3 ms·
No argument from me other than to say: you've just described every public-private partnership, ever. The seemingly inevitable part-privatization we're now faci
by jmyeet 2y ago
No argument from me other than to say: you've just described every public-private partnership, ever.
The seemingly inevitable part-privatization we're now facing for Social Security and Medicare is nothing more than the wealthy looting the public purse.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago> No argument from me other than to say: you've just described every public-private partnership, ever. This is patently untrue. The entity that paid for my 2yr college was a public-private partnership. It was administered by the Dept of Labor. The private end was a mix of businesses and philanthropy that wanted to better align education and careers. Funding was predicated on students completing degrees and a period of related employment. It was tremendously successful. It was also immediately axed when the 'Contract with America' took effect.
- relaxing 2y ago“Public-private partnership” normally refers to public money going to private enterprise. I’m not sure what private money going to quasi-public higher ed, publically administered(?) would qualify as.
- jmyeet 2y agoI can't speak to the specifics of whatever program you went through. Whatever it is, I'm glad it worked out for you. But my question is: why does college cost anything? Particularly more vocational courses, which 2 year Associate's degrees tend to be. We have a model for this: the military. You pick a job, they train you to do that job and then you do that job. There is absolutely no reason why education can't be this accessible to everyone.
- zihotki 2y agoIt's a description of a toxic partnership. Not all partnerships are toxic.
- Loughla 2y agoI don't know why you're being downvoted. Public private partnerships at the Federal level have historically just been elaborate grafts to enrich the already wealthy at everyone's expense. Ever read The Shock Doctrine?
- orwin 2y agoAll PPP have levels of grift. The only ones that don't have overwhelming bureaucracy oversight that makes them really, really inefficient and costly. In almost all cases, it's better for the state to build themselves, then lease/rent to private companies, or operate themselves in some cases. Basically free market is shit at central planning, and the state is shit at offering diversity and finding out preferences.
- jmyeet 2y agoWe know why. There are an awful lot of people who are either the wealthy who are exploiting the working class or, way more likely, they think they someday will be: > “John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Why else would people fight so hard against Jeff Bezos paying slightly more in taxes? Jeff would use you as fertilizer or reactor shielding if it ticked up profits. You are not and will never be Jeff Bezos. HN just skews to people who aspire to be the exploiters.
- frmersdog 2y agoThis is why I groan when people talk about, say, how the government needs to "incentivize" increased building volume in order to solve the housing crisis. If you accept the argument that there's a shortage of physical units (and not just a shortage of affordable units that haven't been converted to rentals, or just simply kept off the market)... the real estate market is never going to kneecap itself. No matter how much money we give them. The government needs to start building houses. Directly. Whatever loss is incurred will pale in comparison to the costs (social and otherwise) of another few decades of paying private corporations not to solve the problem. We REALLY should have learned our lesson after what happened with the broadband rollout in the early 2000s.
- KumaBear 2y agoI always believed a good president would declare a national emergency. Deploy the military, national guard, ect and begin a massive housing campaign. Imagine what can be built in 5 years time.