9 ms·

For those two specific examples? 1. Town Hall. Instead of building a new building, rent office space somewhere else that was privately built. 2. Public School

For those two specific examples? 1. Town Hall. Instead of building a new building, rent office space somewhere else that was privately built. 2. Public School. Same deal -- taxpayers pay more per pupil for public school than they do for private school, so send the kids to private school and close the public school. There's no point in getting on to Government for being inefficient in a system like the US, but we can get on to them for doing the NIH thing by default. When the private sector does something better, LET THEM DO IT.

Anechoic 14y ago
Town Hall. Instead of building a new building, rent office space somewhere else that was privately built. In very small towns I've seen that done, but that makes less sense for medium to larger towns and cities for a variety of reasons. taxpayers pay more per pupil for public school than they do for private school, so send the kids to private school and close the public school. A large part of that is because private schools don't have to admit (or can expel) students with special needs and behavioral problems. Force the private schools to have to deal with those students, and chances are those costs will increase.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- larrys 14y ago
  "because private schools don't have to" Exactly. I always find it interesting (and this isn't a critique of the parent) just an observation that when people use an example such as "In <insert country> <insert thing> costs <insert percentage> less than in the US therefore...". This is always tossed around with healthcare for example.) Things are never equal and can't be. It's like comparing heating costs in San Francisco vs. Montana w/o considering the temperature. Details matter and rarely in a casual observation of the on the surface facts can you account for why something might be possible in one circumstance but not another. Private school teachers, at least in one case that I am familiar with, got paid less than the public school teachers in the same district. They were of a younger age group and were only doing it for a short period of time before moving on to bigger things. Also the fact that they had much smaller classes and a different student population made the job less stressful. And a host of other factors that would be difficult if not impossible to scale to a public environment.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Force the private schools to have to deal with those students, and chances are those costs will increase. It would also prevent private schools from specializing, which is hardly a good thing. A better way would simply be to pay a different price for different children - i.e., $7k for a normal child, $13k for juvenile delinquents, $16k for retards, etc. Different schools (both public and private) could specialize and cater to different varieties of children. One size fits all is generally a dumb idea.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Go look at the education system and standards in Finland, then see if you still hold that view. Also, your use of the word retard as an epithet in this context probably means that your views on education policy should be treated with the utmost suspicion, at best.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      It is my general view that it's crazy to spend 2-3x as much as normal on a kid who will never achieve anything beyond bagger at Walmart. How clever, you caught me. If you want to apply the ad-hominem fallacy on this basis to dismiss an unrelated point, be my guest.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        It is my general view that it's crazy to spend 2-3x as much as normal on a kid who will never achieve anything beyond bagger at Walmart. So how do you know in advance that a given kid will never achieve anything?
      - anthonyb 14y ago
        Early education and intervention saves a ton of money in the long term.
        barry-cotter 14y ago
        (Citation needed) To be slightly less flip at some point you reach the point of duminishing returns where the money could do more good elsewhere. Also, the overwhelming majority of education interventions don't scale.
jbooth 14y ago
In our case, building the town hall and servicing the debt over 30 years was cheaper than rent, plus we get a building that we don't have to pay rent on after that period. Less ideological and way smarter -- just the way I like things.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Buildings are not free after they are paid off. That's just about the time they need major renovations and repairs.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Of course, but if you have the capital and needs, why not just take care of it yourself rather than letting someone make a profit on you? Unless you're more concerned with libertarian ideology than saving the gov't money, of course.
angersock 14y ago
So, a lot of time, the only reason the private sector does it better is that we've hamstrung the government to the point where they can't develop the skills in-house. If I can't pay my civil engineers competitive wages (because NIH you see), how am I supposed to retain talent? Moreover, how am I supposed to stack up against hotshot private engineering firms? In opposition to your town hall example: The first (first!) thing I'd expect the free market to do would be to charge a premium to the government to lease to them. After all, where else are they going to go? It's a small enough market that you can cartel the ever-living shit out of it--assuming they can even pay amounts enough to push out other tenants, say a law firm or something. In fact, it makes even more sense for the government to get a "deal" with the landlord, and maybe help contracts for their other tenants go through faster. Priority lane for occupancy permits and whatnot, sure. This is not a good idea. If you want to have non-corrupt government, you need to make sure it can function decently without being overly influenced by the greed and selfishness characteristic of modern capitalism.

Anechoic 14y ago

Town Hall. Instead of building a new building, rent office space somewhere else that was privately built. In very small towns I've seen that done, but that makes less sense for medium to larger towns and cities for a variety of reasons. taxpayers pay more per pupil for public school than they do for private school, so send the kids to private school and close the public school. A large part of that is because private schools don't have to admit (or can expel) students with special needs and behavioral problems. Force the private schools to have to deal with those students, and chances are those costs will increase.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
larrys 14y ago
"because private schools don't have to" Exactly. I always find it interesting (and this isn't a critique of the parent) just an observation that when people use an example such as "In <insert country> <insert thing> costs <insert percentage> less than in the US therefore...". This is always tossed around with healthcare for example.) Things are never equal and can't be. It's like comparing heating costs in San Francisco vs. Montana w/o considering the temperature. Details matter and rarely in a casual observation of the on the surface facts can you account for why something might be possible in one circumstance but not another. Private school teachers, at least in one case that I am familiar with, got paid less than the public school teachers in the same district. They were of a younger age group and were only doing it for a short period of time before moving on to bigger things. Also the fact that they had much smaller classes and a different student population made the job less stressful. And a host of other factors that would be difficult if not impossible to scale to a public environment.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Force the private schools to have to deal with those students, and chances are those costs will increase. It would also prevent private schools from specializing, which is hardly a good thing. A better way would simply be to pay a different price for different children - i.e., $7k for a normal child, $13k for juvenile delinquents, $16k for retards, etc. Different schools (both public and private) could specialize and cater to different varieties of children. One size fits all is generally a dumb idea.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Go look at the education system and standards in Finland, then see if you still hold that view. Also, your use of the word retard as an epithet in this context probably means that your views on education policy should be treated with the utmost suspicion, at best.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    It is my general view that it's crazy to spend 2-3x as much as normal on a kid who will never achieve anything beyond bagger at Walmart. How clever, you caught me. If you want to apply the ad-hominem fallacy on this basis to dismiss an unrelated point, be my guest.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      It is my general view that it's crazy to spend 2-3x as much as normal on a kid who will never achieve anything beyond bagger at Walmart. So how do you know in advance that a given kid will never achieve anything?
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Early education and intervention saves a ton of money in the long term.
      - barry-cotter 14y ago
        (Citation needed) To be slightly less flip at some point you reach the point of duminishing returns where the money could do more good elsewhere. Also, the overwhelming majority of education interventions don't scale.

jbooth 14y ago

In our case, building the town hall and servicing the debt over 30 years was cheaper than rent, plus we get a building that we don't have to pay rent on after that period. Less ideological and way smarter -- just the way I like things.

ams6110 14y ago
Buildings are not free after they are paid off. That's just about the time they need major renovations and repairs.
- jbooth 14y ago
  Of course, but if you have the capital and needs, why not just take care of it yourself rather than letting someone make a profit on you? Unless you're more concerned with libertarian ideology than saving the gov't money, of course.

angersock 14y ago

So, a lot of time, the only reason the private sector does it better is that we've hamstrung the government to the point where they can't develop the skills in-house. If I can't pay my civil engineers competitive wages (because NIH you see), how am I supposed to retain talent? Moreover, how am I supposed to stack up against hotshot private engineering firms? In opposition to your town hall example: The first (first!) thing I'd expect the free market to do would be to charge a premium to the government to lease to them. After all, where else are they going to go? It's a small enough market that you can cartel the ever-living shit out of it--assuming they can even pay amounts enough to push out other tenants, say a law firm or something. In fact, it makes even more sense for the government to get a "deal" with the landlord, and maybe help contracts for their other tenants go through faster. Priority lane for occupancy permits and whatnot, sure. This is not a good idea. If you want to have non-corrupt government, you need to make sure it can function decently without being overly influenced by the greed and selfishness characteristic of modern capitalism.