3 ms·
I think the root of the problem is in the title: _Bureaucrat_. Bureaucrats have no incentive, profit motive, or real tests of competence. In private industry t
by brodouevencode 7y ago
I think the root of the problem is in the title: _Bureaucrat_.
Bureaucrats have no incentive, profit motive, or real tests of competence. In private industry they must perform now or find another job. If a Bureaucrat doesn't perform there are remediation plans that take years to execute. Even then there's no guarantee that the same standard will exist at the end as did the beginning. The Bureaucrat is just a warm body filling a seat.
Source: nearly ten years working in the government. I finally wised up. Working in the government nearly turned me into an anarchist. If this offends anyone I'm sorry, and I know a lot of this resentment is from living that jaded life. But I do encourage you to look elsewhere. There are greener pastures.
- perl4ever 7y agoMy conception of what the government does that is worthwhile, in the abstract, is that it lowers transaction costs, enabling free markets to function a la Ronald Coase's theorem. This is what the private sector is always fighting, what requires regulation. It's like entropy. This is ultimately what makes a modern civilization different from a stone age one. So measuring productivity in the usual manner and comparing it with the private sector is a non sequitur to me. The benefits aren't booked as revenue or profit.
- brodouevencode 7y agoFair enough - if it's done well and with competence. My experience was nearly the exact opposite. In terms of 80-20 it was really on 20% of the people doing _any_ of the work.