• Public vs Private Sector in America
    80 replies, posted
Basic debate. What things would you like to become apart of the private sector and what would you like to see become public? Some public sector jobs such as the Postal Service seem like such a symbol of American society that many people wouldn't like to see it go. But one must think, would it be better if it was privatized and open to individuals to create businesses for the service? competition could create a more efficient and cheaper system with possible innovations. ON the other hand, one business could dominate the market but still not monopolize it thanks to the Sherman Anti-trust Act and other related laws. Obviously there are some public sector jobs that seem scary to convert to become privatized such as the police. What are your stances on this? And may I encourage you to only debate this if you have ever had a class on American Government or Economics. Internet research on this subject (As in many subjects debated on this forum) require more than a skim of its related Wikipedia article.
I think postage should be both public and private, because in some places we wouldn't have people that would do it. So like couriers. I think personally we should make prisons public sector as well because private prison systems are the most bullshit thing we have.
Privatized schools. Our public schools are a terrible mess.
I know one thing, Privatizing EMS is not a good idea. (yes some counties do this)
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34732877]And may I encourage you to only debate this if you have ever had a class on American Government or Economics. Internet research on this subject (As in many subjects debated on this forum) require more than a skim of its related Wikipedia article.[/QUOTE] Well that's a bit discriminatory to people outside of the United States, dont ya think? Also, can't the debate be about other places in the world in general (as it should be anyways). If it matters, I took a Commerce course at school a few years ago, and at the moment I do a Business Studies course (I'm in Australia, don't know why flags aren't showing anymore). Surely that would be suitable? [editline]17 February 2012[/editline] Anyways I reckon all schools should be under government administration (so public sector), so at least equal opportunity and education standards can be enforced. A student should never have to be disadvantaged based on socioeconomic status (based on private schools that discriminate based on this) or the quality of the facilities at his or her school. No school should discriminate, and the quality of facilities should be consistent. If this can't be reached, the least the government here could do is stop fucking subsidising private schools. It's a joke, a nearby private school (which has roughly the same amount of students and has fees of $12,000 per student per year, compared to my public school's optional fee of $50 per student per year) gets more government funding than my public school per student. Privatising all schools won't help equal opportunity, schools will start appealing for different segments (such as schools for low income earners, schools for high income earners, and schools that fit in niches such as sports schools or engineering schools for example). It's like how you can go to your corner store and are given the choice of a bottle of Coca Cola or some no-name budget Cola brand. One's cheap and does the job, but the other one (although costing twice as much) tastes alot better; yet they can co-exist because some people aren't rich enough to afford Coca Cola, and some people don't like the taste of the budget drink, so there's no real competition between the two going on. Students who go to the lower income school may not be as educated as the students that go to the higher income school, but that's all that his or her family can afford. I'll debate about other systems (such as hospitals) later.
Considering that the Private Sector almost always has incentives to do the best job while using the most efficient methods and the Public Sector is almost always interested in keeping the status quo and has zero incentive to keep advancing, I'd say the Private Sector is best off in most circumstances. [QUOTE=gamefreek76;34736129]Privatized schools. Our public schools are a terrible mess.[/QUOTE] This is a good example, as well as absolutely true. And it's not a lack of funding. In 2004 the US spent 536 Billion in spending on schools, compared to like 480 or so billion on the war in Iraq. (To put it in perspective.) Not sure on those numbers, but it's something like that.
Charter schools are great examples of privately run schools with the same students as publicly run schools doing a far better job. [url]http://educationnext.org/the-unknown-world-of-charter-high-schools/[/url]
[QUOTE=sgman91;34737169]Charter schools are great examples of privately run schools with the same students as publicly run schools doing a far better job. [url]http://educationnext.org/the-unknown-world-of-charter-high-schools/[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, I really like Charter schools. The idea is that you take the same money from the Government that would pay for the child's education and that would go towards a privately run school. That way, there's still no or little cost to the parents while at the same time giving them a choice and letting schools compete, increasing productivity. (In case anyone was wondering.)
And you expect people to pay for private schooling? Here in Denmark we have mostly public schools (which works out pretty well, for the most part), and we've got some private schools, which are also mostly state funded. Education (all the way to university) and health care should be (at least) partly payed by the state, and should in my opinion be fully payed by it. That doesn't rule out that people with a lot of money can use those on private health care, school or whatever, but it makes certain that there is a bottom line, that is quite high.
I believe that hospitals should also be exclusive to the public sector, or at least be subsidised heavily enough so as to reduce the necessity to operate for profit. However then again inconsistency issues could still arise (this is with privatising and subsidising the private sector), as there would be private administration which may still hold on to the mentality of competition rather than a common good, so yet again we get market segmentation which would ruin the chance of a consistent system ever happening (hospitals appealing to different segments so as to survive against potential competitors). It's not fair to have individuals who can't get the same quality of treatment as someone else simply because that person can afford it. This is fucking welfare, so quality should be absolutely consistent, no exceptions. Jails should be privatised though, but simply for the sake of hoping that competition will lead to individual entities reducing costs so as to compete. As there is less of a need for jails to become segmented in a market (I can only visualise a mass market for jails, with exception given for the niches of high security and those insanity asylums), it doesn't really matter if segmentation does occur. However to make competition actually benefit this system, all jails should receive equal government funding so as to encourage jails to reduce their costs to increase profit margins. Hopefully, privatising the system will lead to less government expenditure than if it was all public, and hopefully quality standards would be consistent. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] In general though; education and welfare systems should always remain in the public sector, as it's stupid to have some people be able to get access to higher quality and arguably necessary services while some cannot. If privatising (and subsidising) can keep quality consistent and reduce costs for the government, then that is the approach that should be taken. However individuals should never be discriminated against, so only if privatising is guaranteed to not discriminate. Finally, I believe that the majority of primary, secondary, tertiary and quinary indistries should remain private. Quarternary should also be mostly privatised, but those necessary services such as education should be in the public sector, if being in the private sector would break consistency in the whole market.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34746624]I believe that hospitals should also be exclusive to the public sector, or at least be subsidised heavily enough so as to reduce the necessity to operate for profit. However then again inconsistency issues could still arise (this is with privatising and subsidising the private sector), as there would be private administration which may still hold on to the mentality of competition rather than a common good, so yet again we get market segmentation which would ruin the chance of a consistent system ever happening (hospitals appealing to different segments so as to survive against potential competitors). It's not fair to have individuals who can't get the same quality of treatment as someone else simply because that person can afford it. This is fucking welfare, so quality should be absolutely consistent, no exceptions.[/QUOTE] And what, competition is a bad thing? Lack of competition is the reason why monopolies are bad. Or more specifically, the forcing out of competition. Theoretically, I'd be fine with a non-coercive monopoly, but that's not really happening with human nature being what it is and what the current system is like.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34753866]And what, competition is a bad thing? Lack of competition is the reason why monopolies are bad. Or more specifically, the forcing out of competition. Theoretically, I'd be fine with a non-coercive monopoly, but that's not really happening with human nature being what it is and what the current system is like.[/QUOTE] You didn't get my point. Competition can encourage market segmentation so as to give businesses a chance to survive. If you have business A that appeals to the mass market and is in growth, and business B (also mass market) is starting to enter decline due to the increased pressure from A, business B might seek to enter renewal by changing its business strategy to target a single segment rather than the whole market. Same thing with hospitals. It's unfair for certain individuals to be granted better healthcare simply because they have more money to toss away. In an ideal society, everyone should receive the same standard of healthcare. This is why I support public ownership of hospitals. It can be too easily segmented if the market is privatised, eg those for low income earners and those for high income earners. This isn't much of an issue with jails for example, because most jails would technically be aiming for the mass market, the only exceptions being niches such as high security.
yeah I only said the "please refrain" part to hopefully keep uneducated 16 year old kids from coming on here and bleating a bunch of super radical leftist ideas which seems to be the trend on facepunch. I shouldn't have just referred to "American government" though. Any kind of education that isn't mostly derived from internet articles is more than welcome! I've always had a life where I could go to the ER for free. (Military) but once I came back to America from overseas, I realized how expensive a trip to the ER can be without insurance. I watched the 30 days on Minimum Wage with Morgan Spurlock and he had to pay over $1000 because he sprained his wrist and his wife got a urinary tract infection. That is INSANE and unfair. Our healthcare system really needs some reformation whether it is through public control or some strict standards and changes placed by the government. In the show, Spurlock was charged 40 dollars in medical supplies for 1 Ace bandage... There is something wrong going on there. Needless to say, ever since I watched that and was enlightened to how terrible the economy is for minimum wage workers, I totally jumped to a more liberal view on social issues and tax reform although I do hold some more conservative views on certain things which is common in this day and age for more people to be moderate than leaning strictly one way.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34746624]I believe that hospitals should also be exclusive to the public sector, or at least be subsidised heavily enough so as to reduce the necessity to operate for profit. However then again inconsistency issues could still arise (this is with privatising and subsidising the private sector), as there would be private administration which may still hold on to the mentality of competition rather than a common good, so yet again we get market segmentation which would ruin the chance of a consistent system ever happening (hospitals appealing to different segments so as to survive against potential competitors). It's not fair to have individuals who can't get the same quality of treatment as someone else simply because that person can afford it. This is fucking welfare, so quality should be absolutely consistent, no exceptions. [/QUOTE] So if I work harder to achieve a better financial grounding, I shouldn't have the option to pay for better and quicker private care? Why bother being financially secure if I can just sit on my ass and have the government take care of me?
[QUOTE=sgman91;34737169]Charter schools are great examples of privately run schools with the same students as publicly run schools doing a far better job. [URL]http://educationnext.org/the-unknown-world-of-charter-high-schools/[/URL][/QUOTE] Charter schools are not much better than private schools. They are constantly being called out for their discriminatory enrollment practices. They also do not charge tuition, but they usually get around this by forcing you to buy their expensive uniforms to fit their dresscode policy and a lot of charter schools are not making it mandatory to get a school laptop and more recently ipads. You lease them from the school. I don't know how legal this is, but it is common practice in Florida. I am guessing the reason you see more kids graduating from charter schools and going to college is because kids that go to charter schools tend to have more money. I know a lot of families around here struggling to send their kids to charter schools because it is too expensive. Charter schools discriminate because of their very nature. The whole formula is suspicious. A (alleged) random lottery to get in. Then you have to buy expensive things for your kids to attend. Charter schools should not be getting public funding because they do not follow all of the rules and regulations that traditional public schools offer. Correlation does not prove causation. More kids that go to charter schools go to college because they can afford it, not because they are necessarily getting a better education.
I believe medical care should be exclusively public. Hospitals should not operate for profit, thus be non-profit. One's health issues should not be exploited for money. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] There is something terribly wrong in the system when if you break a bone, the medical bill will end up in the THOUSAND dollar range. There is just simply no way the materials, the manhours put into fixing your leg can even reach a 1-2 hundred dollars.
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;34736963] This is a good example, as well as absolutely true. And it's not a lack of funding. In 2004 the US spent 536 Billion in spending on schools, compared to like 480 or so billion on the war in Iraq. (To put it in perspective.) Not sure on those numbers, but it's something like that.[/QUOTE] that doesn't prove anything because public schools aren't the same thing as the iraq war; therefore their costs aren't really comparable it actually completely is a funding problem; one which is rooted in the fact that schools are funded by taxes from their school district, so while public schools in wealthy areas are often exemplary, ones in poorer areas are left perpetually underfunded. looking at the public schools in the problem and assuming that the problem must be the be the result of them being public is lazy and a good example of poor logic.
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;34763317]I believe medical care should be exclusively public. Hospitals should not operate for profit, thus be non-profit. One's health issues should not be exploited for money. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] There is something terribly wrong in the system when if you break a bone, the medical bill will end up in the THOUSAND dollar range. There is just simply no way the materials, the manhours put into fixing your leg can even reach a 1-2 hundred dollars.[/QUOTE] I think 100-200 for a broken bone is reasonable... but then again I don't know the value of the experience that goes into fixing it so its actual cost could be much lower. But 1000 dollars for a medical bill is insane and unfair.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34763830]I think 100-200 for a broken bone is reasonable... but then again I don't know the value of the experience that goes into fixing it so its actual cost could be much lower. But 1000 dollars for a medical bill is insane and unfair.[/QUOTE] But £0/$0 is much better and should be the case. Healthcare should be public at a basic level, no personal insurance, just a national insurance. With privatised healthcare and insurance an option, not a requirement. Healthcare is too important to let a company decide if you get to live or die in the name of profits.
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;34763317]There is something terribly wrong in the system when if you break a bone, the medical bill will end up in the THOUSAND dollar range. There is just simply no way the materials, the manhours put into fixing your leg can even reach a 1-2 hundred dollars.[/QUOTE] You're definitely right, it isn't. The reason why hospital bills are so expensive is because the hospital has to cover for the losses they take when they take in an uninsured patient, because it's not like the hospital turns people away if they can't afford to pay just fyi.
Hi new member, gonna dive right in here (I LOVE socioeconomic discussions). As a [B][I]general [/I][/B] rule, the private sector tends to be more efficient than the public sector. Now obviously there are exceptions to that rule, and even most Libertarians (I'm not a Libertarian, just for the record) will admit that some things are better performed by the public sector. In fact some socioeconomic functions in society are undeniably more efficient when performed by one sector or the other, while other functions are subject to debate. For example: [B]The military.[/B] I know a lot of pretty hard core Libertarians, and all but the most insanely idealistic ones agree that the state should maintain a military to defend society from threats, both domestic and international. [B]Law Enforcement.[/B] As above, the state does need law enforcement to protect society from those who would do it harm. [B]The economy.[/B] While die hard Communists, Socialists and Social Democrats refuse to admit this, the fact of the matter is that it has been both historically and empirically proven that [B]free market economies are inherently superior to ones that are state controlled, [I]involuntarily[/I] cooperatively managed, or have a [I]high[/I] degree of state intervention and regulation.[/B] The fact that this is still debated in society today shows how stupid mankind is. [B]Healthcare. [/B] This one is still debated, and rightfully so, as both arguments have solid arguments. Which is why it's only logical to have both private and public sector healthcare. The empirical evidence suggests that a full universalized healthcare system supplemented by a private for profit healthcare system works extremely well. [B]Education.[/B] Again, highly debated. When one looks at USA, it's undeniable that their public education system is an abomination. The education budget has been progressively getting larger and larger, (3% of GDP in the 50s, 6% today), and it has gotten worse and worse over the last 30-40. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of the public schools are very biased to the left, which is the same up here in Canada. You'd be extremely lucky to ever even have the right wing perspective on any issue shown. The only place you're not subject to left wing propaganda is Alberta. I suspect it's similar in certain US states, but even then you'd probably have to live in the suburbs, because the inner cities are Liberal. So, needless to say, there's a pretty big argument for making education in USA 100% a state level matter. The Federal government and the teachers unions have ruined the US education system. [B]Municipal services. [/B] Again, highly debatable. It really depends on how bad the local unions are. They're god awful in here in Toronto. [B]Postal Services.[/B] The mix seems to work well. You have FedEx, UPS, etc, if you want something delivered fast, and the state run postal services if time is not a factor and you want to minimize costs (although the state run services aren't always cheaper, and can have a bad habit of losing your mail). Those are just a few examples. So I don't think one can say the private or public sector is inherently more efficient than the other, but obviously once you get down to the individual functions one or the either do have an [I]absolute advantage[/I] in efficiency.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;34763263]Charter schools are not much better than private schools. They are constantly being called out for their discriminatory enrollment practices. They also do not charge tuition, but they usually get around this by forcing you to buy their expensive uniforms to fit their dresscode policy and a lot of charter schools are not making it mandatory to get a school laptop and more recently ipads. You lease them from the school. I don't know how legal this is, but it is common practice in Florida. I am guessing the reason you see more kids graduating from charter schools and going to college is because kids that go to charter schools tend to have more money. I know a lot of families around here struggling to send their kids to charter schools because it is too expensive. Charter schools discriminate because of their very nature. The whole formula is suspicious. A (alleged) random lottery to get in. Then you have to buy expensive things for your kids to attend. Charter schools should not be getting public funding because they do not follow all of the rules and regulations that traditional public schools offer. Correlation does not prove causation. More kids that go to charter schools go to college because they can afford it, not because they are necessarily getting a better education.[/QUOTE] Charter schools actually have a higher concentration of minority students and students in poverty than the normal public school system. This is because they have a higher likelihood of being made in places with poor public schools, usually urban centers. There has also been research that has shown that simply having the competition of a charter school in the district improves all public schools in that district. Simply put, students in charter schools are poorer, more likely to be in a disadvantaged group, and still more likely to attend college.
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34765881] [B]The economy.[/B] While die hard Communists, Socialists and Social Democrats refuse to admit this, the fact of the matter is that it has been both historically and empirically proven that [B]free market economies are inherently superior to ones that are state controlled, [I]involuntarily[/I] cooperatively managed, or have a [I]high[/I] degree of state intervention and regulation.[/B] The fact that this is still debated in society today shows how stupid mankind is. [/QUOTE] Except if you're not part of the couple of percent who take advantage of everyone else. Then it's not all that great.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;34763263]Charter schools are not much better than private schools. [/QUOTE] I never said that they were. [QUOTE=Funcoot;34763263]They are constantly being called out for their discriminatory enrollment practices. They also do not charge tuition, but they usually get around this by forcing you to buy their expensive uniforms to fit their dresscode policy and a lot of charter schools are not making it mandatory to get a school laptop and more recently ipads. You lease them from the school. I don't know how legal this is, but it is common practice in Florida. I am guessing the reason you see more kids graduating from charter schools and going to college is because kids that go to charter schools tend to have more money. I know a lot of families around here struggling to send their kids to charter schools because it is too expensive. Charter schools discriminate because of their very nature. The whole formula is suspicious. A (alleged) random lottery to get in. Then you have to buy expensive things for your kids to attend. Charter schools should not be getting public funding because they do not follow all of the rules and regulations that traditional public schools offer. Correlation does not prove causation. More kids that go to charter schools go to college because they can afford it, not because they are necessarily getting a better education.[/QUOTE] The idea behind charter schools is not evil, just because there are a few (alleged) bad ones in your area. The premise is a good one. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sp00ks;34783271]Except if you're not part of the couple of percent who take advantage of everyone else. Then it's not all that great.[/QUOTE] A lot of the evil that I think you're talking about only exists because government gives it an unfair advantage. You can account for corruption here. You're always going to have a top, and you're always going to have a bottom. I'm not defending any corporation that uses loopholes and lobbyists to pay next-to-nothing taxes, but the idea that the rich should be punished when the money they make is almost always invested to benefit society.
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;34783408] A lot of the evil that I think you're talking about only exists because government gives it an unfair advantage. You can account for corruption here. [/QUOTE] If there was no government or less regulations, the workers would have it even worse.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34783659]If there was no government or less regulations, the workers would have it even worse.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34783659]If there was no government or less regulations, the workers would have it even worse.[/QUOTE] If the worker had it worse, then he would not work there. Another company would hire him. In order to keep that worker working, the company would be forced to pay him greater wages or provide better benefits. This is the way a free-market system would work. If a hamburger joint can pay someone low wages for their work, they can sell their hamburger for cheaper prices. Cheaper prices mean more revenue, which would improve the restaurant. If there was another restaurant hiring employees and they offered a slightly better pay rate than the first hamburger joint, the employees would flock there. So, in order to keep the employees, the first hamburger joint would have to increase their prices. There is a demand for workers, that's the way of an ever-changing, constantly advancing and innovating free market system. This is just an example, of course. It's late.
lmao
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;34784272]If the worker had it worse, then he would not work there. Another company would hire him. In order to keep that worker working, the company would be forced to pay him greater wages or provide better benefits. This is the way a free-market system would work. If a hamburger joint can pay someone low wages for their work, they can sell their hamburger for cheaper prices. Cheaper prices mean more revenue, which would improve the restaurant. If there was another restaurant hiring employees and they offered a slightly better pay rate than the first hamburger joint, the employees would flock there. So, in order to keep the employees, the first hamburger joint would have to increase their prices. There is a demand for workers, that's the way of an ever-changing, constantly advancing and innovating free market system. This is just an example, of course. It's late.[/QUOTE] Of course, since each company can only hire a limited number of staff, people are going to have to work at the place with poor pay, or not work at all. And, as you mentioned the place that pays its workers less can make more profits, and can expand and hire more people. If there isn't a government or system to support the unemployed, then basically people have a choice between working a shitty job on a shitty wage, or poverty. The idea of employers competing for employees only works when you have less people looking for jobs than you have jobs, which is pretty rare unless you're a high skilled and trained in a certain area, like engineers or scientists. Otherwise, people who have to work or they would not be able to survive otherwise will be forced to work the poorly paid jobs. However, things like a minimum wage or unemployment allowance mean that people have breathing space to look for a better paid job, or even if they take a job on the low end of the pay scale they are still guaranteed a decent wage.
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34765881] [B]The economy.[/B] While die hard Communists, Socialists and Social Democrats refuse to admit this, the fact of the matter is that it has been both historically and empirically proven that free market economies are inherently superior to ones that are state controlled, [I]involuntarily[/I] cooperatively managed, or have a [I]high[/I] degree of state intervention and regulation. [B]The fact that this is still debated in society today shows how stupid mankind is.[/B] [/QUOTE] so basically you're despicable, is that what you're trying to say not only do you per-emptively insult everyone who disagrees with you, you indict the whole of fucking humanity for not believing in your views are you American by any chance? My understanding is that countries with strong social democratic tendencies such as Scandinavia and Australia are quite well, thanks. Far better than the (even more) deregulated and privatized States and historically proven? what the fuck are you even talking about? What do you mean? The bretton woods system collapsed only 40 years ago [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=StephenOrlov;34783408] You're always going to have a top, and you're always going to have a bottom. I'm not defending any corporation that uses loopholes and lobbyists to pay next-to-nothing taxes, but the idea that the rich should be punished when [B]the money they make is almost always invested to benefit society.[/B][/QUOTE] :v: [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] that position makes no sense if the money they make is oh-so-beneficial to society why would the state tax them? you say "I'm not defending any corporations that uses loopholes to pay next-to-nothing taxes", and then you proclaim the very justification [I]for[/I] corporations paying next to nothing taxes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.