4 ms·

> To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d support a ban on senior level leadership from accepting board seats or contractor /

> To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d support a ban on senior level leadership from accepting board seats or contractor / full-time positions I'd extend to this to a lot of high ranking government positions, and a lot of other jobs (lobbying, etc). What if we just said "In order to serve in this position you must give up the right to employment by private corporations for the rest of your life. In return you will be given a significant pension." Is that a totally naïve idea? EDIT: I was specifically thinking of positions where the prestige and a very good salary/pension (plus book deals / speaking engagements) would be more than enough to attract many qualified people. But yes, preventing private employment entirely is probably too aggressive, and it seems difficult to scope restrictions on types of jobs.

ams6110 10y ago
That's too extreme. You just want to avoid people going to work for companies that they had significant direct relationships with either as regulators or customers.
jdavis703 10y ago
I think so. Government is in increasing need of professionals with skills that are in high demand by industry. They already have a hard time recruiting since pay is capped at the low, low six figures. This would further serve to dissuade talented people from working there.I've thought about working for the government again, but if I knew I had no choice of private employment again in my career, that would be a no go (you're then essentially giving bueracrats higher up the food chain control of your entire life).
- JshWright 10y ago
  You've 'thought about' going and getting a high ranking government job (seniority equivalent to an armed forces general)? You must have some very impressive credentials...
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    That's not quite the thought process. You look at the pay you earn now, in a non-government job. Then you go to look at the government pay scales. You determine that in order to maintain a similar standard of living as you currently enjoy, you would have to be ranked on the government pay scales equivalently to a general in the armed forces, or a consul in the diplomatic corps, or any of a number of other positions that literally require a lifetime of dedication to advancing a bureaucratic career, and a great deal of specialized experience or political capital. The "thinking about it" generally lasts about 30 minutes. The highest-likelihood logical conclusion is that all high-ranking government officials are being richly remunerated through channels that do not pass through the US Treasury or GAO oversight, such that the total value of their office is comparable with a similar position in the private sector. Those that do not can instantly find higher-paying jobs that can effectively monetize their former connections for their new employers. This is the primary reason why the bureaucracy cannot keep up with technology. By law, they cannot make a competitive employment offer. They are forced to hire through contractors. And contractors, through mutual self-interest, exploit that weakness without mercy. I was once asked by an Army captain to consider working directly for the government, and it took quite a lot of restraint to bottle up my guffaw and laugh it out later, outside her hearing range. The Feds simply cannot hire me to its own payroll with that hulking slab of a padlock on its wallet. So instead, it pays 4 times the rate I would ordinarily accept instantly to a contractor employer, who offers 0.10 to 0.35 of that to hire people ranging in quality from chairwarming jobsworths to eccentric geniuses.
beambot 10y ago
So more career politicians? And since their job prospects outside govt are basically nil, you'd have an even higher bar for dismissal based on performance or incompetence. It's already hard enough to cull the govt employee herd... we don't need every little position becoming a lifetime appointment a la supreme court justices.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  OP said those of O-7 rank (one-star general) or above. Statutory limits [1] state that there can be no more than ~400 people of rank O-8 or above in the US military. So say 1000 people in active service at O-7 or above. Do you really think a number like that is significantly influencing the size of the "govt employee herd"? And do you really think the cost of keeping these people employed outweighs the benefits of keeping them away from private positions using their connections for lobbying the government? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525
  - beambot 10y ago
    The parent I responded to made no such distinction; they were advocating an expanded scope: > I'd extend to this to a lot of high ranking government positions, and a lot of other jobs (lobbying, etc).
dmoy 10y ago
Alternatively, do what Singapore does and just pay a shit ton. Idk how well that'd work here.

ams6110 10y ago

That's too extreme. You just want to avoid people going to work for companies that they had significant direct relationships with either as regulators or customers.

jdavis703 10y ago

I think so. Government is in increasing need of professionals with skills that are in high demand by industry. They already have a hard time recruiting since pay is capped at the low, low six figures. This would further serve to dissuade talented people from working there.I've thought about working for the government again, but if I knew I had no choice of private employment again in my career, that would be a no go (you're then essentially giving bueracrats higher up the food chain control of your entire life).

JshWright 10y ago
You've 'thought about' going and getting a high ranking government job (seniority equivalent to an armed forces general)? You must have some very impressive credentials...
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  That's not quite the thought process. You look at the pay you earn now, in a non-government job. Then you go to look at the government pay scales. You determine that in order to maintain a similar standard of living as you currently enjoy, you would have to be ranked on the government pay scales equivalently to a general in the armed forces, or a consul in the diplomatic corps, or any of a number of other positions that literally require a lifetime of dedication to advancing a bureaucratic career, and a great deal of specialized experience or political capital. The "thinking about it" generally lasts about 30 minutes. The highest-likelihood logical conclusion is that all high-ranking government officials are being richly remunerated through channels that do not pass through the US Treasury or GAO oversight, such that the total value of their office is comparable with a similar position in the private sector. Those that do not can instantly find higher-paying jobs that can effectively monetize their former connections for their new employers. This is the primary reason why the bureaucracy cannot keep up with technology. By law, they cannot make a competitive employment offer. They are forced to hire through contractors. And contractors, through mutual self-interest, exploit that weakness without mercy. I was once asked by an Army captain to consider working directly for the government, and it took quite a lot of restraint to bottle up my guffaw and laugh it out later, outside her hearing range. The Feds simply cannot hire me to its own payroll with that hulking slab of a padlock on its wallet. So instead, it pays 4 times the rate I would ordinarily accept instantly to a contractor employer, who offers 0.10 to 0.35 of that to hire people ranging in quality from chairwarming jobsworths to eccentric geniuses.

beambot 10y ago

So more career politicians? And since their job prospects outside govt are basically nil, you'd have an even higher bar for dismissal based on performance or incompetence. It's already hard enough to cull the govt employee herd... we don't need every little position becoming a lifetime appointment a la supreme court justices.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
OP said those of O-7 rank (one-star general) or above. Statutory limits [1] state that there can be no more than ~400 people of rank O-8 or above in the US military. So say 1000 people in active service at O-7 or above. Do you really think a number like that is significantly influencing the size of the "govt employee herd"? And do you really think the cost of keeping these people employed outweighs the benefits of keeping them away from private positions using their connections for lobbying the government? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525
- beambot 10y ago
  The parent I responded to made no such distinction; they were advocating an expanded scope: > I'd extend to this to a lot of high ranking government positions, and a lot of other jobs (lobbying, etc).

dmoy 10y ago

Alternatively, do what Singapore does and just pay a shit ton. Idk how well that'd work here.