Profits Over People: How Privatization Screws the Working Class

By I.V. Hill | DayMark News
In a Detroit neighborhood, a single mother received a water bill approaching $500, only to learn that her tap water—administered by a private contractor—was potentially contaminated. Without the means to constantly purchase bottled water, her children suffered illnesses allegedly linked to the contaminated supply. Attempts to seek clarification led her into a maze of conflicting policies, closed offices, and long call wait times. While specific details vary by case, this pattern aligns with findings from organizations that have examined water privatization issues, such as Food & Water Watch’s The State of Public Water and Corporate Accountability’s Troubled Waters report. These analyses suggest that when public services shift to private hands, costs often rise while accountability and service quality decline.

Proponents of privatization claim it brings cost savings and efficiency, yet research and investigative journalism frequently paint a more complex picture. Instead of price reductions or improvements in quality, many privatized services report diminished oversight and inflated fees. Data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances shows that the bottom 50% of U.S. households hold just around 1% of total stock market wealth, indicating that any financial gains from privatized public services rarely benefit most Americans, instead enriching a narrow investor class.

The Transparency Deficit

Public agencies are subject to laws like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which grants the public access to records and decision-making processes. In contrast, private companies that take over these services often operate outside such mandates. This reduced transparency can mask inefficiencies, mismanagement, and inflated costs.

Case Study: The Flint Water Crisis
In 2014, Flint, Michigan, switched its water source to cut costs, involving private consultants. As The Washington Post and MLive detailed, improper treatment led to widespread lead contamination, which affected thousands of residents. Private entities' accountability proved difficult because they were not subject to the same disclosure rules as public agencies. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s final report on the Flint crisis highlighted systemic failures exacerbated by opaque contractor operations.

Profit Motives vs. Public Interest

Privatized services are often beholden to investors seeking returns, which can prompt cost-cutting measures that undermine quality. Analyses by In The Public Interest and investigations published by Reuters have documented instances where profit-driven strategies overshadow the interests of service users.

Case Study: Military Housing Scandal
Families living in privatized military housing, including those managed by Balfour Beatty Communities, reported mold, pest infestations, and unsafe conditions. According to a Reuters Special Report on substandard military housing and the Department of Defense Inspector General’s 2020 Report, some contractors prioritized shareholder returns over critical maintenance, leaving families in hazardous living environments.

The Stock Market Mirage

Advocates of privatization argue that it enhances economic efficiency and increases stock valuations. However, Federal Reserve data on wealth distribution shows that stock ownership is heavily concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. Thus, economic gains from privatization often fail to reach the working class, undermining claims that privatization serves the broader public interest.

Financial Burdens on the Working Class

In many cases, privatization directly increases consumer costs. Higher tolls, utility bills, and service fees can strain household budgets, particularly among lower-income families.

Case Study: Toll Roads in Texas
The privatization of Texas toll roads, including Sam Rayburn Tollway, has led to rising toll rates documented by the Texas Tribune’s investigative coverage. Analyses from the Dallas News note that these toll hikes disproportionately affect working-class commuters, forcing them to choose between costly routes or significant detours, ultimately enriching private operators at the public’s expense.

The Erosion of Democratic Oversight

When elected officials administer public services, they remain ultimately accountable to voters. Privatization can transfer key decision-making authority to corporate boards, diminishing the public’s voice in providing essential services.

Case Study: Chicago Parking Meters
In 2008, Chicago leased its parking meters to a private consortium. Following this deal, costs skyrocketed, and city control over pricing and policy slipped. A 2009 report from the Chicago Inspector General’s Office and investigative pieces in the Chicago Reader detail how the long-term contract favored the private operator’s revenue stream over the public’s right to determine local infrastructure priorities.

Grassroots Responses and Reforms

Despite these challenges, communities and governments have found pathways to reclaim services:

Reclaiming public services: Cities like Paris have re-established public control over their water utilities. The Transnational Institute’s report on Reclaiming Public Services provides case studies illustrating improved transparency, cost reductions, and service enhancements post-reclamation.

Scaling Back Private Prisons: Activist movements, as documented by The Sentencing Project’s Report and covered by outlets like the Los Angeles Times, have pressured states like California to limit the role of for-profit prisons, leading to greater accountability and better conditions for incarcerated individuals.

These successes underscore that, through informed policy efforts and organized civic engagement, it is possible to counteract or reverse some of privatization's negative consequences.

Recommendations for Policy Reform

Strengthen Transparency Requirements: Extend FOIA-like measures to private contractors managing public services, ensuring consistent public access to operational data.

Reclaim Public Services: Support reclamation efforts, as recommended in Food & Water Watch’s guidelines, to restore local control and oversight.

Citizen Oversight Committees: As suggested by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s publications, create independent committees, and compliance.

Fiscal Accountability Audits: Mandate periodic, publicly released financial audits of privatized services to ensure taxpayer funds are spent responsibly and efficiently.

Equitable Wealth Distribution Policies: Develop measures that limit disproportionate profits from public services and reinvest savings into community programs, as explored in research from the Economic Policy Institute and In Public Interest.

Conclusion

Privatization frequently fails to deliver the promised benefits of efficiency and lower costs. Instead, a growing body of evidence—from the Flint water crisis and military housing issues to toll roads and leased parking meters—illustrates a pattern of reduced transparency, higher consumer burdens, and diminished democratic oversight. The working class, owning only a tiny fraction of stock market wealth, rarely sees any financial upside. Yet, meaningful change has occurred when communities have acted to restore public control and accountability. Ongoing vigilance, policy reforms, and public engagement will remain critical to ensuring that essential services truly serve the broader public interest.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Donate