10 ms·

I don't have any love for NYC construction unions and their ridiculous work rules, but the fact that France -- France! where strikes shutting down the whole cou

I don't have any love for NYC construction unions and their ridiculous work rules, but the fact that France -- France! where strikes shutting down the whole country is a national pastime -- does better means that can't be the number one answer. Similarly we can rule out corruption because even Chicago is a piker compared to Shanghai. I think both unions and corruption play a part but not of the first rank. The first candidate I'd propose for the top slot is diffusion of responsibility stemming from a US obsession with localism. An MTA project might well be paid for by: the federal government, NY state, NYC, and bonds to be paid back by a dedicated tax in 10 downstate counties. There are contracting rules imposed by each of those sources. And it is administered by the MTA board, a monstrosity with appointments from eight different sources. The buck stops nowhere. The second candidate is, paradoxically, the progressive era procurement rules designed to rein in corruption. They leave too little discretion. In a two sided competitive game, if one side is hampered in by slow changing inflexible rules the other side is going to dominate. That's exactly what happens. Government contractors play the system like a fiddle and there's little the government negotiators even when they are supremely competent and diligent can do about it.

rtpg 11y ago
I was talking to somebody about how education ends up being so expensive in the US, and I kind of feel like there are similar reasons. Subcontracting out work + massive federalism creates $200 textbooks. Now I know national textbooks are a bit much, but I would be interested in seeing a state completely co-opt the textbook creation process and produce some textbooks and learning material at cost. As for the budget distribution, this pretty much happens in other places too. My French school's expansion was half funded by the ministry of industry, some by the region, some by the national government... I think that's a side effect of how budgeting works.
- random28345 11y ago
  > Subcontracting out work + massive federalism I think you meant massive anti-federalism. If we had a federal procurement system for math and english textbooks, after being put out for a nationwide bid, the per-unit cost would be about 10% over the cost of paper and printing. (the 10% premium is the bid adjustment for a women or minority owned business) Now $8 textbooks wouldn't save a lot of money compared to the national education budget, but it would be a good start. And do we really need regional variations in math textbooks?
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    The only reason I know of for different textbooks for different states is that some states seem to want to push a religious agenda in their education system. I struggle to find any net negatives here except for religious fundamentalists and textbook printers.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > The only reason I know of for different textbooks for different states is that some states seem to want to push a religious agenda Until the federal government starts pushing a religious agenda. Then everyone here would want textbooks from, say, California.
    - todd8 11y ago
      This can't be the whole story. Consider math books. Publishers have coordinated math curriculums, perhaps a dozen different ones used across the country. I feel that the people picking these books are persuaded by the different book publishers to buy expensive, colorful math books that fundamentally are inferior to simpler, less costly math curriculum/books, like the math program and books used in Singapore (which are in English).
      - LrnByTeach 11y ago
        CommonCore is the Solution to these 20 different MATH text books across USA. 40 States are onborad with CommonCore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative#Adoption_and_implementation_of_Common_Core_State_Standards_by_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_In... This gives the WHOLE Sotry .. How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulle...
    - mason240 11y ago
      The only reason I know of for everyone using the same textbooks nationally is that some people seem to want to push an agenda in their education system, and see that as tool for doing so.
- joe_the_user 11y ago
  Subcontracting out work + massive federalism creates $200 textbooks. Now I know national textbooks are a bit much, but I would be interested in seeing a state completely co-opt the textbook creation process and produce some textbooks and learning material at cost. The ultimate cause is regulator capture. A series of large companies extract massive rent through their ability to direct state funds into their coffers. If the US as it exists now tried a Federal textbook, those would cost $200 again at the very least and would be put together by all the major textbook companies combined (unless one of managed a clever end-run). We see this in military contracting for example. The capture is probably strongest at the State and Federal level just because centralization is easiest but these hand-down regulations that force the hand of local authorities - not controlling them entirely but preventing any tactics that cut-out the mass of rent seeking monopolies that now count on state funds for their sustenance.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  > Now I know national textbooks are a bit much We have an enormous federal Dpt. of Ed. but we don't have no-cost, open source curriculae, textbooks, school operations software etc. That's a damn shame. That kind of resource could transform education in non-affluent school districts.
jcoffland 11y ago
Employees generally don't get paid during a strike.
- the-dude 11y ago
  Unions generally have a fund for this.
  - coredog64 11y ago
    One might also expect the union to negotiate a signing bonus (as it were) for the members who missed out on pay during the strike. SPEEA did that during at least one Boeing strike.
- etjossem 11y ago
  They don't get paid by their employer, correct. To cover costs, the union backing them will typically issue strike pay. But the project doesn't make any progress until they're back to work, and labor costs may be higher after negotiation. That's why parent commenter was surprised that France - a country with strong labor unions that strike often - still has lower per-mile infrastructure costs than the United States.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
urbanhat 11y ago
I agree, and I suspect the union problem is a symptom of the rigid procurement rules. Only a few contractors know how to navigate the system, and so the market is not really "contestable." Even though it's the private sector, unions retain bargaining power. Also, with major urban projects there's usually political pressure from the local community to use local union labor. That might make it into contracts even if it's not a locally managed project. Again, the underlying problem is not unions, but excessive localism.
humanrebar 11y ago
> The first candidate I'd propose for the top slot is diffusion of responsibility stemming from a US obsession with localism If it were only localism, there would be localities that were fantastic at investing in their own infrastructure. Responsibilities, even funding local schools, have been nationalizing slowly over the years without an explicit change in the U.S. Constitution. So the national government has to 'hack' the system with grants and taxes to indirectly get national policies enacted. It's a corruption of the system to work around the Constitutional protection of federalism. One solution would be to amend the Constitution to make things like education national policy once and for all. Another would be for the national government to leave things like building roads and funding schools to the local governments.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  If a transportation system crosses more than one jurisdiction than it doesn't really matter if some localities are fantastic at investing in their own infrastructure. It is inherently a problem that can be solved optimally only at a different level. It might be possible to design a system such that metro areas are always a single jurisdiction, but given that such areas grow and shrink over time it wouldn't be easy. I don't think that "corruption of the system" is a cause in and of itself of the high cost of infrastructure construction or repair. Whether or not the Constitution would need to be changed, that's an implementation detail. First we need to figure out if diffusion of responsibility is actually a major problem (as I suggest), then get widespread agreement that that is the case, only then should we start worrying about what legal barters may or may not be in the way of mitigation strategies.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  >> One solution would be to amend the Constitution Err. That's probably a tall order.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Maybe. It used to be amended every 10-20 years, depending on how you count. It has been 25-40 years (again, depending on how you count) since the last successful amendment attempt. I think that, to some degree, the amendment process has been abandoned because people think the government can hack around it with good results. I think it's worth considering that this sort of corruption is a side effect of that approach versus the cleaner debate-and-amend process that the U.S. practiced historically. I think the U.S. government will be ultimately doomed if the U.S. can't figure out a way to amend the Constitution again. All sorts of new wrinkles have popped up since the early 90s and we have abandoned the process for democratically deciding how to deal with them. It really erodes the legitimacy of the process.
thatfrenchguy 11y ago
France has a long history of making good infrastructure (TGV anyone ?) so there's that. Also, more vacation (5+ weeks) + better health care -> more productive workers, especially in physical labor work.
cptskippy 10y ago
My wife manages large scale remediation projects and says that on average a government contract costs approximately twice what a non-government contract would due to time, not materials cost. All contracts have to be proposed with estimates, awarded, negotiated, revised, and re-proposed. Everything has to be approved and the lead times for going into the field or requisitioning materials is counted in months, not weeks or days. All contract project managers have a corresponding Government assigned project manager who must approve everything. She said procurement rules are onerous and have fun restrictions like "all materials must be sourced from the USA unless unavailable" that add to the time needed to find and vet sources. Because of all this, the government typically awards contracts to companies it has worked with previously and not necessarily the lowest bidders. The contractors almost always subcontract out everything except management. It's also not uncommon when the government has to award a contract to new contractor, they will also contract with a familiar firm for PMs to manage the new contractor. So maybe a little bit of your first candidate and less of the second?

rtpg 11y ago

I was talking to somebody about how education ends up being so expensive in the US, and I kind of feel like there are similar reasons. Subcontracting out work + massive federalism creates $200 textbooks. Now I know national textbooks are a bit much, but I would be interested in seeing a state completely co-opt the textbook creation process and produce some textbooks and learning material at cost. As for the budget distribution, this pretty much happens in other places too. My French school's expansion was half funded by the ministry of industry, some by the region, some by the national government... I think that's a side effect of how budgeting works.

random28345 11y ago
> Subcontracting out work + massive federalism I think you meant massive anti-federalism. If we had a federal procurement system for math and english textbooks, after being put out for a nationwide bid, the per-unit cost would be about 10% over the cost of paper and printing. (the 10% premium is the bid adjustment for a women or minority owned business) Now $8 textbooks wouldn't save a lot of money compared to the national education budget, but it would be a good start. And do we really need regional variations in math textbooks?
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  The only reason I know of for different textbooks for different states is that some states seem to want to push a religious agenda in their education system. I struggle to find any net negatives here except for religious fundamentalists and textbook printers.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > The only reason I know of for different textbooks for different states is that some states seem to want to push a religious agenda Until the federal government starts pushing a religious agenda. Then everyone here would want textbooks from, say, California.
  - todd8 11y ago
    This can't be the whole story. Consider math books. Publishers have coordinated math curriculums, perhaps a dozen different ones used across the country. I feel that the people picking these books are persuaded by the different book publishers to buy expensive, colorful math books that fundamentally are inferior to simpler, less costly math curriculum/books, like the math program and books used in Singapore (which are in English).
    - LrnByTeach 11y ago
      CommonCore is the Solution to these 20 different MATH text books across USA. 40 States are onborad with CommonCore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative#Adoption_and_implementation_of_Common_Core_State_Standards_by_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_In... This gives the WHOLE Sotry .. How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulle...
  - mason240 11y ago
    The only reason I know of for everyone using the same textbooks nationally is that some people seem to want to push an agenda in their education system, and see that as tool for doing so.
joe_the_user 11y ago
Subcontracting out work + massive federalism creates $200 textbooks. Now I know national textbooks are a bit much, but I would be interested in seeing a state completely co-opt the textbook creation process and produce some textbooks and learning material at cost. The ultimate cause is regulator capture. A series of large companies extract massive rent through their ability to direct state funds into their coffers. If the US as it exists now tried a Federal textbook, those would cost $200 again at the very least and would be put together by all the major textbook companies combined (unless one of managed a clever end-run). We see this in military contracting for example. The capture is probably strongest at the State and Federal level just because centralization is easiest but these hand-down regulations that force the hand of local authorities - not controlling them entirely but preventing any tactics that cut-out the mass of rent seeking monopolies that now count on state funds for their sustenance.
Zigurd 10y ago
> Now I know national textbooks are a bit much We have an enormous federal Dpt. of Ed. but we don't have no-cost, open source curriculae, textbooks, school operations software etc. That's a damn shame. That kind of resource could transform education in non-affluent school districts.

jcoffland 11y ago

Employees generally don't get paid during a strike.

the-dude 11y ago
Unions generally have a fund for this.
- coredog64 11y ago
  One might also expect the union to negotiate a signing bonus (as it were) for the members who missed out on pay during the strike. SPEEA did that during at least one Boeing strike.
etjossem 11y ago
They don't get paid by their employer, correct. To cover costs, the union backing them will typically issue strike pay. But the project doesn't make any progress until they're back to work, and labor costs may be higher after negotiation. That's why parent commenter was surprised that France - a country with strong labor unions that strike often - still has lower per-mile infrastructure costs than the United States.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

urbanhat 11y ago

I agree, and I suspect the union problem is a symptom of the rigid procurement rules. Only a few contractors know how to navigate the system, and so the market is not really "contestable." Even though it's the private sector, unions retain bargaining power. Also, with major urban projects there's usually political pressure from the local community to use local union labor. That might make it into contracts even if it's not a locally managed project. Again, the underlying problem is not unions, but excessive localism.

humanrebar 11y ago

> The first candidate I'd propose for the top slot is diffusion of responsibility stemming from a US obsession with localism If it were only localism, there would be localities that were fantastic at investing in their own infrastructure. Responsibilities, even funding local schools, have been nationalizing slowly over the years without an explicit change in the U.S. Constitution. So the national government has to 'hack' the system with grants and taxes to indirectly get national policies enacted. It's a corruption of the system to work around the Constitutional protection of federalism. One solution would be to amend the Constitution to make things like education national policy once and for all. Another would be for the national government to leave things like building roads and funding schools to the local governments.

bradleyjg 11y ago
If a transportation system crosses more than one jurisdiction than it doesn't really matter if some localities are fantastic at investing in their own infrastructure. It is inherently a problem that can be solved optimally only at a different level. It might be possible to design a system such that metro areas are always a single jurisdiction, but given that such areas grow and shrink over time it wouldn't be easy. I don't think that "corruption of the system" is a cause in and of itself of the high cost of infrastructure construction or repair. Whether or not the Constitution would need to be changed, that's an implementation detail. First we need to figure out if diffusion of responsibility is actually a major problem (as I suggest), then get widespread agreement that that is the case, only then should we start worrying about what legal barters may or may not be in the way of mitigation strategies.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
>> One solution would be to amend the Constitution Err. That's probably a tall order.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Maybe. It used to be amended every 10-20 years, depending on how you count. It has been 25-40 years (again, depending on how you count) since the last successful amendment attempt. I think that, to some degree, the amendment process has been abandoned because people think the government can hack around it with good results. I think it's worth considering that this sort of corruption is a side effect of that approach versus the cleaner debate-and-amend process that the U.S. practiced historically. I think the U.S. government will be ultimately doomed if the U.S. can't figure out a way to amend the Constitution again. All sorts of new wrinkles have popped up since the early 90s and we have abandoned the process for democratically deciding how to deal with them. It really erodes the legitimacy of the process.

thatfrenchguy 11y ago

France has a long history of making good infrastructure (TGV anyone ?) so there's that. Also, more vacation (5+ weeks) + better health care -> more productive workers, especially in physical labor work.

cptskippy 10y ago

My wife manages large scale remediation projects and says that on average a government contract costs approximately twice what a non-government contract would due to time, not materials cost. All contracts have to be proposed with estimates, awarded, negotiated, revised, and re-proposed. Everything has to be approved and the lead times for going into the field or requisitioning materials is counted in months, not weeks or days. All contract project managers have a corresponding Government assigned project manager who must approve everything. She said procurement rules are onerous and have fun restrictions like "all materials must be sourced from the USA unless unavailable" that add to the time needed to find and vet sources. Because of all this, the government typically awards contracts to companies it has worked with previously and not necessarily the lowest bidders. The contractors almost always subcontract out everything except management. It's also not uncommon when the government has to award a contract to new contractor, they will also contract with a familiar firm for PMs to manage the new contractor. So maybe a little bit of your first candidate and less of the second?