Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Who cares if the profit margin is even double that (10-20%). Almost certainly still cheaper than the government getting into the hospitality business, and has the benefit of not creating a permanent bureaucracy.

View on HN

In 2007 a boat with 100+ Haitian refugees made it to South Florida. The refugees were immediately detained, then sent to Krome Detention Center (no women) and Broward Transition Center (men/women/children). However, between the 2 facilities there were not enough beds and the remaining were put up in private motels. Even in Miami/Fort Lauderdale Florida, where our main industry is tourism, I think the private motels were far more cost effective than the existing Government infrastructure/detention facilities. And the people making the most money? The contractors of the detention facilities making 1,000'sx profit margins on things like phone cards, sandals, and vending machine food stuffs.

As a side, my legal clinic represented the Haitian refugees who were children in asylum/visa hearings pro bono.

Thanks for helping represent the refugees pro bono :)

I am not particularly concerned with the "above-the-table" profit margin. I am concerned with the possibility that using private contractors is prone to abuse, a loss of accountability (shell games) and a race to the bottom for quality of service in a venture where human quality of life is (or should be) the primary goal. Sure, the prime contract might be locked-in to a small profit margin, but I find it hard to believe that the same owners don't have their hand in the pot somewhere lower down in the supply chain. Which would lead to them making more than the prime contract 3.5% profit margin might suggest.

Then again, it's not like public-private partnerships (or project delivery methods in general) are brand new concepts. Governments have somehow managed to get roads and schools (infrastructure) built for a pretty long time. (Not without complaints of overruns and abuse: see any megaproject in the United States.) Though perhaps there is something to be said for the qualitative difference and value of human life that distinguishes a "race to the bottom" for building a road, compared to providing temporary shelter and food for actual human beings.

I agree that it's good that a government saves itself from getting into a "non-core" business so to speak. But I think that without strict oversight from government, refugee support services could turn into yet another field where shady business practices are the norm.

I am uncertain as to why you hold the actions of private individuals in such contempt, but give the government a free pass when it is just as prone to abuse, lack of accountability and poor service. Why is one a devil and the other an angel?

In general there is a formal process that use to remedy the situation with the government that is not available with a private company. Consider getting a parking ticket. At a private lot you are ticketed in error. You call the number listed but they refuse to accept they made an error even if you have proof you paid for parking. Or if you get a parking ticket from the city you can protest the citation by mail, then if it is not overturned you can request an appeal.

You can make use of the court system for resolving torts and contract violations in both cases, whether these courts are hypothetically publicly or privately operated. Actually in the case of a public service, you may become entangled in certain complications related to sovereign immunity, depending on jurisdiction.

(There's also the surprising efficacy of vocally complaining in public. Do not underestimate a private firm's willingness to recuperate damages on its brand image.)

How likely it is that a refugee can effectively argue their complaints in a court?

edit. addendum. These kind of firms have not that much of reason to care about their brand image when it comes to what regular people think about them: their only customers are some government officials (or in car park example, people who own the park space), not the general public.

Refugees by definition have little leverage in general. I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb that any antipathy toward them will be greater expressed by the state that administrates the territory to begin with (and has various political interests to appear tough on something) than by private individuals, who are far more heterogeneous.

It isn't. A similar situation has arisen in Sweden and immigrant housing in government owned facilities are significantly cheaper than private run ones.

Please provide figures and sources to back up your claims. (I'd love if the comment you're replying to would do the same as well).

You're very certain for someone who certainly have not checked first.

In 2010, Norway spent on average $11,800 per year per refugee or asylum seeker in government operated centres. This amount covered lodging, health checks, nursery, and co-pay on dental and medical services. I don't know how much of that is the lodging, but it's nowhere near the whole amount.

The prices stated in the article adds up to $11,315 to $27,375 for just the lodging.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad as a way to deal with rapid increases in the required capacity.

It's better to compare the costs in kroner, as there's 30% exchange rate difference between 2010 and 2015.

Privatizing prisons hasn't created a permanent "bureaucracy", but it's created a just as permanent government funded industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com