15 ms·

> but it’s something you aren’t offered in a lot of private sector jobs. To an extent isn’t this because these types of benefits aren’t affordable? The pension

• stormdennis 6y ago
  The reason why public sector jobs are so unproductive, imo, is because there are no real bosses. Everyone's an employee, all the way to the top. No one's remuneration is affected whether you do more or less, better or worse. The logical course for all concerned is to always take the path of least resistance. As long as the paperwork is in order there's nothing to worry about. And even if it's not, there are ways around that too. Best quote I ever heard from an government employee was an unopened letter often answers itself
  • Ma8ee 6y ago
    The public sector isn’t in general unproductive, except maybe in the US where one major party has been working hard to sabotage it for the last 40 years or so. What might surprise some people is that remuneration isn’t what foremost motivates , e.g., teachers or nurses. Big companies are often as unproductive as the public sector, with whole departments often existing just to make some managers feel important.
    • stormdennis 6y ago
      That phenomenon is the reason old established big companies get disrupted. No one disrupts the public service, they are the permanent only business in their sector.
      • nicoburns 6y ago
        > No one disrupts the public service, they are the permanent only business in their sector. That's not necessarily true. Governments frequently intervene in the running of public companies. Also, many public companies compete against privately run businesses.
        • nybble41 6y ago
          I think you misread. The "public service" here is a reference to the government, not to public companies (which are still privately-run businesses despite being listed on public stock exchanges). Large private enterprises, publicly-traded or otherwise, that fall prey to inefficiency get disrupted. Governments do not get disrupted short of foreign invasion or revolution, so the inefficiency remains entrenched.
          • nicoburns 6y ago
            Actually, by "public companies" I meant "publicly owned/run companies". I can see now that this was poorly worded. > Governments do not get disrupted short of foreign invasion or revolution And also elections. This is especially true in countries that don't have a two-party system.
            • nybble41 6y ago
              Hm. I can't think of any significant examples here of a company owned or run by the government. I know that such things are more common elsewhere, but at least in my mind I tend to classify them as extensions of their respective governments rather than as anything like private corporations. I suppose the real question in this context is whether that government would let them be disrupted and replaced with a competitor they perhaps have less influence over. > And also elections. Sure, in theory. I suppose if an election actually changed things enough to be considered "disruptive" then you could consider that a form of revolution, but disruption of that sort generally has exactly the opposite effect: Everything becomes much less efficient as the new party struggles to take control, and then gradually returns to baseline as they realize that it's the masses of unelected bureaucrats that really run things on a day-to-day basis. Even if they were explicitly running on a platform of improving the efficiency of public services, it's not as if there is any actual competition in the provision of those services. People aren't choosing between two or more proven service providers; at best they have the current entrenched system with its known issues and a bunch of vague promises regarding a half-cooked proposal for a replacement which the candidate may never see implemented and which probably wouldn't work as advertised even if it were.
  • arethuza 6y ago
    "Everyone's an employee, all the way to the top" A lot of established public companies are like that.
    • stormdennis 6y ago
      Yes and they wither away as a result then that's when layoffs happen and hostile takeovers etc
      • arethuza 6y ago
        Neither Apple or Microsoft are managed by the original founders - and they seem to be doing OK. I've worked for public companies that are pretty old (50+ years) and they had superb management.
        • stormdennis 6y ago
          They have both had to adjust to competitors along the way and faced disruption. Apple nearly looked like going out of business at one stage before they brought Jobs back. They operate in a world where the Mac and the iPhone have to compete with a major rivals. Microsoft have had to develop their Cloud business as Windows becomes less important. The Public Sector never needs to do anything like that.
          • arethuza 6y ago
            I'm not sure that my experience of the public sector and the private sector in the UK quite aligns with the ideological position that private sector automatically means better managed, better services and better motivated people. In fact, the most insanely motivated people I've ever met were in the public sector.
• bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >To an extent isn’t this because these types of benefits aren’t affordable? The pension, extra vacation, etc wouldn’t be possible without the tax revenue raised from your friends who are working more hours. They just told you that their still making 10-20% less than colleagues in the private sector - when all benefits are factored in. So obviously those benefits are basically as affordable as employing someone at private sector type wages . Of course they are in Denmark, so the benefits for the private sector are also a lot better than you get in the U.S - at least for non-FAANG (I believe for FAANG as well but haven't researched)
  • ampgt 6y ago
    Sure, but if his friends had to work 20-30% more then there is an obvious disconnect. Individual A and B both make $200k a year. Individual A made that by giving an hour long speech. Individual B made that by working all year. On paper they are treated the same, but their reality is drastically different. You can't just tell person B "you don't need to work so much." They wouldn't be at the same level as person A without having done so. Everyone is different. Some people are insanely smart. Incredibly efficient. Ridiculously productive. For every person out there that is making as much as you and working less there is also someone working more and making less. "We don't need to work so much" is a privilege, and in my personal opinion, is unrealistic.
• CaptArmchair 6y ago
  The private sector doesn't just fund the public sector. It's a misconception to assume that this is a one way street. Every dollar that is spend in the public sector flows into the private economy as well. For instance, the wages paid to civil servants and employees in the public sector ultimately gets spend in private businesses: food, clothes, entertainment, housing and so on. Public investments in public infrastructure also create wealth in the private sector: public procurement is a prime example, public funding and grants are another example. The there's the creation of value through education (schools & universities), ensuring security (law enforcement & justice), mobility (roads & bridges), health (hospitals),... which create the affordances for private enterprises to become successful (no Silicon Valley without skilled/schooled workers, right?) Also, let's not forget that 'money' is above all a token of exchange that represents economic value, it's not the economic value proper. Government and the public sector aren't competing with the private sector: the primary goal is governing the distribution of wealth in society according to a prevailing economic framework or ideology, and managing the supply/volume of money in an economy is an important lever to do just that. > A lot of government employees (and contractors) just got paid to sit at home for 3-4 months during the pandemic if they worked in secure areas (can’t take classified information home). That’s a benefit that the private sector just can’t provide. No. But at the same time, unemployment benefits are in essence the public sector directly stepping in because the private sector runs out of liquidity. > We need hard work This is true. All of the above doesn't negate the work that happens in the private sector or private businesses. On the contrary. What we ought to remember is that value creation is equally, if note more, important as wealth creation. Put differently, there's no point in gazing at the trillions of dollars that get shifted around if the entire discussion becomes detached from any tangible value which gets created and consumed. Whether it's the bread of the sandwich you ate for lunch, or whether it's the leather in the shoes you're wearing. The thing that worries me more then discussing who gets an arbitrary amount of money and who doesn't, is supply chains, manufacturing, businesses,... all of that shuttering due to this health crisis. The one thing that truly drives people to the street and bloody riots is a scarcity of something as basic as wheat and bread.
  • ampgt 6y ago
    I appreciate your points. I should have re-read my post before I submitted. My intention wasn't to bash the public sector, but to try to point out some of the philosophical differences between the two.
• Olreich 6y ago
  > That’s a benefit that the private sector just can’t provide They actually can. Businesses have a lot of profit that they pump directly into the hands of investors in the form of dividends and stock buy backs. They have massive capital expenditure projects. Many or all of these things could be put on hold or slowed so that cash-on-hand to handle expenses can be saved. Business practices seem to say that saving money for a rainy day is a dumb move for the business, because profit is the only goal or money saved is wasted because it’s not doing anything productive. That line of thinking is just plain wrong. So much of the recessions that impacted so many and required massive government bailouts could have been prevented by increased cash-on-hand. The implication that you’ll go out of business guaranteed if you aren’t constantly investing in growth at the highest possible level is asinine.
  • ampgt 6y ago
    Fiduciary duty is to the shareholders. There is a misconception that you are not a shareholder. Do you have a 401k? A pension? Any investments? Everyone benefits, even if you're only getting a few dollars from the dividend payment. Rates are at historical lows, sitting on piles of cash is bad business. Those massive capital expenditure projects are as cheap as ever.. the point is to encourage spending when the economy is struggling. If you want to blame someone you should blame the fed for years of artificially lowered rates.
    • nicoburns 6y ago
      > Fiduciary duty is to the shareholders. There is a misconception that you are not a shareholder. You seem to have a misconception that fiduciary duty must be to shareholders. Plenty of people (although it's a lot more common in Europe than the US) hold the viewpoint that companies have a duty to their employees. IMO our economy would end up a lot more balanced if companies paid higher wages rather than passing that money on to shareholders.
      • nybble41 6y ago
        > You seem to have a misconception that fiduciary duty must be to shareholders. Fiduciary duty for a public company is to the shareholders, by definition. The board and officers of the corporation serve as the agents of its owners, their principals, without whose investment the corporation would not exist. Of course there is usually some overlap between the shareholders and the employees, and the company has other kinds of duties toward its employees in the form of contracts as well as a less formal stake in employee retention and goodwill. If you want a co-op structure where the shareholders and the employees are one and the same, that sort of thing does exist and can sometimes work out reasonably well but there are some obvious trade-offs when it comes to raising capital. In particular you can't fund growth by selling equity, only by going into debt, which means the co-op and its shareholder-employees are taking on the lion's share of the risk if the venture should fail.
• moksly 6y ago
  > To an extent isn’t this because these types of benefits aren’t affordable? The pension, extra vacation, etc wouldn’t be possible without the tax revenue raised from your friends who are working more hours. Not really. My terms are actually widely available in a lot of private sector jobs, just not in software development. If I was a HR consultant in a private company, I would have basically the same rights as I do now. It’s because the rights come from unions, and being in the public sector as a software development puts you on the same category of unionisation that any other white collar public worker. So my rights are the same as anyone else in the administration. Software development in the private sector never really unionised in Denmark. Partly. Because there was never really a need as there were always more jobs than developers. There are a few private companies that try to attract developers with benefits, but the vast majority of them do it with money.