5 ms·
We don’t even have to zoom in on Europe. In the US, it’s quite common for folks to expect public services (like public transit or even the USPS) to be profitabl
by noahtallen 4y ago
We don’t even have to zoom in on Europe. In the US, it’s quite common for folks to expect public services (like public transit or even the USPS) to be profitable. Which means these services don’t get the investment they really need.
- userabchn 4y agoIf it was providing a service of as much value as was being spent on it, then why shouldn't it be profitable?
- dragonwriter 4y ago> If it was providing a service of as much value as was being spent on it, then why shouldn't it be profitable? The entire point of a public service is that benefits accrue to people other than the direct consumers of the service.
- orev 4y agoHaving a profit motive drives a behavior of raising prices as high as the market will bear. That inherently excludes citizens who cannot afford to pay the “most efficient” price, who are often the ones who need the service the most (e.g. busses and other public transport). That reduces the ability for society to operate as a whole. If someone can’t afford to get to school, or to an entry-level job, how will they ever be able to move up in skills and pay? Who will the high-end electronic store sell their products to if people can’t afford them? Municipal services are meant to serve as many citizens as possible, not to extract as much profit as possible, because it’s an overall benefit to everyone.
- feet 4y agoPublic services are profitable. You just need to look at the systemic effects of having the services available instead of just dollar signs Just looking at money is incredibly short sighted and naïve
- tomcam 4y agoWhat percentage of US taxpayer money should go to subsidize money-losing services?
- xboxnolifes 4y agoAs much as necessary.
- dragonwriter 4y agoAn amount equal to the external utility of the services.