Flutterby™! : Privatizing social services 2003-09-12 15:27:21.124062+00

Privatizing social services

2003-09-12 15:27:21.124062+00 by Dan Lyke 6 comments

Random thought of the moment: If you get a good "pinko socialist commie versus heartless libertarian" flame war going, one of the arguments for social services oft introduced is that a "social safety net" offers a benefit to the economy. I'm involved in some situations where I'm seeing how poorly administered that social safety net is. So if there's an economic benefit, that implies that there's an opportunity profit, especially since the private company could pick and choose rather than having to help everyone. How do we do this? The only ways I can think of involve indentured servitude which, alas, is only legal if you're a credit card company.

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-12 17:35:33.712158+00 by: ebradway

Indentured servitude does exist in large companies who sponsor green cards for immigrant workers. I know of at least one local company that padded it's IT staff with Indian immigrants. They are all paid significantly less than their American co-workers and none of them hold management positions (not even lead roles). They don't make enough money to live on, send some home, and pay an immigration lawyer to get them out of their deal. This also happens to be a company that managed to make a profit operating a portion of Tennessee's Medicare system and has even expanded into other states. Maybe a reason they manage a profit is by using unscrupulous employment techniques...

The primary goal of social programs is universal access. In a country with such a low population density as the US, universal access gets very expensive. Just look at the model behind the Postal System. But if you privatize, you'll see cost-analysis eliminate loss-generating customers. You also run the risk of an Enron running programs. Private companies have the ability to completely belly-up. Public programs are able to manage some semblence of functionality even when things are most dire.

Another big issue you have with the publicly administered social system is that the system itself is a social system - tasked with employing people that are marginally employable elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, there are exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions are hampered by the inefficiency of their peers (It's hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys...).

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-13 19:33:43.618441+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Privatized social service? It's called "charity". Works well, too, or worked until the gov't threw itself into the process, at least...

Another form of charity is hiring someone you don't really need. This used to be a trivial task; now, you have to not only pay salary but unemployment insurance and social security and all the rest, and check if the guy is a citizen or has a green card... If you don't already have a payroll, then you have to start one, which is an expensive affair, or worry about the IRS coming down on your for not filing or withholding.

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-13 23:25:50.887872+00 by: Dan Lyke

Much of what passes for charity these days is equivalent to Enron running social services. Organizations tend to exist to perpetuate themselves, and the larger the organization the more the stake of the organization in keeping lots of people employed rather than fulfilling the mission of the group.

And it really doesn't matter that private social services would be cherry-picking, because if there is a way to monetize the alleged economic gain, then starting with the cream is fine.

I guess I'm also bordering on social satire, because if it isn't practical to monetize the economic gain then that kinda shoots holes in some of the socialist arguments. Of course it also promotes the "heartless" image (between 60 and 70 beats per minute, thank you very much).

And really, it's not that I begrudge the efforts, energy and dollars that have prompted this question, it's looking for some sort of calibration of my sense of reality and cause and effect. Because clearly, just like education, throwing more money at the problem isn't the answer, there are social pressures and essential roles that need to be fulfilled to have any of these processes be effective. I'm more interested in exploring those pressures and roles.

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-14 00:23:39.583321+00 by: Diane Reese

Organizations tend to exist to perpetuate themselves, and the larger the organization the more the stake of the organization in keeping lots of people employed rather than fulfilling the mission of the group.

If you're curious about the overhead costs of a charity you're considering donating to, you may want to visit http://www.charitynavigator.org and see if your intended charitable recipient is listed among the 2,500+ they've rated. I usually find it enlightening to review their data.

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-14 04:22:18.5012+00 by: crasch

What are Social Policy Bonds? Social Policy Bonds are non-interest bearing bonds redeemable for a fixed sum only when a targeted social objective has been achieved and sustained. The bonds are backed by government or private bodies, floated by auction, and freely tradable at all times.

The effect is to contract out the achievement of social objectives to the private sector. Whoever backs the bonds sets the objective and is the ultimate source of finance for its achievement.

Social Policy Bonds would channel market forces into the achievement of social goals. By rewarding outcomes, rather than activities, processes or institutions, they could enhance the efficiency, stability, and transparency of public policymaking.

#Comment Re: Privatizing social services made: 2003-09-14 06:04:16.139715+00 by: crasch

The effect is to contract out the achievement of social objectives to the private sector. Whoever backs the bonds sets the objective and is the ultimate source of finance for its achievement.