3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  You speak as though you've never heard the term "golden parachute".

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.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
You speak as though you've never heard the term "golden parachute".