3 ms·

The professional you trust to spend that taxpayer money has a profit motive just like the company owner whose company you purchase a service from in a free mark

The professional you trust to spend that taxpayer money has a profit motive just like the company owner whose company you purchase a service from in a free market. In the former, the professional can profit by trading their influence for money, by advocating for political parties that increase their pay (consider the pay gap between federal workers and private sector workers has grown steadily since 1950, in favor of the federal worker, as government sector unions wield enormous power in politics), and they can profit in time by putting in less time and effort than what they're responsible to provide. The latter can explicitly profit by winning your business in the market and charging more than their cost to produce. The latter works better in any industry that is natutally competitive because it's provided in the context of a competitive market which is shaped by consumer choice.

TheIronYuppie 8y ago
Yeah, I've worked in government for many years before I went to the private sector. While what you specify does exist, if it's more than 0.00001% of people, I'd be stunned. The average professional government worker makes $50k, and is terrified more than anything in the world of doing something bad that gets surfaced to congress. They would GLADLY forgo profit/influence/etc just to make sure they don't get disciplined. And to suggest that the private sector (worked in FAANG + M the majority of my life) doesn't trade influence, vote for political parties that help them, try to weasel out of work, etc is crazy. There's absolutely no difference. The only difference is that at the end of the day: - A private sector worker's job is to deliver a widget that is : amount they can sell it for - cost of production = profit - A public sector worker's job is to deliver a widget that is cost of production only (since there's no profit). Is the cost of production higher in government? Possibly. But at the end of the day, the fact that the government isn't targeting how much it can sell stuff for means it's pretty uniquely well suited for items which shouldn't be charged for in the first place (e.g safety, health, defense, security, etc)
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>The average professional government worker makes $50k, and is terrified more than anything in the world of doing something bad that gets surfaced to congress. The average federal worker makes over $100K a year, and have very secure employment, with formidable protections against being fired, thanks to their collective bargaining agreement. I don't know where you work, but considering the average compensation of federal workers, and the kind of collective bargaining agreements they have in place, I can't imagine your experience being typical. Moreover, even well-meaning individuals, who only live to serve, are sometimes not effective at what they do. Consumers being required to pay for the products and services they consume leads to them choosing those providers who provide products and services in the most cost-effective manner, and those who work less efficiently being pushed out of the market and hopefully into a role in the economy they're better suited at. This evolutionary process of the most efficient producers being allocated capital with which to grow is what is responsible for the massive increases in capital we see in the economy over a longer time-scales, as profit-motivated individuals invest in new manufacturing facilities, software platforms and service models to better compete, which results in the steadily improving quality and value of products offered in the market. >>The only difference is that at the end of the day: There is massively more accountability when consumers pay for what they consume, and when they have multiple options in the market. >>the fact that the government isn't targeting how much it can sell stuff for means it's pretty uniquely well suited for items which shouldn't be charged for in the first place (e.g safety, health, defense, security, etc) People should pay for the cost of the services that they consume no matter what it is. The only reason something should be provided by government is that competitive markets don't emerge in certain industries, like basic research, crime-fighting, backbone infrastructure and national defense.

TheIronYuppie 8y ago

Yeah, I've worked in government for many years before I went to the private sector. While what you specify does exist, if it's more than 0.00001% of people, I'd be stunned. The average professional government worker makes $50k, and is terrified more than anything in the world of doing something bad that gets surfaced to congress. They would GLADLY forgo profit/influence/etc just to make sure they don't get disciplined. And to suggest that the private sector (worked in FAANG + M the majority of my life) doesn't trade influence, vote for political parties that help them, try to weasel out of work, etc is crazy. There's absolutely no difference. The only difference is that at the end of the day: - A private sector worker's job is to deliver a widget that is : amount they can sell it for - cost of production = profit - A public sector worker's job is to deliver a widget that is cost of production only (since there's no profit). Is the cost of production higher in government? Possibly. But at the end of the day, the fact that the government isn't targeting how much it can sell stuff for means it's pretty uniquely well suited for items which shouldn't be charged for in the first place (e.g safety, health, defense, security, etc)

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>The average professional government worker makes $50k, and is terrified more than anything in the world of doing something bad that gets surfaced to congress. The average federal worker makes over $100K a year, and have very secure employment, with formidable protections against being fired, thanks to their collective bargaining agreement. I don't know where you work, but considering the average compensation of federal workers, and the kind of collective bargaining agreements they have in place, I can't imagine your experience being typical. Moreover, even well-meaning individuals, who only live to serve, are sometimes not effective at what they do. Consumers being required to pay for the products and services they consume leads to them choosing those providers who provide products and services in the most cost-effective manner, and those who work less efficiently being pushed out of the market and hopefully into a role in the economy they're better suited at. This evolutionary process of the most efficient producers being allocated capital with which to grow is what is responsible for the massive increases in capital we see in the economy over a longer time-scales, as profit-motivated individuals invest in new manufacturing facilities, software platforms and service models to better compete, which results in the steadily improving quality and value of products offered in the market. >>The only difference is that at the end of the day: There is massively more accountability when consumers pay for what they consume, and when they have multiple options in the market. >>the fact that the government isn't targeting how much it can sell stuff for means it's pretty uniquely well suited for items which shouldn't be charged for in the first place (e.g safety, health, defense, security, etc) People should pay for the cost of the services that they consume no matter what it is. The only reason something should be provided by government is that competitive markets don't emerge in certain industries, like basic research, crime-fighting, backbone infrastructure and national defense.