Nathan Newman wrote: -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.
I don't buy it-- business loves large chunks of the public sector-- roads, universities, and of course the defense sector. There are reasons why even rightwing Republicans don't cut the size of government when they are in control. They may want to cut certain kinds of spending, especially on the poor, but they love the public sector because the private sector makes shitloads of money from its existence.
Businesses internally have all sorts of jobs that are only indirectly making money for the business. A janitor doesn't make them money but keeps the office from drowning in dirt and paper. But it's still a valid part of the production process. Yes, the public sector often creates products that have long profit horizons-- education and basic research -- or a large shared benefit with externalities-- ie. infrastructure -- that doesn't mean it's not vital to production and profits.
-- Nathan Newman