Quote:
Originally Posted by overboard
Privatization talk is always so frustrating. It's a great way to appear to be cutting costs, but it takes it for granted that cutting costs is a good thing, and it really only shifts the costs and profits around.
Taking hospital security, for instance. What are the costs of "saving" there? If the government switches to a private supplier it still has to pay the full cost of security. If that cost is lower, which it may or may not be, it will almost surely be because private employees are paid less. Is it really better for the government to save a few bucks, while employee compensation (which contributes to income tax and spending in our economy) takes a hit, and the owner pockets the difference?
I can see the case for something like motor registration, because it is really hard getting out there for many people, but there are similar problems. Savings have to come from somewhere, and we or our neighbours end up paying more in other ways. A modest increase in spending could probably make all of those services more accessible, but we cry bloody murder at the thought of the government spending more. Privatization's a really great way of shifting public money into the hands of a few private individuals (usually conservatives, who knew!).
|
There may not necessarily be significant savings on paper when the government privatizes something like security but it can help in the long-term. Less pension costs in the future, there's the human resources work that needs to be done, etc.
You complain private companies getting public money but I think that's a great thing. If a private company receives a longterm government contract they are guaranteed a steady stream of revenue. This can allow them to invest in their business, expand it, or weather any potential downturns.
We shouldn't look at private companies as enemies, we need them to provide us jobs.
Threaded Mode