5 ms·

Exactly. The government was going to spend money on refugee housing and services anyway. If the brothers can provide suitable accommodations cheaper than anyone

• johnchristopher 11y ago
  Except it's not cheaper for the government or the taxpayer.
  • kristofferR 11y ago
    It is vastly cheaper. When the influx was at its highest the government had to buy all rooms in hotels in order to house the refugees.
    • vidarh 11y ago
      It is cheaper for short time periods. As you yourself notes: It's cheaper when it competes with hotels. It is absolutely not cheaper than government run asylmottak (asylym centres/reception). As an option for short/medium term handling of overflow it is reasonable, as it makes no sense to build more permanent spaces if the refugee flow then quickly subsides. It also makes sense to pay private providers reasonable amounts above cost to shoulder the risk of changes in volume. But if the base level is expected to stay high for a long period of time, the government have demonstrated very clearly it can run these kind of centres cheaply.
  • nickez 11y ago
    At least in Sweden the company run homes are a lot cheaper than the municipality run ones...
    • reycharles 11y ago
      Interesting, this comment says the exact opposite. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10851727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10851727