3 ms·
I agree with everything you said but this: > then it will force government organizations to re-think their planning. Made me lol. As if any Government has ev
by FussyZeus 11y ago
I agree with everything you said but this:
> then it will force government organizations to re-think their planning.
Made me lol. As if any Government has ever changed it's offerings based on the market. They'll just keep paying public workers absurd wages to continue to suck because status quo is way more important than customer satisfaction when it comes to public entities.
- babygoat 11y agoEver? Your bias is showing. http://www.twincities.com/2015/12/31/mark-dayton-wants-100-million-for-rural-minnesota-web-access/ http://www.twincities.com/2015/12/31/mark-dayton-wants-100-m...
- FussyZeus 11y agoHow does a politician wanting money to start a service defeat my point in any way? He's not fighting a status quo, he's adding a new service which is extremely sexy for a politician to do, especially in the leadup to an election. Not to mention he isn't actually doing anything yet, he's demanding funding to do something, which is also way easier to do then actually doing it. A Government entity has no competition, or if they do (like the USPS for example) they can rely on subsidies from the Government and run at a total loss if they need to. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but if you have a worker who knows their performance is tied to their ability to deliver a product and another worker who knows they're pay is coming whether the customers are happy or not, one of those is going to be motivated to make sure customers are happy and the other one is not, and they will act accordingly.