04-01-2009, 05:15 PM
Hi,
Oh, wait, that doesn't work :whistling:
Let us make the following assumptions:
<blockquote>The actual cost in time, effort, equipment, personnel, etc. is the same for state run and licensed inspections.
The state run system suffers from the usual inefficiencies such as: no one in final authority, authority and responsibility not balanced, difficulty in firing incompetent workers, lack of motivation, etc.
The state licensed system need some level of supervision to make it work right.</blockquote>
Now, as the (forced) 'consumer' of this 'product', I am only concerned with its cost to me. Included in the cost is both time (e.g., the state run system has fewer locations, thus necessitating a longer drive, or is not open evening and week ends, forcing me to take time off from work) and money (the actual fees plus taxes I have to pay to support state inspectors of the licensed system).
It is not clear to me which of the two will be more expensive. Will the inefficiencies of the state run system add more to the cost than the need for inspections add to the licensed system? I think these are exactly the kinds of questions that cannot be answered easily. Or, perhaps, at all. A dynamic official in charge of the state inspection group could, perhaps, get more done with fewer people. An apathetic political appointee could get nothing done with a bigger staff. Theory is great, but how to factor in these practical matters.
--Pete
Quote:It's more a matter of having to think about everything that might go wrong and having a reasonable answer, . . .Yes. First you have to make a complete list of the unforeseeable problems, then you have to generate solutions for each, then you have to make a complete list of the unforeseeable problems that those solutions will cause, then you have to . . .
Oh, wait, that doesn't work :whistling:
Quote: . . . observing the system operate and correcting bugs as you discover them.A devil in this detail. Who is to do the observing and correcting? Remember that we got here by considering the trade off between state run inspection programs and state licensed inspection programs.
Let us make the following assumptions:
<blockquote>The actual cost in time, effort, equipment, personnel, etc. is the same for state run and licensed inspections.
The state run system suffers from the usual inefficiencies such as: no one in final authority, authority and responsibility not balanced, difficulty in firing incompetent workers, lack of motivation, etc.
The state licensed system need some level of supervision to make it work right.</blockquote>
Now, as the (forced) 'consumer' of this 'product', I am only concerned with its cost to me. Included in the cost is both time (e.g., the state run system has fewer locations, thus necessitating a longer drive, or is not open evening and week ends, forcing me to take time off from work) and money (the actual fees plus taxes I have to pay to support state inspectors of the licensed system).
It is not clear to me which of the two will be more expensive. Will the inefficiencies of the state run system add more to the cost than the need for inspections add to the licensed system? I think these are exactly the kinds of questions that cannot be answered easily. Or, perhaps, at all. A dynamic official in charge of the state inspection group could, perhaps, get more done with fewer people. An apathetic political appointee could get nothing done with a bigger staff. Theory is great, but how to factor in these practical matters.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?