5 ms·

Any govt office, focusing on the US here, seems to have a huge back log and understaffed like the IRS, Immigration services, DMV etc. For e.g. earliest appointm

Any govt office, focusing on the US here, seems to have a huge back log and understaffed like the IRS, Immigration services, DMV etc. For e.g. earliest appointment I can get is perhaps a month or two out. A huge backlog and understaffed makes a case of overworked employees. Surely, they are doing work, and so I can only think that by "they do too little useful work", you mean that the work itself that they do is of little use. Are they? Seems like getting my driver's license or tax refund is pretty useful, no?

1123581321 4y ago
It's actually not sure that they are doing work. There are backlogs because the employees and management are slow, inefficient, and don't make changes that would be made by a private organization either staying up to date or being replaced by a competitor. (There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.)
- iosvansis 4y ago
  While I myself am frustrated with the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of govts, but I am not sure if its entirely fair to compare a govt with a private company/org - at least based on the scale they operate on and the profit motive, which make it very different. > It's actually not sure that they are doing work. > (There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.) Guess, based on that I cannot really have a counter argument here :)
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    > Guess, based on that I cannot really have a counter argument here :) Hah, sorry. If you don't qualify a general statement, you'll get jumped on by people supplying the qualifier for you. I wish it weren't like that. Relative size is a good point, certainly. We can look to several huge companies to see frustrating interaction points (hence my qualifier.)
- scaramanga 4y ago
  This is just victim-blaming. Defund the organisation to point of total chaos and near-collapse. Blame employees for collapse in work quality. Here are some more generally true statements: Increase profits and improve efficiency by cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents or outages on employees, customers, bystanders. People die? Company goes bust? Who cares? Even if there are consequences, the executives/officials to blame have already taken the money and moved on to the next thing. You can't prosecute them or get the money back (unless they were stupendously dumb and got directly involved and stayed on 'til the bitter end and centres of power were so affected that prosecutors can't ignore it: see Theranos, Enron, etc.).
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Theranos and Enron went bust. Government bureaucracies never go bust.
    - scaramanga 4y ago
      Governments are overthrown and reformed at scale "all the time". Perhaps about as often as often as corporations relative to their number and sizes.
      - NoGravitas 4y ago
        Even without governments being overthrown, government agencies get deeply reorganized fairly often; often for reasons of politics rather than efficiency, but nevertheless.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        As often? Come on.
        leaflets2 4y ago
        Yeah, when was the last time the US gov got overthrown. Or Brazil or Germany or France, UK ... "All the time"? Otherwise good points I think, @scaramanga: >>> cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents ... Who cares? ... You can't prosecute them
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  From what I understand, queueing theory would say a backlog that doesn't go away but also doesn't keep growing means you're staffed to just barely keep up on average.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    It's not given that the queue backlog is staying even, but you would also have to factor the externalities of better or worse performing offices into the queueing analysis. Slower government workers have consequences like the public giving up and bothering to add to the queue, and occasionally, lawsuits due to failure to perform a required task, legal cases being a less desirable budget spend than bureaucratic staffing.
    - scaramanga 4y ago
      Parents point is that there must be slack in a system in order to have a stable queue size. But slack can also be perceived as waste, which can be cut. And if your budget is cut, you are likely to see that slack as "first thing on the copping block" with the consequence that the queue begins to expand. But most systems have natural buffers which delay catastrophic failure. By that point there have been elections, you have retired, etc. and someone else is left holding the bag. At that point you can blame the organisation for being "slow", or "inefficient", and then you can cut it's funding further, or destroy it outright or maybe outsource it to the private sector. Then the private sector can drive profits by asset stripping and cutting safety or vital maintenance work, then when the whole system collapses, you can hold the taxpayer hostage by demanding a bailout of the, presumably vital, service (or you can renationalise it), and the whole cycle starts again. Welcome to our planet, enjoy your stay, it's likely to be a brief one :)
      - 1123581321 4y ago
        Ah, if that was their only point, then I should have pointed out that a better operating department can achieve a lower waiting time with the same degree of slack. I understand the utilization rate tradeoff and that's not the issue. I'm glad you've enjoyed writing your comments--like your style. :)

1123581321 4y ago

It's actually not sure that they are doing work. There are backlogs because the employees and management are slow, inefficient, and don't make changes that would be made by a private organization either staying up to date or being replaced by a competitor. (There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.)

iosvansis 4y ago
While I myself am frustrated with the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of govts, but I am not sure if its entirely fair to compare a govt with a private company/org - at least based on the scale they operate on and the profit motive, which make it very different. > It's actually not sure that they are doing work. > (There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.) Guess, based on that I cannot really have a counter argument here :)
- 1123581321 4y ago
  > Guess, based on that I cannot really have a counter argument here :) Hah, sorry. If you don't qualify a general statement, you'll get jumped on by people supplying the qualifier for you. I wish it weren't like that. Relative size is a good point, certainly. We can look to several huge companies to see frustrating interaction points (hence my qualifier.)
scaramanga 4y ago
This is just victim-blaming. Defund the organisation to point of total chaos and near-collapse. Blame employees for collapse in work quality. Here are some more generally true statements: Increase profits and improve efficiency by cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents or outages on employees, customers, bystanders. People die? Company goes bust? Who cares? Even if there are consequences, the executives/officials to blame have already taken the money and moved on to the next thing. You can't prosecute them or get the money back (unless they were stupendously dumb and got directly involved and stayed on 'til the bitter end and centres of power were so affected that prosecutors can't ignore it: see Theranos, Enron, etc.).
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Theranos and Enron went bust. Government bureaucracies never go bust.
  - scaramanga 4y ago
    Governments are overthrown and reformed at scale "all the time". Perhaps about as often as often as corporations relative to their number and sizes.
    - NoGravitas 4y ago
      Even without governments being overthrown, government agencies get deeply reorganized fairly often; often for reasons of politics rather than efficiency, but nevertheless.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      As often? Come on.
      - leaflets2 4y ago
        Yeah, when was the last time the US gov got overthrown. Or Brazil or Germany or France, UK ... "All the time"? Otherwise good points I think, @scaramanga: >>> cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents ... Who cares? ... You can't prosecute them
tbrownaw 4y ago
From what I understand, queueing theory would say a backlog that doesn't go away but also doesn't keep growing means you're staffed to just barely keep up on average.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  It's not given that the queue backlog is staying even, but you would also have to factor the externalities of better or worse performing offices into the queueing analysis. Slower government workers have consequences like the public giving up and bothering to add to the queue, and occasionally, lawsuits due to failure to perform a required task, legal cases being a less desirable budget spend than bureaucratic staffing.
  - scaramanga 4y ago
    Parents point is that there must be slack in a system in order to have a stable queue size. But slack can also be perceived as waste, which can be cut. And if your budget is cut, you are likely to see that slack as "first thing on the copping block" with the consequence that the queue begins to expand. But most systems have natural buffers which delay catastrophic failure. By that point there have been elections, you have retired, etc. and someone else is left holding the bag. At that point you can blame the organisation for being "slow", or "inefficient", and then you can cut it's funding further, or destroy it outright or maybe outsource it to the private sector. Then the private sector can drive profits by asset stripping and cutting safety or vital maintenance work, then when the whole system collapses, you can hold the taxpayer hostage by demanding a bailout of the, presumably vital, service (or you can renationalise it), and the whole cycle starts again. Welcome to our planet, enjoy your stay, it's likely to be a brief one :)
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      Ah, if that was their only point, then I should have pointed out that a better operating department can achieve a lower waiting time with the same degree of slack. I understand the utilization rate tradeoff and that's not the issue. I'm glad you've enjoyed writing your comments--like your style. :)