3 ms·

And minor addition as to why contractors are valuable -- you only pay them when they're there, and can terminate them when they're not needed. Granted, this ca

by ethbr0 5y ago

And minor addition as to why contractors are valuable -- you only pay them when they're there, and can terminate them when they're not needed. Granted, this can be mismanaged (omnipresent contractors on infinitely extended contracts), but the general principle is that it's sometimes cheaper to pay $600/hr and $60/part, than have to pay for (1) recruiting, (2) training, (3) sustainment, (4) pension, & (5) inventory warehousing and management.

worik 5y ago
Thereby incentivise your contractors to let things fail. Contractors only get paid if things fail, if they are on salary and on staff they are incentivised for things not to fail.
mcguire 5y ago
Speaking as a current government contractor, this is not how government contracts work. On the individual level, someone would have to work very hard, or be seriously disliked, to be terminated. In particular, when an old prime contractor loses a contract, the new prime contractor attempts to hire all of the individual workers from the old contractor, and generally succeeds. (It kind of makes sense; the work will likely remain the same, and the workers are the only ones who know what that is.) Second, the government is often paying the $600/hr not because it's cheaper or more flexible, but instead to insure that there is a national market for, say, aerospace engineers. (Without defense contracts, the number of aerospace engineering positions in the country would likely be in the three digits, not the five digits.) The government is paying for recruiting, training, sustainment, pensions, and inventory management anyway.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Well, talking about a range here. Presumably the government isn't privatizing janitorial services to maintain a national market for janitorial engineers. ;) And I guess that's the rub. There's places where it does make sense and places where it doesn't. Unfortunately, where it gets used and where it doesn't is ultimately a political process.

by ethbr0 5y ago

worik 5y ago

Thereby incentivise your contractors to let things fail. Contractors only get paid if things fail, if they are on salary and on staff they are incentivised for things not to fail.

mcguire 5y ago

Speaking as a current government contractor, this is not how government contracts work. On the individual level, someone would have to work very hard, or be seriously disliked, to be terminated. In particular, when an old prime contractor loses a contract, the new prime contractor attempts to hire all of the individual workers from the old contractor, and generally succeeds. (It kind of makes sense; the work will likely remain the same, and the workers are the only ones who know what that is.) Second, the government is often paying the $600/hr not because it's cheaper or more flexible, but instead to insure that there is a national market for, say, aerospace engineers. (Without defense contracts, the number of aerospace engineering positions in the country would likely be in the three digits, not the five digits.) The government is paying for recruiting, training, sustainment, pensions, and inventory management anyway.

ethbr0 5y ago
Well, talking about a range here. Presumably the government isn't privatizing janitorial services to maintain a national market for janitorial engineers. ;) And I guess that's the rub. There's places where it does make sense and places where it doesn't. Unfortunately, where it gets used and where it doesn't is ultimately a political process.