2 ms·

If all the stakeholders are happy, the solution is good, right? Or perhaps not all the stakeholders really are happy?

• kbenson 10y ago
  Well, it's partly a problem of shifting the problem to a much larger one that affects much more people, which allows the original stakeholders to shift responsibility. The new problem includes the entire State or US population as a stakeholder, and they are not happy that the burden has been shifted to them. Put another way, local pain is spread throughout a much larger area, allowing a more average level of burden overall (which helps heavily affected areas), but more importantly allows hiding of the cost for the local area, so local stakeholders are "happier", if by happier you mean they are now upset about the same thing under a different guise, which they no longer see as their own responsibility.
• rtkwe 10y ago
  The problem is that over time the miracle has proven to be largely a fluke of the labor market at the time (there was a large demand for low skill workers when the program was started) and people who went through the former style of retrain and reeducate do better over time. In that case I don't think the solution can be called good since it has poorer results than what it replaced.