5 ms·
It’s done because private industry in most circumstances, does it better than government can, and at the end of the day it can be significantly cheaper and less
by spaginal 7y ago
It’s done because private industry in most circumstances, does it better than government can, and at the end of the day it can be significantly cheaper and less of a boondoggle than if government did it all themselves as government likes to do.
Think of the professional experience, supply chain, and logistics for each industry where you could theoretically involve government to control or produce on it’s own.
The error of rolling everything possible under the sun into a government department, like sign laying, is you get a sign placer sitting around making a unionized $60k-$90k/year (for a $35k-$40k/year actual job), with a massive retirement pension that you will continue to pay for forever, a huge tax bill to cover the storage of all of these signs that the government has sitting around on a dirt lot somewhere, because they have zero incentive to rent them out and make money on them while not in use, and crumbling infastructure when the entire cost of the government does all attitude sucks the tax base and economy dry.
United Rentals, as a private company, has a vested interest in running their company efficiently, renting out a maximimum share of their inventory for the most profit, and their profit derived from this is not immoral behavior because it saves all of us money at the end of the day and employs a lot of people along the way. This is one more thing we won’t have to worry about the government screwing up as tax payers.
Now, let’s say a senator wrote a convoluted law that made it so only United Rentals can supply signs for government projects, cost be damned. That’s a more valid argument for moving it under government control if there is corruption and rent seeking behavior going on.
- romwell 7y ago>you get a sign placer sitting around making a unionized $60k-$90k/year (for a $35k-$40k/year actual job) >United Rentals, as a private company, has a vested interest in running their company efficiently Indeed! So instead of the above, you get a non-unionized Joe the Sign Placer getting $25K/year for actual job (efficiency!), and Bob the CEO/Shareholder netting $25M/year of the difference. The government doesn't spend any less though, because: 1)Bob is the only game in town (at least as far as govt. contracts are concerned) 2)Bob pays the government for it to continue that way >Now, let’s say a senator wrote a convoluted law that made it so only United Rentals can supply signs for government projects, cost be damned. That’s a more valid argument for moving it under government control if there is corruption and rent seeking behavior going on. My only nitpick for this would be replacing "if" with "because".
- Faark 7y ago> It’s done because private industry in most circumstances, does it better than government can, and at the end of the day it can be significantly cheaper and less of a boondoggle than if government did it all themselves as government likes to do. But we have to keep in mind the only way to have citizens reap the benefits from this efficiency is by competition of the services offered. If for any reason competition cannot arise, outsourcing the task away from gov makes little difference while giving away a lot of the control/accountability we had.
- JohnFen 7y ago> It’s done because private industry in most circumstances, does it better than government can I hear this often, but I haven't seen very many examples of it in practice. But it depends on what, exactly is being privatized.