THE (IN)EFFICIENCY OF THE FOR PROFIT SECTOR

I recently received an unsolicited phone call from the Dean of a For Profit University asking me to teach a course starting the following week. The assigned professor had resigned abruptly. I agreed and was told that I would need to send in copies of my transcripts and a Resume. I promptly replied emailing copies of the requested documents and made an appointment to handle the I9 and W4 requirements.

I then receive an e-mail stating that I have to use the University’s on-line application. The process required me to:

1.      Cut and past my resume.

2.      Download that same resume.

3.      Down load copies of my educational transcripts which had already been sent to the dean.

4.      Enter, separately, details of my academic history which were already on both the copied and downloaded resumes, the downloaded transcripts, and the resumes and transcripts forwarded to the local dean.

5.      The application also required me to hand enter my last ten years of employment history which were already on both the downloaded and copied resumes as well as the copy sent to the dean..

6.      After completing this process, I received an e-mail stating that I was required to sign into a third party background checking site which asked for the same information which I had typed into the University’s application. This information was, also, already contained in my transcripts and resume.

7.      Another e-mail soon followed which said I was now required to list four references on another third party site. These items were, again, already listed on the main application site.

8.      At this point I wrote back saying that the school already had the information for items 6 and 7. Therefore, if they wanted them done they could do them themselves. After all, they had recruited me.

9.      Their response was, in effect, do it or else. I replied that given we were at an impasse HR should inform the local dean that the process was at an end.

10.    They don’t seem to believe it because I keep receiving e-mails to contact the third party sites. 

Given the all the repetition in the process, we cannot believe the oft quoted assumption that for-profit means efficiency. In effect, given the fact that the school may not be able to find a quick replacement, they will probably loose approximately $12,000 after deducting their cost for my salary.

STANDARD OF LIVING vs. COST OF LIVING

The major problem with the debate regarding changing to the Chained CPI from the Fixed Weight CPI has to do with the fact that both are referred to as Cost of Living measures. They are not. The Fixed Weight CPI can be thought of as the cost of maintaining your standard of living. The Chained CPI is the cost of living at your current level. When I, and most of my friends, think of inflation and the cost of living we usually are thinking in terms of the cost of maintaining our living standard.

Those who want to use the Chained CPI argue that peoples' buying patterns have changed and the Chained CPI would reflect the change. But, people change their buying patterns for several reasons. One reason is that price changes alter our buying patterns. On the other hand we alter our buying because our tastes and preferences change. If  the only change was due to tastes and preferences I would support the use of the Chained CPI because the change would represent maintenance  of our Standard of Living. However, if we change because of higher prices we are lowering our standard of living; the Chained Index does not reflect this while the Fixed Rate Index does. 

Using the Fixed Weight CPI to adjust Social Security, Veterans Benefits and other government payments allows Seniors and Veterans to maintain their standard of living. The use of the chained index would lead them to fall behind. It is also deceptive to the public in general. For an extreme example: If the cut in food stamps mean that are large portion of the urban population has to eat dog food, because they can no long afford meat and chicken made for human consumption, the cost of dog food would be put into the Chained CPI to reflect how people are spending their money. This would lead to either shrinkage in the Chained CPI or a perceived lower level of price growth. The Chained CPI advocates would claim that the cost of living is shrinking or not growing and start saying how well off we all are. However, are we really better off eating dog food?