Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

Economy is painful but I'd prefer spend my few coins at my destination.

When not flying on the company dime, I fully agree.

[Valmy]

I don't see the shareholder value of flying people first class.

[Zanza]

I'm just not getting it. What is the advantage meant to be with franchises running the profit making part of the railway?
All that comes to mind for me is it's easier for the government's numbers if they know they'll only have to pay x million rather than possibly earning y million or paying z milion.

Railways - like roads, canals or electricity grids - are a natural monopoly. You can build just oNe track from London to Birmingham and probably need expropriation powers to do so. Trains, cars, ships and arguably power plants are not a natural monopoly. That's why it makes sense that the government or some state-owned enterprise provides the network as a service to the competing operators that use the network.

[Zanza]

I don't see the shareholder value of flying people first class.

Higher work performance at the destination. The highest opportunity cost the company has is the limited availability of its specialised employees. Wasting that is destroying shareholder value.

[Richard Hakluyt]

To make a profit one has to keep costs down. By farming out the franchises to private companies government is out-sourcing that (difficult) problem of keeping costs down. Governments are bad at keeping costs down for a variety of reasons. Now it is possible that there is not proper competition and that the franchisees are taking the piss, which is a good argument for what the Germans have done I guess.

Sorry, this is meant as a reply to Tyr's earlier question.

[celedhring]

I don't see the shareholder value of flying people first class.

Higher work performance at the destination. The highest opportunity cost the company has is the limited availability of its specialised employees. Wasting that is destroying shareholder value.

Networking, too. Professor I work with sits on the board of several companies, and he's always told me it's bizarre the amount of deals that can get traced back to a chance meeting at an airport VIP lounge.

[Tamas]

To make a profit one has to keep costs down. By farming out the franchises to private companies government is out-sourcing that (difficult) problem of keeping costs down. Governments are bad at keeping costs down for a variety of reasons. Now it is possible that there is not proper competition and that the franchisees are taking the piss, which is a good argument for what the Germans have done I guess.

Sorry, this is meant as a reply to Tyr's earlier question.

Yes.

Also, a hybrid solution of civil servants handing out regional monopolies seems like an excellent venue for massive corruption.

[Martinus]

I don't see the shareholder value of flying people first class.

That's like saying you don't see the shareholder value in giving people pay raises.

[Valmy]

Also, a hybrid solution of civil servants handing out regional monopolies seems like an excellent venue for massive corruption.

Yeah which is why I don't entirely like using contractors to 'privatize' public services that still remain the responsibility of the government. Generally it does not save the public much money and doesn't increase service quality. The workers get paid shitier though.

Sometimes it is necessary but it is not a particularly good form of privatization.

[Valmy]

I don't see the shareholder value of flying people first class.

That's like saying you don't see the shareholder value in giving people pay raises.

Indeed. They should all be fired and then contracted back in as temps.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is quite possible to save company money by giving employees perks like 1st class travel rather than simply upping their pay. Also they can work if they are travelling 1st class, much harder to do that in economy class.

[Tamas]

Also, a hybrid solution of civil servants handing out regional monopolies seems like an excellent venue for massive corruption.

Yeah which is why I don't entirely like using contractors to 'privatize' public services that still remain the responsibility of the government. Generally it does not save the public much money and doesn't increase service quality. The workers get paid shitier though.

Sometimes it is necessary but it is not a particularly good form of privatization.

I think it is still better.

If for nothing else, than trade unions. With a private company, the trade union has the incentive to have reasonable demands on account of the employer not having a limitless purse. With a state run company operating an absolutely critical service, there is no limit to the coercion power of a strong union.

[Valmy]

If for nothing else, than trade unions. With a private company, the trade union has the incentive to have reasonable demands on account of the employer not having a limitless purse. With a state run company operating an absolutely critical service, there is no limit to the coercion power of a strong union.

Ah. We don't have that shit in Texas so it did not factor into my calculus

Also I was thinking about how some towns and cities contract out cleaning parks and shit and what a dumpster fire that has been. Local governments have very limited funds, which is why many police departments just take people's shit and have ticket quotas to fund themselves.

[celedhring]

Over here contracting out doesn't make much a difference re: union power. For example our trans-metropolitan bus lines are public concessions operated by private companies, and since they are such an important piece of the mobility puzzle, if they are shut down because of a strike, ultimately the public authority will be brought to the table, purse open. Transportation trade unions are just incredibly powerful given the havoc they can wreak onto the public.

[Martinus]

It is quite possible to save company money by giving employees perks like 1st class travel rather than simply upping their pay. Also they can work if they are travelling 1st class, much harder to do that in economy class.

Yup. And to be honest if you need to be traveling often at long distances for your work, then even if you do so in the business class, your quality of life is pretty shitty, so you often need to give people perks just to keep them doing it.

My firm, for example, has a pretty reasonable travel policy, in that, we travel economy if the journey is below 4 hours and business if it is above 4 hours - this applies to everybody, both partners and associates.