3 ms·
>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 i
by romwell 8y 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".