4 ms·

The other side of this is the stability that a government job provides to low to middle income classes. The southern states where I grew up and went to college

The other side of this is the stability that a government job provides to low to middle income classes. The southern states where I grew up and went to college both lauded people who were able to secure government jobs. No matter how grueling or toxic a work environment becomes and no matter how inefficient workers become -- everyone stays in those jobs for the pension. In cities and areas where education in literacy is higher it's as if the market "pushes" that desire out, and the perception around having a government job is largely negative (excluding contractors). I wish there were a way to increase competition for gov jobs and change the perception of them without resorting to privatization.

philipov 9y ago
As long as policy is driven by lobbyists for private corporate interests, that will never happen. Keeping government jobs weak serves to make the labor market easier for them by reducing competition.
- olingern 9y ago
  Agreed on corporate interests, but I'm not sure about keeping government jobs weak. With the government, your target market is every citizen (plus visitors, immigrants, etc.). The private sector has to create its market by providing a product or service, whereas the government is obligated to provide some products and services. What incentive is there for government to squander talent and keep itself workforce weak?
  - philipov 9y ago
    It is not in government's interest, but government has to follow the laws passed by congress, and keeping budgets hamstrung so that it's impossible for agencies to compete with the private sector keeps the private sector lobby happy. Politicians' incentives are not to create effective government, but to keep getting elected. Having an ineffective government satisfies their financiers' desire to have less competition for top talent, and gives politicians an easy problem to campaign on fixing during election season, by never targeting the real problems. Break some windows so you can claim credit for trying to fix them, and then blame the opposition when it doesn't work. It's a game where everyone wins, except the dupes that keep voting for them.

philipov 9y ago

As long as policy is driven by lobbyists for private corporate interests, that will never happen. Keeping government jobs weak serves to make the labor market easier for them by reducing competition.

olingern 9y ago
Agreed on corporate interests, but I'm not sure about keeping government jobs weak. With the government, your target market is every citizen (plus visitors, immigrants, etc.). The private sector has to create its market by providing a product or service, whereas the government is obligated to provide some products and services. What incentive is there for government to squander talent and keep itself workforce weak?
- philipov 9y ago
  It is not in government's interest, but government has to follow the laws passed by congress, and keeping budgets hamstrung so that it's impossible for agencies to compete with the private sector keeps the private sector lobby happy. Politicians' incentives are not to create effective government, but to keep getting elected. Having an ineffective government satisfies their financiers' desire to have less competition for top talent, and gives politicians an easy problem to campaign on fixing during election season, by never targeting the real problems. Break some windows so you can claim credit for trying to fix them, and then blame the opposition when it doesn't work. It's a game where everyone wins, except the dupes that keep voting for them.