3 ms·

Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. > the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse

by xyzzyz 5y ago

Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. > the incentives to imprison more people are so perverse that I would anticipate the price would catch up, But it’s the state that’s imprisoning people, not private prisons. Private prisons cannot catch, prosecute, sentence and institutionalize people at tax payer dime any more than construction companies can build road and bridges on their own initiative while paid by the state. When government contracts bridge construction to a private company, are you also worried that said company will build 10 extra unnecessary bridges and charge government for them?

emodendroket 5y ago
> Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met, and lobby lawmakers to put more people in prison for committing petty crimes. So really it's nothing like your absurdist scenario.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. > At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met Sure, because otherwise they’d never commit to run the prison in the first place. Starting and maintaining prison operation is expensive, so if government does not commit to buying some level of service, you’re risking a lot of money. Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you?
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    > The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. Medicare is a blindingly obvious one. Trains. The postal service. Can you actually cite a real example of the private alternative saving money, especially one that didn't involve drastically cutting services? I also don't think it's "safe to assume" that Yale does much different from the University of Kansas except let you go to school with the kind of people who attend Yale. > This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. No, that is not logically expected, because the entire concept of "profit" is collecting extra money on top of the cost to actually render the service. > Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you? That doesn't really solve the problem; your incentive is still to get there to be so many inmates that there's no choice but to fund a new facility.
    - pdpi 5y ago
      > No, that is not logically expected, because the entire concept of "profit" is collecting extra money on top of the cost to actually render the service. In an ideal world, you are more efficient at the service you provide than the general population, and the profit comes largely from that efficiency reducing costs. (Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world)

by xyzzyz 5y ago

emodendroket 5y ago

> Of course it’s cheaper, this is a general pattern of government-ran vs. for-profit ran services in US. I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met, and lobby lawmakers to put more people in prison for committing petty crimes. So really it's nothing like your absurdist scenario.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> I do not believe this to be so and it runs counter to what I would logically expect. The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. > At any rate, prison companies do things like write prisoner quotas into contracts, with penalties if the quota is not met Sure, because otherwise they’d never commit to run the prison in the first place. Starting and maintaining prison operation is expensive, so if government does not commit to buying some level of service, you’re risking a lot of money. Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you?
- emodendroket 5y ago
  > The only counterexample I can think of is elite private schools, which do cost more than public universities, but I think that it’s safe to assume that Yale provides rather different kind of service than University of Kansas. But, if you think that government-ran enterprises in US are cheaper than for-profit ones, I’m eager to hear some examples. Medicare is a blindingly obvious one. Trains. The postal service. Can you actually cite a real example of the private alternative saving money, especially one that didn't involve drastically cutting services? I also don't think it's "safe to assume" that Yale does much different from the University of Kansas except let you go to school with the kind of people who attend Yale. > This pattern is also logically expected: for profit companies are incentivized to keep costs low, while government ones much less so. It’s not like citizen can easily choose to change the government they are signed up with for a cheaper, better run one. No, that is not logically expected, because the entire concept of "profit" is collecting extra money on top of the cost to actually render the service. > Imagine an alternative scheme, where government agrees to buy 1000 prisoner-years worth of capacity, and then is free to send as many prisoners as it wants between 0 and 1000. There is no prisoner quota, prison company is paid exactly the same amount regardless of whether it houses 100 or 1000 inmates. Would that arrangement be more acceptable to you? That doesn't really solve the problem; your incentive is still to get there to be so many inmates that there's no choice but to fund a new facility.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    > No, that is not logically expected, because the entire concept of "profit" is collecting extra money on top of the cost to actually render the service. In an ideal world, you are more efficient at the service you provide than the general population, and the profit comes largely from that efficiency reducing costs. (Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world)