9 ms·
This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA.
by cushychicken 3y ago
This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA.
Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container.
The government isn't just paying for the trash can.
They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product.
The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced. Development costs for that can are probably not dissimilar from those in this example, as far as paying for human time and effort to make the thing reality.
The problematic element of it is when companies charge these sorts of absurd fees for a design that was produced decades ago (the E-3 is not a new aircraft by any means) and not adding meaningful value on top of it.
It's a pretty interesting tradeoff. Should we pay outrageous amounts of money for stuff like this? It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries. It also creates handy design and manufacturing know how, which is a useful thing to have if our current cold war with China ever heats up in the South China Sea. It's a lot harder to buy war materiel from your adversary when lead is flying.
- Lolaccount 3y agoIf that's right, why don't they clarify it and call the excess spend a 'grant'? At least it's then clear and people can decide on whether that grant is value for money or not. The thing appears ludicrous.
- markus_zhang 3y agoI mean seriously, you really believe this?
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey’re buying four trash cans at a time via a process that can take months of paperwork by the contractor. It’s simply not designed for such low volume scenarios. It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em. The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
- danhor 3y agoBad example, JLCPCB will do PCBA for just a few dollars.
- cushychicken 3y ago...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.
- throwaway290 3y agoEvery single trashcan shipped from China for military purpose in US would have to be pulled apart, inspected down to nanolevel and then put back together. That would not be just a few dollars... Edit: Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks. And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things up in some costly way? By definition any such trashcan is ripe for targeted attack because no one except US defence would have a use for it.
- pixl97 3y agoThe point actually is, if we are shooting at China for one reason or another we would be getting zero trash cans from them.
- aeyes 3y agoYou can't be serious. Buy a plastic trashcan, use a generic metal scanner and an X-Ray and you are done. If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.
- hef19898 3y agoJust don't put it on an aircraft then. Funny, HN was up in arms over Titan's use of a logitech controller just a few days ago. But somehow using something from best buy on a freaking expensive plane like an E-3 is a good idea. Well, folks, that way of thinking actually sank the Titan and cost five lives.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cannonpalms 3y agoWhat specifically do you find to be untrue?
- cushychicken 3y agoI'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.
- veave 3y agoCorruption?
- throwaway290 3y agoIf you analyze how much the product and all associated processes can actually cost and then find a discrepancy (or find some pointless regulation that drives up the cost so much and explain how it was designed for profit and not purpose) then you can claim corruption. But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive. If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.
- mda 3y ago"But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive." Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.
- throwaway290 3y agoThis is the money quote you can use to argue this is actually corruption: > When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.
- hef19898 3y agoSingle source supplier tend to have incresible bargaining power. And 50k per E-3 propably isn't even worth mentioning for everyone involved. Peanuts, actually.
- throw_m239339 3y agoNo they don't... they are playing the devil's advocate I think or being sarcastic. This is just plain corruption and fraud but it's legal because defense sector...
- cushychicken 3y agoHow about you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think. Because what I think is not what you claim.
- throw_m239339 3y agoI was being sarcastic, I thought it was obvious. I'm not sarcastic on the fact that it is plain corruption though, it is. You defending corruption and fraud is just so far fetched it's hard to take your OP seriously.
- jollyllama 3y agoIt's surprising to see people carrying water for the MIC in this way. Boeing already has the machines to make these kinds of things. It's just going to be sheet metal and plastic molds. Even assuming a one-off custom-fab job, $52k is obscene.
- crote 3y agoThe plane was introduced nearly 70 years ago. Why would they keep around obsolete machines for which the last plane left the factory literally decades ago?
- jollyllama 3y agoThat's my point, you don't need specialty machines to make trash cans; it's going to be the same types of sheet metal benders that are used for other simple fixtures.
- hef19898 3y agoStuff for old models, like the E-3, is even more expensive. Obsolescence, tooling no longer available... A similar sotuation happens with spares for classic cars. Try getting rubber and plastic parts some old car models, same story: Lost tooling, low demand. For aircraft you have to recertify production and parts. All of that is actually quite expensive. Edit: Since the article mentions circuits and such: The alternative to paying through the nose for spares for obsolete systems and parts is a new development. In which case price, and lead times, increase even more. And now contractors are obviously abusong that situation, but parts of those high prices can be explained by the fact that a lot of current, top notch, military hear is running on old, commercially sometimes even obsolete tech.
- cushychicken 3y agoPlayed that game before myself. It's really, really hard! And it costs a lot of human effort and time to do right.
- bombcar 3y agoOften you can't get the original part, so you have to hire someone to take standard rubber and mold it into what you need, which can be more or less expensive depending on the use.
- hef19898 3y agoAnd now imagine that the person doing that work has to be certified according to aerospace standards... And believe me, that happens all the time...
- sidewndr46 3y agoYeah from what I understand the Pentagon was going to retire the A-10 at some point due to airframe hours. Instead they just paid another company to build new wings for it. Although they obviously had to be similar to the original ones, the new wings were basically a totally separate R&D effort followed by a manufacturing contract for them.
- batch12 3y agoI think I can deliver a trashcan that matches specs for a mere 40k.
- cushychicken 3y agoI encourage you to submit a coubterproposal! I'm sure you'd learn a ton about plane based trash cans.
- scotty79 3y agoAnd about how fake all the documentation is and about mob-like web of people involved in all of this.
- jtbayly 3y agoThis is the buried lede in the article. "As the Government Accountability Office recently reported, nearly 20,000 small businesses have bowed out of military contracting in the past decade, creating further opportunities for price hikes." Why did 43% of the small businesses that used to do business with the government stop? And what has happened since 2020? I know multiple small manufacturing businesses that would never consider accepting a government contract. One of the many reasons is the way the government force its contractors all the way down to the lowest levels (contractors of contractors of the big 5 gov contractors) to follow a million nonsense Covid rules. I suspect the number of small businesses willing to work for the government has dropped even more in the last three years.
- Symmetry 3y agoIf you're not already in the business then hiring the talent to submit a conforming bid for the contract to deliver the trashcan will run you more than $40k.
- kossTKR 3y agoIs this comment a joke?
- dale_glass 3y agoWhy would it be? Making even consumer products is much harder than it seems. Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver. Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of requirements like "this can't break into sharp shards" and "it can't emit toxic smoke if it burns", and they'll want that to be proven. Certifying all those things is a whole job on its own.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cushychicken 3y agoExcellent corollary example. Making real, physical goods is very, very challenging, and I don't think a lot of the denizens of this site (as SWEs) appreciate that.
- mda 3y agoIMO, the claimed price is never to cover these so called "testing for requirements", It is a random / maximum amount they can charge basically. Sure they could give you a nice explanation that looks nice on paper, but it is rarely true. It is always the smoke and mirrors bullshit that happens for government contracts.
- ilyt 3y ago> Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. ....coz they are making 50k of a thing. Not four a year.
- dale_glass 3y ago
- goodoldneon 3y ago“Military spending is good for the economy” is basically the same as the broken window fallacy. There’s a massive opportunity cost
- cushychicken 3y agoThere's also massive benefits which are hard to directly measure. Doing advanced, completely unprofitable basic research, for one thing. These are the sorts of projects that spawned GPS, the Internet, and IC manufacturing. Wasn't super profitable at the time of conception, but the military doesn't care. They need capability, irrespective of price. All of these technologies are now keystones of numerous gigantic American companies with billion dollar plus valuations. Building up US based scientific and manufacturing know-how, for another. Plenty of people take the skills they learn at Raytheon or an FFRDC and use them to start profitable small businesses, which in turn employ more people and generate more tax revenue. Not that I expect many people reading this to care about that. "Military spending bad" is too easy and convenient a slogan. It doesn't solve every problem - there are a shitload of people in America receiving inadequate education, nutrition, and healthcare, for example. But it certainly helps keep a lot of Americans employed and paying their mortgages, which is a non-trivial benefit.
- roenxi 3y agoThe US is at risk of being out-competed by nominal communists and practical authoritarians. They've already been knocked down to 2nd biggest economy adjusted for PPP and US government spending appears to be in a death-debt spiral where it pays for itself with donations from foreigners. The real burden of that is probably going to land on the middle class sometime soon and cause political hiccups that go beyond mere Trumpism. Spending $50k on a trash can is unlikely to lead to the sort of benefits that are required. Better than unemployment benefits for nothing, maybe. The opportunity costs and time wasted on bureaucracy put even that optimistic spin in doubt. Basic research doesn't need 3% of GDP spent on overinflated contracts. It can't be helping the situation.
- xxpor 3y ago
- scotty79 3y ago> It keeps people employed, ... What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?
- koolba 3y agoAre we counting tips for the masseuse when the CEO goes to the spa?
- cushychicken 3y ago[flagged]
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoWhy don't you ask Boeing why exactly they need to charge $50k per trash can, before justifying them with an imaginary explanation of how their economy works?
- cushychicken 3y ago[flagged]
- Symmetry 3y agoMost of it, probably. These sort of contracts operate on a cost plus basis where the profit margin that Boeing takes home is fixed ahead of time. I hear from people doing software for defense contractors that they spend a lot of time being bored not doing anything productive, but by collecting their salaries they increase the cost of the software, which is the only way for the defense contractor to increase its profit.
- cushychicken 3y agoThis commenter understands how contracts work. I'll direct all the righteously indignant folks claiming "corruption" to you from now on. XD
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoExplain then how Boeing managed to stay afloat when it was forced to charge "only" $300 per trash can.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThey had to diversify into non-trash cans.
- giaour 3y ago$300 probably represents the amortized proportional cost of the original design, certification, and manufacturing run. $50K for a crash can is absurd, but $200K to spin up a production facility and get the output certified to whatever aviation safety standards apply to trash cans sounds about right.
- smallerfish 3y agoThey don't need to spin up a production facility for a run of four trash cans. I guarantee there are ad hoc metal shops aplenty. Cut some sheet metal on the CNC, run it through a folder-thingy, rivet/weld it up, add some hinge hardware. You're talking one guy and 2-4 days, including the CAD work.
- hef19898 3y agoSure. And all of this needs to be peoperly certified, to whatever standard the E-3 was certified against, in order to be mounted on the plane. Your comment tells me you were never involved in any of this. Alternative: Those trash cans set in stock somewhere, the 300 buck price guarantee ran out, and the alternative was to not fly or develop new cans. Well, that wpupd also justify 50k per can if said E-3s are actually needed right now.
- smallerfish 3y agoAnd your comment tells me you're too deep into the system to realize how ridiculous this is. Your guy in a metal shop can do this for $5k with plenty of padding. Hire your certification consultant for $15k, and so on. If being efficient with taxpayer money was a priority, you could do one-off jobs a hell of a lot more efficiently than this was handled.
- t0suj4 3y ago> The problematic element of it is when companies charge these sorts of absurd fees for a design that was produced decades ago (the E-3 is not a new aircraft by any means) and not adding meaningful value on top of it. I think the problem is that they're so disconnected from the value of money that they are willing to pay that much.
- giaour 3y agoPlanes get grounded when they have missing or nonfunctional parts. E.g., commercial jets can't fly if the toilets don't work, even though the toilet is not critical to aviation safety. Imagine you have four multimillion dollar aircraft that can't fly because some small part that is out of production broke. You need those planes to fly missions. How much would you pay to put them back into service?
- lobochrome 3y agoAgreed. Alas, there is an aspect of over regulation. Does the trash can need to be certified to an extreme level of depth or can some solider in the machine shop quickly throw something together? I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety. Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 50% of the time in democratic societies which accumulates a kind of “risk-avoidance-debt”.
- cushychicken 3y agoAs a timely counterexample: someone is dropping five wreaths off a boat in the North Atlantic today because of an under regulated experimental transportation craft that failed catastrophically. I'd much rather fly on a plane that's regulated and certified out the nose than one that's not. I'd rather live in a country that invests in people's skills and knowledge than one th t doesn't.
- Asdrubalini 3y agoThis is a trash can, not an aircraft's engine
- sofixa 3y agoIt's still on the plane. If nobody tested it at the pressure a plane is at, and it turns out it explodes and injures the crew, that's not great.
- Asdrubalini 3y agoIt's just a piece of metal, how can it explode?
- Tangurena2 3y agoIf it is the wrong metal, or wrong enough alloy, merely by touching the things it is in contact with can cause a galvanic reaction. Several airplanes have crashed due to damage caused by galvanic corrosion. The FAA is frequently called a "tombstone agency" because they tend to only take action after a bunch of people die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion Mercury versus aluminum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4 In an earlier life, I shipped items requiring this particular hazmat label on packaging: https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332 https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332
- cowpig 3y agoThe article goes on in the next paragraph to say that they were being charged $300 for the same trash cans only a few years ago. Presumably all the sunk costs were already sunk
- mysterydip 3y agoBeyond designing, tooling, and maintaining, there is an amazing time and cost savings to being able to continue to procure existing items. The amount of paperwork/documentation that has to change, logistics and inventory tracking, plus the battery of tests to check that a new item maintains the same mil standard qualifications as the old.
- dtx1 3y agoAs a German, it always suprises me how pedantic americans can be when it comes to Letter of the Law vs Spirit of the Law situation. Yes, for Warplane Parts this whole Idea of keeping it inside america and enable local companies to continuously produce parts is reasonable. Having to receive bids for contracts as a public entity is also reasonable. But is there no one in government that can see that a 50k trashcan is just pointless? Is it really impossible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations?
- Kalium 3y agoUsually the real answer is that it isn't actually $50k for a trash can. In something like an airplane, there's a whole bunch of costs that are overhead on the plane itself without being attached to any particular part (delivery, integrated testing, R&D, whatever). The accounting convention is that the overhead gets spread out amongst the individual items. The side effect of this convention is that if you view a line item without context, you get something utterly nonsensical. It's absolutely possible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations. A different accounting convention is probably in order.
- Symmetry 3y agoThey see that it's stupid and they have all the same reason and common sense as anyone else. They just worry that if they don't follow the rules they'll go to jail.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoWhat's the alternative? If a trashcan of that specification is needed to allow the airplane's mission to begin, then it's grounded until the trashcan is in place. The alternative is to find a less costly supplier that can meet that specification. Now you've (a) held up the missions and (b) more than likely used up any cost savings in your procurement & supplier evaluation process. At some point, the intelligent thing to do is shrug, grumble under your breath, and write the check so you can get on with life.
- goodpoint 3y agoYou forgot the "/s".
- mda 3y agoOr, a simpler explanation: "corruption".
- Spooky23 3y agoThat explanation doesn’t hold water. The issue in government contracting is very simple. You need competitive procurement to ensure reasonableness of price. Period. In the 90s, we allowed major defense contractors to consolidate at the prime level and diversify at the subcontractor level. So Lockheed Martin has some component of every system in 300 congressional districts - some little company is fabricating magical bolts to get congressional support. So now these giant companies are all sole source vendors. Guess what happened to price?
- mcdonje 3y ago>Until 2010, Boeing charged an average of $300 for a trash container used in the E-3 Sentry, a surveillance and radar plane based on the 707 civilian airliner. When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels, according to a weapons industry source who spoke to RS. That's the 2nd paragraph of the article that you apparently didn't read.
- cushychicken 3y agoAlso means that there are way fewer airframes to spread development costs across. Looks like we both read it, but not all of us understood the implications of it.
- jabradoodle 3y agoThey had already developed it. How much do you think it costs to design a bin..
- ceejayoz 3y agoHow much do you think it costs to restart the production line for a component of an aircraft last made in 1979?
- mynameisvlad 3y agoIt’s. A. Trash. Can. This isn’t some specialized part that the plane requires to fly. It’s just a trash can. Hell, just go to Target and buy one that’s similarly sized. It would be cheaper to fly across the country to find one at this point.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIt is a trash can that must contain a waste fire so it doesn't burn through the wall of the plane or suffocate the crew. It is a trash can that must not fly around the E-3's cabin if they're making evasive maneuvers. It is a trash can that must fit in a specific spot in a plane first made in 1957 and ended production in the 1970s. It must have been confirmed via a vigorous process to fulfill all these requirements and approved for aviation use. You can not buy one of these at Target. They are not putting little plastic bins by the workstations in an AWACS plane.
- moralestapia 3y agoThat's a big load of bs, man. I'm impressed. Are you gonna charge all of us for the time you spent writing this as well?
- mrb 3y ago"Should we pay outrageous amounts of money for stuff like this? It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries." Nonsense. You fell into the Broken Window Fallacy.
- ilyt 3y ago>The government isn't just paying for the trash can. >They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product. I call bullshit on that. There is no "maintenance" on that design, it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling to the cost of $50k. That's far above "make the tools to make it from scratch" price. There is no "economic investment" needed here to keep the tech of making trash cans alive. > It's a pretty interesting tradeoff. Should we pay outrageous amounts of money for stuff like this? It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries. "It's keeping people employed" is terrible excuse to spend tax dollars. Any other kind of social service is far more positive to the society than throwing more money at military contractor > It also creates handy design and manufacturing know how, which is a useful thing to have if our current cold war with China ever heats up in the South China Sea. It's a lot harder to buy war materiel from your adversary when lead is flying. Or just make government-funded stuff the property of the government. Government paid for development, government should get detailed plans and all of the documentation of it, and any inventions made along the way should be put into public domain, as the public paid for it. And if government then turn to other company "hey, can you make these at reasonable price", well, that's just glorious free market at work.
- pixl97 3y agoWar is messy when it comes to free market... Pentagon: "Oh hey, I need special bolt X" FreeMarket: "Sorry, was too expensive to make that here so we're making special bolt X in China" Pentagon: "Um, but we are shooting China right now" FreeMarket: "Don't worry I can get a production line setup in 3 months for 100 million dollars" Pentagon: "But I need special bolt X TODAY!"
- Joker_vD 3y agoDuring the first World War, the French and the English found out that building (and then operating) new state-run munition factories was faster and cheaper than buying munitions from the privately-owned firms, and the production quality was also better, too. Something to do with competence transfer or something.
- foweltschmerz 3y agoReductio ad absurdum is a misnomer here. Apagogical argument is a completely valid mode of argumentation that’s used by philosophers and mathematicians throughout history. What you’re accusing this article of is cherry-picking.
- game_the0ry 3y ago> They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product. Wrong - almost all of the profits go to the shareholders of those contractors. The people who are actually doing thew work do not get paid more. Shit like this is the tip of the iceberg. [1] [1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/22/why-cant-the-dod-get-its-financial-house-in-order/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/22/why-cant-the-do...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MontyCarloHall 3y agoIf this were true, then other countries’ militaries would also be paying $50k for a trash can, since none of what you wrote is unique to the US. Given other countries’ military budgets are a fraction of the US’s, I highly doubt that they’re spending anywhere near that.
- paganel 3y agoThat's why comparing defence budgets as a measure of a country's military capabilities is so problematic. Yeah, Russia has a defence budget 12 times smaller compared to the US, but that means that Russia can now afford to only pay ~$4100 dollars for a trashcan and still be America's equal in terms of "PPP" defence expenses.
- hef19898 3y agoFor aircraft parts? Yes, they absolutely do. Up to the point where investing a couple of billions for a new fleet is cheaper than keeping the old ones airworthy.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoThere are benefits to the procurement rules. Little Giant ladders are used extensively in the military. That's the only reason why they haven't moved all production to Mexico.
- nonethewiser 3y ago> The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced. I could make 1 plastic trashcan at home for less than $50,000. And probably less than $30.
- hospitalJail 3y agoI have a 3D printer, and I made a desk trash can. I even gave it a fancy pattern. I used FreeCAD. It took 5 minutes to make the trashcan, and 2 nights to learn the pattern tool. Total cost was 1.50 for my fancy color changing filament.
- ceejayoz 3y agoCan you guarantee it's not going to move around and dump its contents or crush a crewmember when the military plane it's in does evasive maneuvers? Can you guarantee a fire started in it won't spread to the rest of the aircraft and fill it with noxious fumes?
- hef19898 3y agoAnd you did, at least, go through full ISO 9100 certification, as the minimum to make the long list of suppliers for flying parts. It is becoming so frustrating to read all those tech bro comments, believing that doing some messy 3D printing is the same thing as manufacturing. Ignoring that the whole field of mechanical engineering exists. Thinking like that, a bunch of millions, get you the Titan and five dead people. Add some billions and it gets you FSD and a bunch of dead people. Oh, and accounting and cost calculation seems to be a black art as well...
- hospitalJail 3y agoI'm talking about a desk trashcan though, at $100 an hour, it cost $400 to design. By the way I'm a (real) engineer and I did design mechanical engineering for 5 years and electrical design engineering for 3 years. (and other fields of engineering for 4 years total as well) Yes, you get your specs and you design to them. I got real engineering parts certified and I believe the total cost, including tooling was under 600k. Heck, back when I made airbags, I don't think we spent anywhere close to 1 million dollars between design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing.
- sailfast 3y agoTrue! That said, the monopoly plays a role. I bet if you gave these specs to an open bid sheet metal fabricator somewhere in the US they’d replicate it for less than 52K shipped, no?
- giantrobot 3y agoIt's still not going to have a non-trivial cost after testing and certification. Even if it's not 52k it's not going end up a small fraction of that. Certifications can be expensive and can cover the entire process of manufacturing from materials to how it's packaged for shipment.
- tgv 3y agoI see a people riding their libertarian hobby horse of blaming the government for overspending, but only yesterday it turned out that a few devs managed to raise $50M for a glorified terminal emulator.
- suoduandao3 3y ago>It's a pretty interesting tradeoff. Should we pay outrageous amounts of money for stuff like this? It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries. It's certainly true that much of the US military industrial complex is a publicly funded jobs program, and that tightening the purse strings would cause widespread economic distress. But that isn't better than a UBI - in fact, a modest UBI plus a market that needs a better trash can would probably lead to much better trash cans than a contract of this nature. But I think it doesn't really stop at being a jobs program - US military spending also seems like an important part of how the sausage is made at the congressional level. Arbitrary sums can be assigned to different districts, which makes it a convenient method to broker deals between high ranking politicians. I suspect that's the real reason it can't be reformed.
- settrans 3y agoRephrasing your argument slightly: "of course the government can't pay only $30. They need to pay $30 for the trash can, and $49,970 for unaccountable value destruction!" Keeping people employed for no positive economic benefit is literally tantamount to lightning money on fire. You are paying people who would otherwise be creating value elsewhere _not_ to create that value and instead play a useless role intermediating in garbage can manufacture. They would still be buying groceries and burning gas in that productive job, but the difference is that they would also be creating something useful for society.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- _xnmw 3y agoEven if what you're saying is true, then the cost of maintaining the production line should be billed separately from the trash can itself.
- uberman 3y agoHaving worked on projects sponsored by "three letter agencies", I also suspect that the cost of the trash cans is potentially recovery for unbudgeted and uncompensated requirement changes. If the navigation station on the plane had to be shrunk by 1/4 inch due to some 3rd party not being able to meet their required tolerances after manufacturing had begun how does that get paid for? The award is fixed but now the requirements have changed. The TLA is not going back to Congress to get $200k in additional design funding. That phase of the project is done. However, the TLA potentially has a large budget for maintenance and replacement of parts. The navigation station gets an emergency redesign and it is paid for by no-bid 50K trash cans. There is no corruption here just the realities of working with fixed bid contracts, hundreds of third parties from every state in the nation and a political appropriations process.
- ajmurmann 3y agoIt's interesting to contrast this with all the complaints about the Titan sub using off-the-shelf components.
- immibis 3y agoThey are red herrings. For the price of one of these trash cans the Titan could've had perhaps three complete independent control systems including Logitech gaming controllers.
- ajmurmann 3y agoI somehow thought it would be much more expensive than $50k to produce a small number of custom controllers, especially if you were to do the proper thing and have them pass certifications.
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoIf the SF govt can spend $20k on a non-functioning trash can (that is actively defended), is $50k that crazy? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisco-cost-trash-can-struggle https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisc...
- Ironchefpython 3y ago> It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries. Let's be honest here. With that $50,000 trashcan we're paying mid-level managers $30, downstream suppliers $1, and $49,967 in stock buybacks that drive income inequality just so we can pay a factory worker $2 of that $50k. We are literally just shoveling tax dollars into the pockets of the already wealthy.
- jrflowers 3y agoThe government can also buy the $30 trash cans.
- nickstinemates 3y agoIf that's the case the floor should be much higher. I'm all for a $1m trash can.