>But even by that definition, a worker in a Medicaid hospital who provides
>health care for a Wal-Mart worker is helping the company make money by
>keeping the workforce functioning just as much as a for-profit hospital
>worker does.
>
>A government researcher whose work ends up in a pharmaceutical product makes
>money for the boss as well.
>
>The capitalist system depends on the public sector in a range of ways to
>keep its profits going, so however you slice it, it's a strange use of the
>word.
But there is a difference between enabling the private sector to make money and directly making money. Business is inclined to see the public sector more as a cost than a benefit - and not just for ideological reasons. If you can privatize a public service, and someone can make a buck on it, so much the better.
On the examples. The hospital that takes care of the WMT worker is doing so mostly at someone else's expense, which is why WMT is happy to pass out instructions on how to apply for Medicaid. That aids in the reproduction of the working class, just like women's unpaid household labor. And the government scientist is covering basic research expenses - the kind of broad, noncommercial work on which no one could make a buck. But in both cases, they're not direct contributions to profit-making, which is one reason the public sector is always having to beg for cash.
Doug