4 ms·
Is Boeing a reasonable company to consider nationalizing? Genuinely curious -- it seems like it's in our interest to ensure that Boeing is around, that they ar
by Pfhreak 7y ago
Is Boeing a reasonable company to consider nationalizing?
Genuinely curious -- it seems like it's in our interest to ensure that Boeing is around, that they are sustainable, that workers continue to view Boeing as a good job, that they have the right motivations of safety vs profit, etc.
- Alupis 7y agoI don't see how making the US Federal Government get involved in running an airplane manufacturer would re-align those any of those interests.
- duncanawoods 7y agoAvoid the sick moral hazard of privatised profits but socialised losses.
- Alupis 7y agoIt's a tired example, but I've yet to meet the DMV or USPS employee that just wants to excel at every aspect of their work.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoAgreeed, the way Boeing management exceeded itself will go down in history. The issues at play here affect top level management and their incentives, but let's talk about USPS deliveryman.
- peteradio 7y agoI've never encountered this stereotype. USPS and DMV always just work wherever I've lived.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- duncanawoods 7y agoNavy Seals are government employees and call centers with staff-turnover measured in days are private. Employee motivation does not depend on the ownership structure but their work, treatment and reward.
- Alupis 7y agoAre you advocating pushups and multi-mile ruck-marches as punishment for not meeting production goals at USPS? Or rigorous try-out testing including sitting in 50*F water all night without sleeping for the guy at DMV that hands you a number? Comparing government workers that rarely can be fired with specially motivated unique individuals is far from fair.
- qtplatypus 7y agoI have worked in both the government and private sector. I’ve met people who are driven to excel and people who are do the bare minimum. Being publicly or privately funded doesn’t matter, what matters is how interesting the job is and the personally of the person.
- zo1 7y agoAnd from the free-market perspective on government entities: Socialized expenses but privatized profits (via corruption, etc).
- codingslave 7y agoNo, because the people at the top of Boeing produced unsafe airplanes that were more profitable for them. The company makes a ton of money, but some VP at Boeing probably got a huge bonus to produce the 737 max cheaper. This company needs to be put through the wrath and scrutiny of the public markets
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoI can't think of any examples where 'scrutiny of public markets' caused positive change I would the company, can you? I have seen 'wrath' of the public markets causing the company to collapse. But here that's highly undesirable, hence I see the OP's question as quite reasonable.
- codingslave 7y agoI think the people who called the shots of the 737 MAX plane should be put on trial for murder.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoI agree, but I feel that's a distinct and separate issue to the original question by the OP. I feel the markets work in a darwinian manner, and as soon as we cant allow the company to fail, they stop working well.
- codingslave 7y agoIf the company is producing dangerous planes to create more profit, they should be shutdown. If the money is there, they will be replaced by another company, thats how capitalism works. If Boeing doesn't fail, then we end up with mediocrity. Theres so much capital floating around, investors are dying for profitable returns. The absence of Boeing would be welcomed by startups. We have been building safe planes for 30 years now, its no longer novel. This isnt rocket science, its well understood.
- 7y ago
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoAirspace is an industry with a high level of government involvement. Airbus was created as a government initiative and Chinese and Russian national manufacturers are state owned. I would not rule anything out.