5 ms·

FYI there are and were government programs that operate very efficiently. Massive de-funding causes inefficiency and lack of innovation. What The Wire does gre

FYI there are and were government programs that operate very efficiently. Massive de-funding causes inefficiency and lack of innovation. What The Wire does great is show how money and power is actually routed. It's capitalism hiding in plain sight. Why wouldn't it be the same way in a world with less government?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Do we live in the same reality? Massive situations that constrains available resources cause innovation, prioritization of key goals and efficiency. Abundance of resources results in the resources being wasted on various forms of fluff. This is not unique to government, you see it in just about every type of organization. I'm not saying "defund all the things" is the right answer (mostly because I don't think it's that simple or it would have worked where tried and we'd have done it everywhere) but there's a very clear correlation between available wealth to allocate to government and bloated government. Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. It seems like all the innovation in government (e.g. novel program to keep the parks clean or whatever) comes out of places like Detroits and Buffalos of the world who actually have a pressing need to figure out how to stretch their resources whereas the NYCs and the SFs of the world just increase their intake.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. So what you're saying is, we should enact regulation that forces companies to compensate C-level executives at a fraction of what they typically make now. That way, we select for the people who have a genuine interest in the success of the company instead of just a fat salary, right? We live in a country where teachers often have to purchase school supplies for their classroom out of their own pocket because of people like you.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Apt username for taking a statement I made out of context and then extending it to the extremes of absurdity. I'm not proposing solutions. I'm mostly stating what I've observed. Resources consumption clearly correlates with available resources, particularly in the government world of "use it or lose it" budgets. The people who stick it out to teach in poorly funded school districts to seem to be the kind of teachers who care greatly about the kids. You see this kind of "we can't do it all so we'll do what matters" even more strongly in police departments (well, the ones that don't devolve into revenue policing that is). Obviously (i.e. it should be obvious but based on the conversation thus far I have to cover my but) you can't just skimp everywhere. You need to give employees the resources they need to do their jobs (so that they can actually do them and the job isn't soul crushing) without giving them so much that those resources get wasted. It's a really fine line to walk and I can't think of any organization, pubic or private, for profit or nonprofit that has let itself become a resource wasting gravy train that has managed to stop the train without crashing and burning. A business can go bankrupt. For obvious reasons you don't want your school district or water department to have a financial crisis that upsets things for a few years. We live in a country where money that could buy school supplies is wasted on reupholstering auditorium chairs and administrator salaries because of people thinking you can blindly shovel money at problems.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      >blindly shovel money at problems. Strawman fallacy. OP specifically said we need to appropriately fund teachers such that they don't need to buy school supplies out of pocket. >I'm not proposing solutions Fair enough. Some people are in fact proposing solutions (fund teachers), so I guess we will go with the only proposal on the board.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > So what you're saying is, we should enact regulation that forces companies to compensate C-level executives at a fraction of what they typically make now. That way, we select for the people who have a genuine interest in the success of the company instead of just a fat salary, right? CEOs are compensated based on the success of the company. The problem with government employees is they get a decent salary regardless of competence or how the govt office performs its tasks.
- vharuck 6y ago
  >Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. This is partly true, but it's just one of the outcomes of the process. I work for a state government that doesn't pay close to the median wages for similar positions. What my government offers is a lot of job security (I'm confident the state will not dissolve anytime soon) and lenient hiring requirements. Looking at my official job description, anyone who passed calculus in college and had the ability to learn basic programming could do it. And that was me, so I was hired. Once here, I realize people expect a lot more out of me, like statistical knowledge common to those with high-demand master's degrees. They keep the official description simple, because nobody who can already do the tasks would accept such low wages. Which leads to a couple outcomes, and I've seen them all: 1. The government position is a stepping stone, either to a more politically influential role or a more lucrative position in the private sector 2. The person feels a sense of purpose in public service (I consider myself here) and stays a while. They will try to improve things, but this happens in short bursts when they meet similar people in other bureaus. Chances are, they'll burn out. Then they either leave or move onto the next group... 3. The person realizes they only have to do what's in the job description. So they stay for the security and resist professional development. Could also be the result of #2 burning out. This is not, in my opinion, a good model for improving government. It relies on the hope you get enough people from group 2 that can do enough before burning out. But because group 3 exists, that burn out will happen quickly.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Do we live in the same reality? Massive situations that constrains available resources cause innovation, prioritization of key goals and efficiency. Abundance of resources results in the resources being wasted on various forms of fluff. This is not unique to government, you see it in just about every type of organization. I'm not saying "defund all the things" is the right answer (mostly because I don't think it's that simple or it would have worked where tried and we'd have done it everywhere) but there's a very clear correlation between available wealth to allocate to government and bloated government. Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. It seems like all the innovation in government (e.g. novel program to keep the parks clean or whatever) comes out of places like Detroits and Buffalos of the world who actually have a pressing need to figure out how to stretch their resources whereas the NYCs and the SFs of the world just increase their intake.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. So what you're saying is, we should enact regulation that forces companies to compensate C-level executives at a fraction of what they typically make now. That way, we select for the people who have a genuine interest in the success of the company instead of just a fat salary, right? We live in a country where teachers often have to purchase school supplies for their classroom out of their own pocket because of people like you.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Apt username for taking a statement I made out of context and then extending it to the extremes of absurdity. I'm not proposing solutions. I'm mostly stating what I've observed. Resources consumption clearly correlates with available resources, particularly in the government world of "use it or lose it" budgets. The people who stick it out to teach in poorly funded school districts to seem to be the kind of teachers who care greatly about the kids. You see this kind of "we can't do it all so we'll do what matters" even more strongly in police departments (well, the ones that don't devolve into revenue policing that is). Obviously (i.e. it should be obvious but based on the conversation thus far I have to cover my but) you can't just skimp everywhere. You need to give employees the resources they need to do their jobs (so that they can actually do them and the job isn't soul crushing) without giving them so much that those resources get wasted. It's a really fine line to walk and I can't think of any organization, pubic or private, for profit or nonprofit that has let itself become a resource wasting gravy train that has managed to stop the train without crashing and burning. A business can go bankrupt. For obvious reasons you don't want your school district or water department to have a financial crisis that upsets things for a few years. We live in a country where money that could buy school supplies is wasted on reupholstering auditorium chairs and administrator salaries because of people thinking you can blindly shovel money at problems.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >blindly shovel money at problems. Strawman fallacy. OP specifically said we need to appropriately fund teachers such that they don't need to buy school supplies out of pocket. >I'm not proposing solutions Fair enough. Some people are in fact proposing solutions (fund teachers), so I guess we will go with the only proposal on the board.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > So what you're saying is, we should enact regulation that forces companies to compensate C-level executives at a fraction of what they typically make now. That way, we select for the people who have a genuine interest in the success of the company instead of just a fat salary, right? CEOs are compensated based on the success of the company. The problem with government employees is they get a decent salary regardless of competence or how the govt office performs its tasks.
vharuck 6y ago
>Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that. This is partly true, but it's just one of the outcomes of the process. I work for a state government that doesn't pay close to the median wages for similar positions. What my government offers is a lot of job security (I'm confident the state will not dissolve anytime soon) and lenient hiring requirements. Looking at my official job description, anyone who passed calculus in college and had the ability to learn basic programming could do it. And that was me, so I was hired. Once here, I realize people expect a lot more out of me, like statistical knowledge common to those with high-demand master's degrees. They keep the official description simple, because nobody who can already do the tasks would accept such low wages. Which leads to a couple outcomes, and I've seen them all: 1. The government position is a stepping stone, either to a more politically influential role or a more lucrative position in the private sector 2. The person feels a sense of purpose in public service (I consider myself here) and stays a while. They will try to improve things, but this happens in short bursts when they meet similar people in other bureaus. Chances are, they'll burn out. Then they either leave or move onto the next group... 3. The person realizes they only have to do what's in the job description. So they stay for the security and resist professional development. Could also be the result of #2 burning out. This is not, in my opinion, a good model for improving government. It relies on the hope you get enough people from group 2 that can do enough before burning out. But because group 3 exists, that burn out will happen quickly.