4 ms·
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense s
by synaesthesisx 7y ago
Exactly. The real question is - why do the chemicals cost $400,000? This seems to be a recurring theme with U.S. expenditure - particularly within the defense sector. When you get nearly blank checks from the government it’s not uncommon for items to be “marked up” so to speak and the difference pocketed by the vendors. Granted, this kind of stuff is pervasive across all sectors/layers.
“[A] McKinsey “business analyst”—someone with an undergraduate degree and no experience—lent to the government priced out at $56,707/week, or $2,948,764/year.”
- jngreenlee 7y agoWhy did you have to bring politics into this (Buttlegug)?
- crocodiletears 7y agoYou can throw shade at a consultancy without necessarily referring to one of their alumni. McKinsey was a major player in the field long before Buttigieg was an ultrasound.
- ornornor 7y ago> $56,707/week, or $2,948,764/year. I picked the wrong job.
- chii 7y agothey are paid a pittance of a salary compared to their charged. McKensey is pocketing the difference.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoIt also goes back into wining and dining the very clients they are charging, and otherwise bribing whoever they need to get the work.
- zdragnar 7y agoThe amount of red tape involved in working with the government- especially anything related to defense- is astounding. I previously worked with a start up whose contacts in the military genuinely wanted to buy our services, but the process to do so was so long that the company ended up pivoting to focus exclusively on the commercial market. It was a less ideal fit, but it actually paid. Take: One part slow bureaucracy One part nepotism One part jealousy of internal teams One part good intentions (regulations to prevent said nepotism) And you get a cluster of inexcusable outcomes. The company seriously considered hiring a consulting firm whose sole business was helping other businesses land government contracts. The fact that the system is so inefficient that that kind of arbitrage opportunity exists is depressing. The only companies that can possibly win government contracts here are those that are huge, with tons of staff dedicated to winning government contracts. The end result is they can charge the moon and the sky, not because they do what they do better than anyone else, but because they are just as bloated and inefficient as the government itself and can survive the process of winning the contract in the first place.
- prox 7y agoI wonder if thats one of the reasons, in this case the acid, is so expensive. You have to add all of the logistical and bureaucracy costs.
- metabagel 7y agoOne solution is to be acquired by a defense contractor. A company which I worked for went that route.
- christophilus 7y agoI worked for a government contractor for a little over two weeks once. (I gave my 2 weeks notice almost right away.) It’s hard to express how wasteful and broken this process is. When I realized that I wouldn’t actually be doing anything useful for the first two months of my job, I just quit. No way could I do that kind of “work” day in and day out.
- vsareto 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Rebelgecko 7y agoMy guess is that the cost of the raw chemicals is a small part of the $400,000. If there's 500 toilets on board that's $800 per toilet. What is probably much more expensive is safely transporting the chemicals in massive amounts, storing them, inspecting all the pipes after the treatment, and safely disposing of the chemicals. The GAO report doesn't say what they're using. I wouldn't even be that surprised if the acid flush was actually done with a base like Drano/lye