.

[SD Realtor]

Perhaps I should revise. Forecasting costs given a smaller finite set of parameters is possible. Private companies do indeed seem to do it well. Much better then the public entities. Especially when healthcare is involved.

Yes so one statement out of all the other points I made was arguable. All of the other ones do indicate that the way that it is being done now does not work and costs the taxpayers alot of money. Furthermore that the amount that is being heaped on the taxpayers could grow dramatically based on the outcome of future court cases as more municipalities fall by the wayside and look for ways to keep those pension checks rolling.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
The only way this change would result in a net creation of jobs is if the private sector was LESS efficient than the city. All the current city waste employees would lose their jobs. The private sector will only do it if the work is profitable. I would assume that many current city waste workers would pick up work in private industry, probably at lower wages. But I doubt the cost to consumers would be less than the current cost to the city. A single provider will always be more efficient in providing service than multiple providers. (A single truck in each neighborhood v. multiple trucks from competing services in that same neighborhood.) Personally, I’d rather have the higher wages going to the city workers and cut out the profit.[/quote]

My assumption is that many different competing providers would eventually figure out a more efficient process than the current weekly pickup. Initially it might be more ineffecient and fuel the creation of jobs but as various competitors figure out better processes those that cannot compete will fold.

A single provider is not always better because a single provider has no incentive to innovate. That’s like saying if Microsoft could be the only operating system provider everything in software would be more efficient. Do you really believe that?

[SD Realtor]

Sounds like there should be no private entities then because any service industry that has multiple providers is less efficient then a single entity.

Hmmm curious logic.

[FlyerInHi]

I have my primary residence in las Vegas. Nobody is ever home on trash day, so we take the trash away ourselves. I still have to pay republic services (private
company) for trash pick up although they don’t provide any service. It you have water sevice, trash is mandatory.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Sounds like there should be no private entities then because any service industry that has multiple providers is less efficient then a single entity.

Hmmm curious logic.[/quote]

I was specifically talking about residential trash pick-up. And yes, it’s perfect logic. Everyone gets almost identical service, differing only in the number of trash cans. You tell me, which would be more efficient, one provider stopping at every house once a week or 10 different providers driving the exact same route every week, but stopping, on average at every 10th house?

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Sounds like there should be no private entities then because any service industry that has multiple providers is less efficient then a single entity.

Hmmm curious logic.[/quote]

I was specifically talking about residential trash pick-up. And yes, it’s perfect logic. Everyone gets almost identical service, differing only in the number of trash cans. You tell me, which would be more efficient, one provider stopping at every house once a week or 10 different providers driving the exact same route every week, but stopping, on average at every 10th house?[/quote]

SK – you are completely missing the importance of competition for keeping price down. A single supplier is also known as a monopoly – and few want that. Somewhere between one and a billion suppliers is optimal, depending on what the good or service is.

[SK in CV]

[quote=njtosd]
SK – you are completely missing the importance of competition for keeping price down. A single supplier is also known as a monopoly – and few want that. Somewhere between one and a billion suppliers is optimal, depending on what the good or service is.[/quote]

I’m not missing the point at all. We’re talking about a very specific service, trash pickup. Not making cars or cell phones or spa services. If you don’t think those in management, even in civil service jobs, aren’t concerned with keeping costs down, you’re wrong. There may be no profit motive, but there is always pressure to spend less and deliver services more efficiently. And particularly with government contracted services, the motivation is always to deliver less service for more money.

[SD Realtor]

Hmmm… Several cities I have rentals in out of state have private trash collection. Seems like there is not an explosion of prices.

[SK in CV]

As you know probably know SDR, there are cities in SD county that don’t provide trash collection. I’m pretty sure that Poway still contracts with EDCO to provide services. A single provider, and each homeowner must pay that provider directly. I’m pretty sure that I never said there would be a price explosion, only that a single provider is more efficient. Essentially that’s what Poway has. (or at least had, it may have changed since I lived there) I suspect that residents of Poway are not paying any less than the city of San Diego does on a per residence basis. Given the two options, I’d rather have higher wages, lower corporate profit.

[paramount]

If you owned a monopoly, wouldn’t you want to keep prices low?

Otherwise you invite competition.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]Hmmm… Several cities I have rentals in out of state have private trash collection. Seems like there is not an explosion of prices.[/quote]Actually, Republic now picks up our trash in Chula Vista. They bought Allied Waste, who bought Laidlaw several years earlier. They pick up EVERYONE’s trash in the incorporated area. For the 39 gallon TRASH bin, 90 gal recycle bin and 90 gal yard waste bin, they charge ~$29 bimonthly. HOWEVER, in the UNINCorporated areas (the closest one being ~3 blocks away), they charge over $72 for the same (bimonthly) service. This tells me that the CITY was and is subsidizing Republic (and earlier, Allied Waste and Laidlaw) for trash pickup. However, the charge does not appear on our tax bills as it does in some county unincorporated areas. This tells me it is subsidized by the CITY’s general fund (partly derived from “Teeter funds” which are property taxes confiscated by the state and later returned to the cities and counties from whence they came.

Even though Republic (and its predecessors’) main office is located at the Otay Landfill in Chula Vista, we are now required to send our bimonthly payments to Phoenix (snail mail only).

Go figure that one out. Is it a monopoly? I would say YES! Is it “unionized?” No. There is no “People’s Ordinance” in place in the City of Chula Vista and the collectors are NOT “civil servants.”

Hence, except for comm’l RE and large apt bldgs (who can choose their trash p/u provider), SFR and 2-4 unit owners cannot “choose” their provider in the incorporated area.

I would venture that SD East County cities have the same type of “contract” with EDCO (of Lemon Grove).

Folks, “privatization” doesn’t always work out the way the “free-market” proponents think it “ought to.”

In SD County, for all practical purposes, in the incorporated cities outside of the City of SD, residential trash collection is NOT a “free market” and never will be.

So get that silly notion out of your over-thinking heads.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=CA renter]
And I may be wrong, but weren’t you part of the group who liked to refer to BG and I as the “anvil sisters,” because we have differing points of view — with both of us having worked in the public sector. And if I’m misguided, please clarify things for me so that I can get a better understanding of privatization and how it will save taxpayers money **in the real world** (vague theories and opinions don’t count). I follow these things very closely, and have never seen any evidence to support your claims, but you seem to think that you know more about it than I do…so please show us the evidence that supports your claims.[/quote]

Nope… Not me… I am not in that group. I think you are quite reasonable in most other areas. I will make no bones about the fact I think BG is nerotic. I don’t like her and never have. But you do get a bit zealous, when discussing unions, and your mind is not open on this subject…

I am quite capable of being a jerk… This is just not that time.

Missed that bit of theater when they called you Anvil sister… funny though…

CE

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CA renter]
And I may be wrong, but weren’t you part of the group who liked to refer to BG and I as the “anvil sisters,” because we have differing points of view — with both of us having worked in the public sector. And if I’m misguided, please clarify things for me so that I can get a better understanding of privatization and how it will save taxpayers money **in the real world** (vague theories and opinions don’t count). I follow these things very closely, and have never seen any evidence to support your claims, but you seem to think that you know more about it than I do…so please show us the evidence that supports your claims.[/quote]

Nope… Not me… I am not in that group. I think you are quite reasonable in most other areas. I will make no bones about the fact I think BG is nerotic. I don’t like her and never have. But you do get a bit zealous, when discussing unions, and your mind is not open on this subject…

I am quite capable of being a jerk… This is just not that time.

Missed that bit of theater when they called you Anvil sister… funny though…

CE[/quote]Uhh, I believe it IS “that time.”

And I believe CE to be overly paranoid and borderline delusional … due to a variety of issues he has previously admitted to here … so take his posts with a grain of salt, folks…

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount]If you owned a monopoly, wouldn’t you want to keep prices low?

Otherwise you invite competition.[/quote]

You’re missing entirely how endemic corruption is to privatization. Read about the history of privatization in various countries around the world and see what happens when privatization takes hold. Read about how privatization has resulted in poor outcomes here in our own country as well. Read the links from my posts above, or just Google, “Does privatization save money?”

The only thing privatization does is expand the wealth/income gap and concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands. It does NOT save taxpayers or consumers money. It will NOT result in more or better paying jobs for workers. Learn about the people and organizations behind the privatization movement to see why this is being pushed.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV]As you know probably know SDR, there are cities in SD county that don’t provide trash collection. I’m pretty sure that Poway still contracts with EDCO to provide services. A single provider, and each homeowner must pay that provider directly. I’m pretty sure that I never said there would be a price explosion, only that a single provider is more efficient. Essentially that’s what Poway has. (or at least had, it may have changed since I lived there) I suspect that residents of Poway are not paying any less than the city of San Diego does on a per residence basis. Given the two options, I’d rather have higher wages, lower corporate profit.[/quote]

Same thing in our area. We have to use Waste Management (~$40/bi-monthly).

And could not agree more WRT the higher wages for the people who do the actual work vs. paying the corporate heads and shareholders millions of dollars per year, instead.

[Author]

Posts