Costa Mesa has decided that it doesn't really need firemen, or many other city employees for that matter. These are workers that will be out of a job and city services that will be outsourced. While the city plans on saving on labor costs, I wonder whether the sum costs of these services will decrease with privatization and whether the service will be as good. That is to say, if the county fire department can cover the city with 15 fewer fire fighters, does that mean that they are more efficient or just ill-prepared for a major disaster? Will the city pay less per fireman once they outsource the service? Can the county respond to multiple emergencies in different cities?

Corporations are profit-driven. Earning money is why they exist and, as rational economic actors, they will always try to maximize profits. To do anything else in a non-monopolistic environment is to plan for failure. Governments are service-driven. Tax payers fund these services so that the community can benefit from them. Governments are incentivized to provide good services and if they do not, then the elected officials running those services will not be reelected.

I believe an entity cannot be both profit-driven and service-driven. You earn a profit when there is money left over after all operating costs have been paid. You have provided the best service you can provide when you use every resource you have (including any excess funds) to improve the service you provide. I understand that competition drives innovation and can lead to decreased costs. The argument for privatization is logical enough, but I don't trust it.