care, train operators, retirement homes, banks, military... , banks.. When private enterprises take over prices go up and the service level goes down. Again, it's common sense, a number of private companies fighting for market share and profits are more wasteful than one government organization run with zero profit. I forgot. One counter-example is telecom which has benefited from privatization. But it is an area in which a lot has happened in the last two decades so it is not clear privatization is the sole cause of it. I was asked for links: http://www.sns.se/sites/default/files/konkurrensens_konsekvenser_pod_2.pdf http://www.sns.se/sites/default/files/konkurrensens_konsekve... http://www.su.se/om-oss/press-media-nyheter/pressmeddelande-arkiv/sjuksk%C3%B6terskors-arbetstrivsel-f%C3%B6rs%C3%A4mras-efter-privatisering-1.7179 http://www.su.se/om-oss/press-media-nyheter/pressmeddelande-... http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/McNulty_InterimReport2010.pdf http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/McNulty_InterimRe... Maybe use Google Translate to read them.
- arvinjoar 11y ago
  Can you point me to, let's say, three of these studies?
- stevesearer 11y ago
  Would love to see the studies you reference. I'd wager a guess that in some cases prices would rise when private enterprise take over because the government run enterprises are operating at a loss and making up the difference with taxpayer dollars (Amtrak).
- jazzyk 11y ago
  The issue is not necessarily ownership, it is the existence of competition. Unfortunately, for most (all?) government services, there is no competition - hence the inefficiencies. But private companies are prone to the same, if they don;t operate in markets open enough.
GeorgeMatthews 11y ago
Amazing man, I wish I could meet them once
nshung 11y ago
Anti-refugee mood is on the surge in Norway. The government just appointed the previous agriculture minister from the far-right party as immigration minister and she recently proposes a slew of tough immigration rules, promised to be the strictest in Europe, for the newcomers.[1] There are many Norwegians who hate these two guys in Norway :) Take a look at the comment section.[2] 1. http://www.nrk.no/norge/_-vi-kommer-til-a-fa-en-asylpolitikk-som-er-blant-de-strengeste-i-europa-1.12724216 http://www.nrk.no/norge/_-vi-kommer-til-a-fa-en-asylpolitikk... 2. http://www.nettavisen.no/na24/tjener-to-millioner-i-maneden-pa-asylmottak/3422811800.html http://www.nettavisen.no/na24/tjener-to-millioner-i-maneden-...

117 points by rmxt 11y ago

The solution here I think is to open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service, with the government providing a certain amount of financial assistance to the individual asylum seekers. This way the reputation of a certain firm will rapidly hit rock bottom as word about bad service gets out. This will keep pressure high to provide good service.

digbyloftus 11y ago
Solution to what? The profit margins the article quoted seem fairly reasonable, for all we know the Government is already willing to deal with others and no one else can compete. Seeing as the Government is the customer I don't really see why they would want to move purchasing power over to the refugees. There's no reason to assume they share goals.
- geomark 11y ago
  That profit margin seems really low, unless the contract they have is a cost-plus type where they are guaranteed to have their costs paid plus 3.5% profit. Otherwise the risk seems too high to settle for a profit margin that low.
- iaskwhy 11y ago
  I'd say it's to avoid a monopoly.
- tremguy 11y ago
  I wasn't so much disputing the reasonable-ness of the profit margins as much as the policies of the providers. How are you supposed to keep track of how much profit is actually earned? Balance sheets etc. are notoriously easy to manipulate. By letting the refugees vote with their money we need not be concerned with profit margins as the market would(ideally) take care of itself. Win-win for both parties if this kind of system could be made to work. It would essentially be removing the government as an intermediary.
theodorton 11y ago
I went to a meetup a few months back and learned how the system works here in Norway. The main reason this is a private industry is scalability issues. There are huge costs connected with establishing the refugee centers, and it's hard to know for how long the center will be in use. At least that's how things used to be. For the the most part of the last 35 years there have been 5-year cycles between 5-15k refugees coming to Norway, but after 2010 it has stabilized at 15k and last year it started rising. Norway accepted 30k refugees last year, and will probably receive another 100k this year. So the industry is "good" now, but at the same time the requirements for these centers and the maximum price the state pays are disproportionate. As noted in the other comments: not much room for profit.
js8 11y ago
> The solution here I think is to open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service Good news, the service you describe is already there! It's called "people smuggling".
- tremguy 11y ago
  Fair point actually. But I think we can prevent money being poured in those kinds of "services" by implementing some kind of voucher system or one where the money flows directly from the government to the providers, while the refugees still get to decide.
  - js8 11y ago
    Thanks. I actually do support government helping refugees (although I don't see reason why not do it directly), but my point was that I am pretty skeptical about the "This way the reputation of a certain firm will rapidly hit rock bottom as word about bad service gets out. This will keep pressure high to provide good service." claim. The traffickers actually operate under the condition that you claimed as sufficient for this to happen, i.e. "open the market for more private providers and let the refugees pick and pay for their service". So unless there is some additional framework that lets people evaluate the results, and takes care of fraudulent offers, I don't think empirical experience shows that the condition suffices. Here in Czech Republic there is a cottage industry of providing lodging to poor people and immigrants (from government support), and it's not very pretty - expensive with poor quality.

rubidium 11y ago

"For 2015, Hero Norway expects revenue of $63 million, with profits of 3.5 percent. " Title correction: Long-time hospitality business entrepreneurs expand business into providing refugee housing and services. The business made 2.2 Million profits in 2015 operating highly efficient refugee care centers. My guess is there would be at least that much money wasted if these centers were run by less experienced people in that business sector (e.g. the gov't). Also note: the government regulates the business. Overall from the article, it seems like a good way to care for the refugees.

codyb 11y ago
Yea the headline has more than a tad bit of click bait to it. It sounds like they're raking in money hand over fist but profits of 3.5% seem entirely reasonable for the work they're doing (and pretty low as for profit industries go).
rmxt 11y ago
Without access to their books, it's hard to evaluate their actual profit. But, later in the article there is this quote: "The Adolfsens claim that theirs is 3.5 percent, but Herning calls that figure “highly unlikely. All the other refugee companies that I’ve looked at have a much higher profit margin.” She says that in handling revenue from nursery schools and nursing homes, the Adolfsens have played a shell game, shifting profits from one business within their conglomerate to another. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they were doing that for Hero as well,” she says." Also, quick searches seem to indicate that for-profit prisons (in the US at least), an analogous industry, have profit margins significantly north of 3.5%. [1] I wouldn't be surprised if the actual profit margins for the refugee care companies, when all subsidiaries are included, are between 5-10%. I don't know if there's a perfect solution to refugee care that optimizes spending and societal harmony, but private enterprises running the show with close government oversight (and no shell games), seems like a somewhat happy middle ground. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/48675641 http://www.cnbc.com/id/48675641
- theodorton 11y ago
  Their revenue and profit prior to taxes for 2014 was 549M and 27M. Corporate Tax for 2014 was 28 % so 19.4M profit after tax which gives a 3.5 % net profit. http://www.proff.no/selskap/hero-norge-as/stavanger/tolker-flere-språk/Z0IIRBZ5/ http://www.proff.no/selskap/hero-norge-as/stavanger/tolker-f...

madaxe_again 11y ago

Yes, but the state, not the refugees, are the buyers. This means that service and quality quickly become irrelevant, and the race to the bottom begins. Before you know it, you have unscrupulous folks taking government cash to lock refugees in a gritty basement without food and basic facilities. I'm not saying this is an inevitability, but it's the dynamic that this creates - and that's why this should be the responsibility of the state - or set up so the refugees have a choice where they're put.

Shivetya 11y ago
so your claiming that if wholly government managed they would be more accountable? Really? Who is a government agency ever truly accountable too? The solution of all this is simple, government sets standards to be met and has inspectors who insure they are met. If the standards are kept and one of them can be a "happiness factor" who cares if they profit. Plus the added benefit of these private groups is that can iterate faster, are more likely to bring new ideas to the table, and improve the lot of the refugees faster than government agencies which tend to persist problems to extend their own existence
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Right, but if you give the refugees freedom of choice in which residential centre they reside, market forces will eliminate poor providers. If you don't give them choice, regulation is necessary, as you say, but you're then back in the realm of self-perpetuating quangos, as you say.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    No, market forces will not eliminate poor providers. It may eliminate those who try to beat the market and drop their quality too quickly, but as the options to cut costs are exhausted, everyone will be pushed down to the minimum quality level they can still get away with selling. Regulation can be an effective way to establish a border below which the quality won't drop, thus making the market solution potentially desirable.
11y ago

ck2 11y ago

Just imagine how much smugglers made off the boats or lifejackets in greece. Have you seen the piles of lifejackets in greece? They are HUGE. Thousands upon thousands of them across the entire shore. Where are they all coming from and who bought all of them?

DanBC 11y ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34073196 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34073196 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34675552 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34675552 There's also a news story today about a factory making fake life jackets, and stuffing them with packaging not proper floatation devices. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/refugee-crisis-turkish-police-find-factory-making-fake-lifejackets-izmir http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/refugee-crisis-...

tosseraccount 11y ago

Arming the refugees to fight ISIS may cost more now; but defeating ISIS will be worth it.

seivan 11y ago
Many of them didn't flee ISIS. They fled Assad. Attitude towards ISIS borders between "don't care" to "they're alright" Some may hate ISIS, but they like parts of ISIS. Like treatment of infidels, women and LGBT. http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18... Getting radical muslims out of muslim cities has not proved to make them less radical. My parents wish more "quality control" was imposed. My parents were refugees.
- gotchange 11y ago
  Where are your parents from? Iran?
  - dang 11y ago
    That reads like you intended it as both a personal and national slur, which would be a bannable offence on HN. Please don't comment like this here.
    - gotchange 11y ago
      You have very low opinion of me to think that I was trying to insult him by just inquiring about his parents national origin. His family name just caught my attention "Heidari" and I thought it was the Persian "حيدرى", that's all. I thought people here give other people the benefit of doubt and not judge them based on mere speculation.
      - dang 11y ago
        I completely misread you. I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction, and for repeating a core principle of HN that I also need to be reminded of. Moderating comments like that is probabilistic, since they don't come tagged with intent. In your case I guessed wrong because the form of the comment was similar to nasty ones (edit: I mean by other users) in the past. Your intent would have been clearer, and the comment more informative, if you had included the detail about the names in the original bit.

kristofferR 11y ago

> Neither Sweden nor Norway has plans to stanch the flow of newcomers This is just ridiculously wrong, and taints the journalistic integrity of the piece.

ersii 11y ago
It could be that the piece was written some time ago. Or that they hasn't kept up to date with recent developments (like the transporter responsibility to verify IDs on trains/buses on all traffic going into Sweden). In other words, it might not be intentional and the piece is still interesting and well written in general - disregarding the mentioned quote. I would like to see a piece about the private sector of refugee centers in Sweden. That would be interesting as well. I have gotten the impression that "Jokarjo AB" is (which "Bert Karlsson" is a proprietor of) a somewhat medium or large player in the Swedish market.

kauffj 11y ago

Many people seem to hold an intuition or belief that it is wrong to profit, or profit "excessively" when providing certain types of services, particularly related to "care", survival, or necessities (e.g. "price gouging" laws). I think this is misguided for (at least) two reasons: 1. Profit allows for the services to be sustainable, rather than charity-dependent. 2. The more profit, the stronger the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the market and/or innovate. Figuring out a way to profit and reduce the problems of refugees in any way is win/win for everyone.

lentil_soup 11y ago
until because of the profit you are tempted to support the continuation of the problem
berntb 11y ago
You are totally correct -- as long as competition isn't short circuited. Think regulatory capture and ol' boys networks. Also, there is a ridiculous level of general incompetence among Swedish politicians today; they often do nothing but politics inside the party system from their youth.
digi_owl 11y ago
Its not a question of profits or not, but about the risk of rent-seeking.
clarkmoody 11y ago
> 2. The more profit, the stronger the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the market and/or innovate. 3. The more entrepreneurs in the market, the tighter the margins will become, due to competition. The price for the service will fall as a result, and the companies will become more efficient.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  But also remember that: 4. The more low-hanging fruits in terms of efficiency have been picked, the more entrepreneurs will be pressured into saving money on quality of their product - which in this case means quality of care. This is the stage when serious abuse starts. The maximum benefit of a market solution is reached when you can stop companies from progressing from 3 to 4.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fiatmoney 11y ago

I would be extremely worried in their position about personal risk & risk to my property. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=fire+refugee+center https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=fire+ref...

bjourne 11y ago

So the idea is that private enterprises are able to run refugee centers cheaper and more efficiently than the government. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and is a myth. It's a myth that fits hacker news because we are all entrepreneurs here.. Private companies have just as much waste as the government. One random example: Pension funds. The private ones are all more expensive than the government run ones. A share of the income needs to go to marketing and profits -> higher prices. Common sense. All across the board it is the same situation, and it has been shown in study after study. Health care, train operators, retirement homes, banks, military... , banks.. When private enterprises take over prices go up and the service level goes down. Again, it's common sense, a number of private companies fighting for market share and profits are more wasteful than one government organization run with zero profit. I forgot. One counter-example is telecom which has benefited from privatization. But it is an area in which a lot has happened in the last two decades so it is not clear privatization is the sole cause of it. I was asked for links: http://www.sns.se/sites/default/files/konkurrensens_konsekvenser_pod_2.pdf http://www.sns.se/sites/default/files/konkurrensens_konsekve... http://www.su.se/om-oss/press-media-nyheter/pressmeddelande-arkiv/sjuksk%C3%B6terskors-arbetstrivsel-f%C3%B6rs%C3%A4mras-efter-privatisering-1.7179 http://www.su.se/om-oss/press-media-nyheter/pressmeddelande-... http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/McNulty_InterimReport2010.pdf http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/McNulty_InterimRe... Maybe use Google Translate to read them.

arvinjoar 11y ago
Can you point me to, let's say, three of these studies?
stevesearer 11y ago
Would love to see the studies you reference. I'd wager a guess that in some cases prices would rise when private enterprise take over because the government run enterprises are operating at a loss and making up the difference with taxpayer dollars (Amtrak).
jazzyk 11y ago
The issue is not necessarily ownership, it is the existence of competition. Unfortunately, for most (all?) government services, there is no competition - hence the inefficiencies. But private companies are prone to the same, if they don;t operate in markets open enough.

GeorgeMatthews 11y ago

Amazing man, I wish I could meet them once

nshung 11y ago

Anti-refugee mood is on the surge in Norway. The government just appointed the previous agriculture minister from the far-right party as immigration minister and she recently proposes a slew of tough immigration rules, promised to be the strictest in Europe, for the newcomers.[1] There are many Norwegians who hate these two guys in Norway :) Take a look at the comment section.[2] 1. http://www.nrk.no/norge/_-vi-kommer-til-a-fa-en-asylpolitikk-som-er-blant-de-strengeste-i-europa-1.12724216 http://www.nrk.no/norge/_-vi-kommer-til-a-fa-en-asylpolitikk... 2. http://www.nettavisen.no/na24/tjener-to-millioner-i-maneden-pa-asylmottak/3422811800.html http://www.nettavisen.no/na24/tjener-to-millioner-i-maneden-...