Apr 5, 2011 -- 9:49AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 5, 2011 -- 9:44AM, Captainmarvel wrote:

Even Building Bombers creates Jobs!...or don't they count cause you dont like em!

 

That is government subsidized jobs and government subsidized profits! A double subsidy, much worse than a directly hired government worker!

In my experience in 18 years with a government contractor, our fee (profit - cost plus fee contract) was initially planned at 2% but with change orders (that invariably increased the work volume) that fee invariabely came out to 1% by the time the work was completed with the original job doubling during the life of the contract.  And the manager's salary and expenses came out of the fee.

There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:36PM, Jstanl wrote:

There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.

You are mixing up terms, and talking as if "wealth" was the total aim of a society.  The mass of people are more concerned with daily living security, and with jobs that allow them to support a family.  THOSE things, under the right circumstances government spending can and has done, and can stimulate the economy so the gov. spending can end.

Accumulation of wealth in a few hands is not a legitimate aim of a free and just society.

And, BTW, it appears that "government spending", in the form of "bailout money", DID create wealth for a few Wall Streeters.  So, I am not sure you have a valid argument in either direction.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:25AM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 4, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 4, 2011 -- 8:48AM, davelaw40 wrote:

its counter-intuitive

increase competition drive down costs

public employees = less competition

Not really. Among utilities, the expense of proper maintenance isn't sacrificed resulting in lower long term operating costs. Privately run utilities commonly cut corners as much as possible. I know this from first hand experience. Publicly run utilities are directly accountable to the voters, while privately owned ones are not and are trying to turn a profit, while that is not one of the goals of a publicly held utility.

I have no reason to think that there is a large difference in other public/privatized fields.

You are absolutely wrong.  Maintenance is chronically neglected in our management culture, both in public and private sectors.  But the worst by far is in the public sector.  The problem is funding.  Politicians will not fund maintenance because it does not buy votes.  They spend their money on new projects that get them publicity.

OTOH; the private sector is more motivated to protect what they have (keep it operating) because new and replacement cost come straight from the profit margin and government tax laws do not encourage new money spent on infrastructure/investment.

Also private sector employees are more productive.

Further, contractors can be used when needed and sent back to the shop when they are not.  Public employess become a permenent overhead that are there whether they are needed or not.

No, I am not absolutely wrong.

As you mentioned, publicly owned utilities cut maintenance when they are not properly funded but you fail to mention that most publicly owned utilities do not depend on a budget from a political entity, but rather collect income from rate charges which are absolutely far lower than privately owned utilities, who even with their higher rate charges will still cut corners on maintenance. I know this from personal experience with such companies as PG&E, Entergy and Alameda Municipal Power while keeping my finger on the pulse of the industry.

In the private sector, new and replacement costs come from rate hikes, not from profit. Pay attention, you will see them all over the country and that is specifically what rate hikes are for. Never do they cut into their precious profits, and if that means needing a new plant because they didn't keep up the maintenance on the old one, they will let it deteriorate to the point of no return and then cry about needing to replace it and request a rate hike. This is how it is done industry wide, and I have seen it first hand several times.

Maintenance workers are needed on a constant basis, so your remark about sending private contractors 'back to the shop' doesn't make any sense in the context of utility maintenance. And lastly, private sector employees are not more productive. Oh, you may see more physical activity but that means nothing. If you have already finished the project, there is no reason to run around like a whacko looking for something to do to please your overlords. The best maintenance workers look like they are doing nothing, because the maintenance is done and the system is performing flawlessly.