4 ms·

> They made a point of telling me that I’d have to take a huge pay cut and work with out of date equipment, and deal with extreme amounts of red tape. > stale

> They made a point of telling me that I’d have to take a huge pay cut and work with out of date equipment, and deal with extreme amounts of red tape. > stale sugar cookies & bottles of water for refreshments Well, that's what the government runs on. Old tech, low pay, and minimal perks. But there is impactful work to be done and some people are motivated by that.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
Serious question: with how big the federal budget is for... pretty much everything... why is this the case? Is there truly not enough funding? How much money goes in and where does the money go? I feel like time and time again I read how private sector can do better than the public sector, in all sectors.
- cheriot 7y ago
  > Serious question: with how big the federal budget is for... pretty much everything... why is this the case? Is there truly not enough funding? How much money goes in and where does the money go? By the time we're talking about non-military discretionary spending it's 15% of the total. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... > I feel like time and time again I read how private sector can do better than the public sector, in all sectors. The private sector has its own problems. Do we want the government to be more like PG&E and Comcast? Consider the difference in outcomes between for-profit universities and state schools. The topic is too in depth for a random internet comment, but things really need to be taken on a case by case basis. It's all about incentives.
- jackcosgrove 7y ago
  In discussions like this I feel there's a big bias in favor of what's called "institutionalism". This is a theory that the attributes of the institutions people work in, such as budget, governance, size, etc., most determine outcomes. While there's a lot of truth to this, I think it's overused as an explanation because blaming the institution is less painful when there's a failed outcome. Talent, on the other hand, is less used as an explanation because when there's a bad outcome, it hurts more to blame those, even partially, who were executing towards the goal. However in some endeavors talent matters a lot, and software is one of them. The Mythical Man-Month is a great book that examines software project failure, whose conclusions are that "institutional" solutions to software problems, such as more staff or more budget, aren't as good as "talent" solutions, such as hiring the best person in the world for an absurdly high salary and having them do most of the work. That's a long-winded answer to why the private sector is better than the public sector at some things: it does a better job at rewarding, and thus attracting, talent. The public sector, by contrast, is more likely to promote based on seniority and base political values, which in a democracy include equality and solidarity.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

Serious question: with how big the federal budget is for... pretty much everything... why is this the case? Is there truly not enough funding? How much money goes in and where does the money go? I feel like time and time again I read how private sector can do better than the public sector, in all sectors.

cheriot 7y ago
> Serious question: with how big the federal budget is for... pretty much everything... why is this the case? Is there truly not enough funding? How much money goes in and where does the money go? By the time we're talking about non-military discretionary spending it's 15% of the total. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... > I feel like time and time again I read how private sector can do better than the public sector, in all sectors. The private sector has its own problems. Do we want the government to be more like PG&E and Comcast? Consider the difference in outcomes between for-profit universities and state schools. The topic is too in depth for a random internet comment, but things really need to be taken on a case by case basis. It's all about incentives.
jackcosgrove 7y ago
In discussions like this I feel there's a big bias in favor of what's called "institutionalism". This is a theory that the attributes of the institutions people work in, such as budget, governance, size, etc., most determine outcomes. While there's a lot of truth to this, I think it's overused as an explanation because blaming the institution is less painful when there's a failed outcome. Talent, on the other hand, is less used as an explanation because when there's a bad outcome, it hurts more to blame those, even partially, who were executing towards the goal. However in some endeavors talent matters a lot, and software is one of them. The Mythical Man-Month is a great book that examines software project failure, whose conclusions are that "institutional" solutions to software problems, such as more staff or more budget, aren't as good as "talent" solutions, such as hiring the best person in the world for an absurdly high salary and having them do most of the work. That's a long-winded answer to why the private sector is better than the public sector at some things: it does a better job at rewarding, and thus attracting, talent. The public sector, by contrast, is more likely to promote based on seniority and base political values, which in a democracy include equality and solidarity.