4 ms·

There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public. The underlying economics of delivering water or transportation don't change because of ownershi

There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public. The underlying economics of delivering water or transportation don't change because of ownership. It's just that inequality manifests itself differently. I actually skimmed through the report. Example after example shows how poor people are gouged by fees piling up, onerous interest rates and so forth. That has nothing to with privatization - there are just as many examples of public sector asset forfeitures. Most cities and municipalities have huge budget deficits - primarily due to excessive labor and pension costs. As a result, services have to be cut or rationed. In a public ownership setting, services just happen to be cut where they are least politically problematic. Private ownership, faced with the same problem, might cut services as well as raise prices. Citizens expect services, and don't want to pay too much for it. Funding solutions typically lie with those that don't have political voices, and those that can't just get up and leave.

pdkl95 10y ago
> There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public. While implementations can be a problem in any system, private business has an additional expense: profit for the owners. Labor and production costs will be roughly similar, but private will always have some amount of the money diverted to profits (which can take many forms). Worse, because many of these services (e.g. water) are a natural monopoly, privatizing the service won't gain any benefit from competition. > primarily due to excessive labor and pension costs This is a common talking point that isn't based in reality. We've been cutting services for a long time, while also cutting revenue. If corporations actually paid proper taxes and/or we taxed wealth-creation properly as income, then most budget deficits would disappear. > raise prices That's the point; governments can do the equivalent by increasing taxes. Unfortunately, most people panic at the very idea.

pdkl95 10y ago

> There is inequality in city-services, whether private or public. While implementations can be a problem in any system, private business has an additional expense: profit for the owners. Labor and production costs will be roughly similar, but private will always have some amount of the money diverted to profits (which can take many forms). Worse, because many of these services (e.g. water) are a natural monopoly, privatizing the service won't gain any benefit from competition. > primarily due to excessive labor and pension costs This is a common talking point that isn't based in reality. We've been cutting services for a long time, while also cutting revenue. If corporations actually paid proper taxes and/or we taxed wealth-creation properly as income, then most budget deficits would disappear. > raise prices That's the point; governments can do the equivalent by increasing taxes. Unfortunately, most people panic at the very idea.