4 ms·

It's not the money waste. It's the power vacuum that opened up where people established themselves as the good and others as evil. Big money in being an "anti-

by seivan 11y ago

It's not the money waste. It's the power vacuum that opened up where people established themselves as the good and others as evil. Big money in being an "anti-racist". Anyone pointing out that you charge 1600 per hour while living/owning in the most exclusive (homogeneous) parts of Stockholm (Gamla Stan) is obviously a racist. Obviously none of this shit is related to any form of civil rights issue.

golergka 11y ago
I think you're being downvoted for being aggressive and having a political agenda, but you do have a good point. Of course, we want to spend money to help people in need — but what happens when the people we hire with this money start to charge us a premium for excessive, and completely unnecessary expensive care? $31 to $75 per person per night seems a little bit costly, yes. But at the same time, I'm can imagine that they can have actual need for that. May be they need to live near all the official organizations and embassies because they will spend a lot of time there? This would explain "exclusive parts of city", for example. May be not. But anyway, it's always better to be more open to opposite point of view and imagine arguments for it.
- roel_v 11y ago
  "31 to $75 per person per night seems a little bit costly" Is it? Looks like it includes everything: food, housing, electricity/water, cleaning, admin of frequently changing guests, ... If they can really provide everything for people for $31/day, there are welfare systems that could switch to save money...
  - golergka 11y ago
    Oh, I must have missed it. Then it certainly looks reasonable. But still, I think you agree that we should be able to have a discussion about this without (1) being called "racist" and at the same time (2) being open to possibility that this money is really required.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    it has been long argued in many circles that many welfare/assistance programs could be better administered by private companies. entrenched government services have no incentive to improve and how some governments budget they may have actual disincentives to improvement. does sound like these guys are doing a good job. the best part is that when the need changes they will likely adapt or move into a new business whereas a government support structure would be hard to dismantle the sad part is that some government officials apparently think profit making in this industry is wrong and that is a very bad sign because once you go down that road no business is safe
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I don't think it's the government per se thinking that; they'd probably be happy for someone else to take care of the problem for them, especially if that someone can do it well. But people, on the other hand, well, that's a different thing. Copenhagen interpretation of ethics is strong in all cultures. The thought that someone is making money on helping is unbearable to many, even if there is no comparable non-profit alternative.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      As far as I can tell, this is more expensive than long term government run asylum housing in Norway (hard to compare directly as the costs given for government provision includes a lot of additional costs, but using basic measures for things like nursery provision etc. it'd be extremely unlikely that the actual housing component ends up above even the lower ($31) of those levels). It may still be an ok deal if the contracts are short term, as there's obvious issues now with forecasting how the refugee stream will be even in the near future, and it's worth quite a bit of money to make someone else shoulder most of that risk. > the sad part is that some government officials apparently think profit making in this industry is wrong I haven't seen that. I have seen people question whether some people are profiteering from a difficult situation. This is seen as sort of a national crisis that it would be immoral to take excessive profits from, and there's been others that have e.g. offered up free or significantly discounted hotel rooms and similar (though the cynic in me sees "fantastic high value PR coup" when reading about some of them) that makes it easy to see even relatively modest profit-taking as too high.
- seivan 11y ago
  I'm politically pragmatic. My agenda is things that work. Very much like PAP during LKY. I see a lot of shit that doesn't work and obviously I'll fall to one side of it - which happens to be far right as of today. Perceptions of "being aggressive" is pretty much on par with with my current torque to the right. You're reading too much into it and overvalue interpretation of tone. My example was a Swedish lawyer that helps 30 years pretend to be 13. He charges 1600 per hour and of course lives in the most secluded and homogenous areas while he calls non-white critics for racists. You have to understand that this can't be sustainable... at all. I don't mean financially, I mean the concept of black and white notions, especially with sensitive subjects like racism. Though I don't think this particular person is stupid enough to think like that. He knows he's making bank and will make sure to milk it as long as he can. I actually would have preferred him to be stupid instead of criminally evil.

by seivan 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

I think you're being downvoted for being aggressive and having a political agenda, but you do have a good point. Of course, we want to spend money to help people in need — but what happens when the people we hire with this money start to charge us a premium for excessive, and completely unnecessary expensive care? $31 to $75 per person per night seems a little bit costly, yes. But at the same time, I'm can imagine that they can have actual need for that. May be they need to live near all the official organizations and embassies because they will spend a lot of time there? This would explain "exclusive parts of city", for example. May be not. But anyway, it's always better to be more open to opposite point of view and imagine arguments for it.

roel_v 11y ago
"31 to $75 per person per night seems a little bit costly" Is it? Looks like it includes everything: food, housing, electricity/water, cleaning, admin of frequently changing guests, ... If they can really provide everything for people for $31/day, there are welfare systems that could switch to save money...
- golergka 11y ago
  Oh, I must have missed it. Then it certainly looks reasonable. But still, I think you agree that we should be able to have a discussion about this without (1) being called "racist" and at the same time (2) being open to possibility that this money is really required.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  it has been long argued in many circles that many welfare/assistance programs could be better administered by private companies. entrenched government services have no incentive to improve and how some governments budget they may have actual disincentives to improvement. does sound like these guys are doing a good job. the best part is that when the need changes they will likely adapt or move into a new business whereas a government support structure would be hard to dismantle the sad part is that some government officials apparently think profit making in this industry is wrong and that is a very bad sign because once you go down that road no business is safe
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I don't think it's the government per se thinking that; they'd probably be happy for someone else to take care of the problem for them, especially if that someone can do it well. But people, on the other hand, well, that's a different thing. Copenhagen interpretation of ethics is strong in all cultures. The thought that someone is making money on helping is unbearable to many, even if there is no comparable non-profit alternative.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    As far as I can tell, this is more expensive than long term government run asylum housing in Norway (hard to compare directly as the costs given for government provision includes a lot of additional costs, but using basic measures for things like nursery provision etc. it'd be extremely unlikely that the actual housing component ends up above even the lower ($31) of those levels). It may still be an ok deal if the contracts are short term, as there's obvious issues now with forecasting how the refugee stream will be even in the near future, and it's worth quite a bit of money to make someone else shoulder most of that risk. > the sad part is that some government officials apparently think profit making in this industry is wrong I haven't seen that. I have seen people question whether some people are profiteering from a difficult situation. This is seen as sort of a national crisis that it would be immoral to take excessive profits from, and there's been others that have e.g. offered up free or significantly discounted hotel rooms and similar (though the cynic in me sees "fantastic high value PR coup" when reading about some of them) that makes it easy to see even relatively modest profit-taking as too high.
seivan 11y ago
I'm politically pragmatic. My agenda is things that work. Very much like PAP during LKY. I see a lot of shit that doesn't work and obviously I'll fall to one side of it - which happens to be far right as of today. Perceptions of "being aggressive" is pretty much on par with with my current torque to the right. You're reading too much into it and overvalue interpretation of tone. My example was a Swedish lawyer that helps 30 years pretend to be 13. He charges 1600 per hour and of course lives in the most secluded and homogenous areas while he calls non-white critics for racists. You have to understand that this can't be sustainable... at all. I don't mean financially, I mean the concept of black and white notions, especially with sensitive subjects like racism. Though I don't think this particular person is stupid enough to think like that. He knows he's making bank and will make sure to milk it as long as he can. I actually would have preferred him to be stupid instead of criminally evil.