6 ms·

I think they surely can get rid of a lot of city personal. I've moved to a different state and just being in contact with government officials to get things don

I think they surely can get rid of a lot of city personal. I've moved to a different state and just being in contact with government officials to get things done is just... easier. Something not right? Let's fix it. Let's do this first and then that. General California feeling: you're missing form 5858b. Can't help you. Come back later. Next available appointment: 3 months. Half of their jobs could be filled by using proper software. But instead I have to print it, make an appointment, hand them the form, have them type it in and send it off. That's half of your budget right there.

monero-xmr 3y ago
You don’t understand. The incentives are all wrong. There is absolutely zero benefit for a bureaucracy to make itself more efficient and require less money each year. No one is incentivized to ensure money is being spent well. The biggest incentive for a lifelong bureaucrat is to increase budget and headcount - the more money and headcount you have, the more important you are. There is never a time when you aren’t requesting more money and more people. If you have money left over at the end of the fiscal year you 100% guarantee you spend it lest your budget is cut rather than increased. I have seen so many bright and starry eyed idealists think they can fix government when they get in. In fact the best man at my wedding / best friend is a DC bureaucrat, and you get him a few beers deep and the stories he tells… My goodness. The money is not being spent well and he is jaded as fuck.
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  Couple that with the fact that it’s nearly impossible to fire people from these jobs, regardless of their competency. Some of the absolute laziest and rude people I’ve ever interacted with are CA government employees who deal with the public.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    How many fucks would you give if it was effectively impossible to get fired? It isn’t exactly surprising. When I worked at McDonald’s decades ago I would have greatly enjoyed telling numerous people to go fuck themselves, but I’m a consummate professional and needed the cash. Now isn’t it crazy that government employees, who ostensibly serve us the tax payers, treat their fellow citizens like shit? A travesty all around but it makes sense when you analyze the incentives.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      I worked for government for a long time. It’s no different managing government employees, it’s about leadership. Most people just want to do their job and go home. You probably had a decent manager at McDonald’s — many of them frankly suck. In city government, frequently the professional managers are on a leash. Some councilman, friend of the mayor, etc has the juice to take care of their friends or countrymen. In citizen facing situations you can usually see this when everyone in the office looks or sounds the same - those are likely not civil service employees, but patronage jobs serving at someone’s pleasure. I’ve worked in and around many big companies too — plenty of incompetence to go around there, even in sales orgs where getting fired happens routinely.
      - monero-xmr 3y ago
        I have come to appreciate that in the private sector, eventually, you will get fired. I recognize the nepotism and nonsense is rampant in the private sector. However there is the market test. In government it can be neverending.
        jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
        There absolutely people who just keep messing up in the private sector until they reach retirement, never suffering consequences. You just have to be executive level. This dichotomy you're making between the free market and government is cartoonish and not particularly useful.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        The performance of executives may be more influenced by factors outside of their control than the performance of e.g. IC engineers, though. I wonder if that plays into the perceptive of many executives being incompetent, and how much context is considered when hiring an executive.
        rightbyte 3y ago
- jltsiren 3y ago
  I don't think it's about incentives. Or, alternatively, if it's about incentives, then you have already failed. For a long time, the US tried to export democracy and capitalism around the world. Sometimes it worked, but it was more common that the attempt failed. It failed, because the culture, the values, and the institutions needed to support a Western-style society were not there. There are countries where the bureaucracy is more efficient and functional than in the US. But maybe the attempts to import the best practices fail, because the culture, the values, and the institutions needed to support them are not there. So it's up to individual incentives, which is usually a recipe for failure.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    I could not disagree more. In the countries where the bureacracy is considered "efficient", it's because in that time and place the best jobs for the most talented were in the government. In the US context that was 1930 to 1970, when the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, and the aftermath made stable government employment attractive. Once the situation tilts back to the private sector, which IMO is the natural state of things, it starts to get corrupted. My thesis is that over the longterm you must align incentives. In certain times in certain places you can avoid this. But the arc of the moral universe bends towards self interest.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      A concrete example: In many countries, most taxpayers don't have to file taxes. Those countries have taken many steps over the decades to make the tax bureaucracy more efficient. The US could try to do the same, but the existing institutions make it difficult. Another example: Many countries have a system of administrative courts. If someone challenges a decision made by a public official, the case goes there. The process is reasonably cost-effective and predictable, as the judge usually considers only whether the decision was made according to the correct processes. Determining whether the decision was good is left to elected representatives. If a similar case goes to a civil court, the process tends to be more expensive and less predictable, as the judge is more likely to consider the substance of the argument.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The US seems especially bad, though. Do other countries do things differently in terms of incentives?
  - moltar 3y ago
    A subset of services in Ontario, Canada are handled by a private company on a tendered government contract. It’s called Service Ontario, and is sort of a DMV equivalent, but also handles healthcare cards and other daily minutia. http://www.ontario.ca/page/own-private-serviceontario-centre http://www.ontario.ca/page/own-private-serviceontario-centre I’ve used Service Ontario services many times, and they certainly feel like a balanced blend of bureaucratic process and efficiency. It’s certainly an oasis in the desert of dealing with the government.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    In Denmark government money is pretty good, especially when taken in with the benefits, for areas like being a social worker. Working in Gov tech is not that great but it isn't bad either, the problem is every gov I have ever seen makes it difficult to fire people and gives lots of benefits to make up for the fact that they don't give money. Why would you work a government job given that it is underpaid unless there were benefits to even it out? And don't say helping people is a benefit, that kind of thing lasts a couple years and then most people burn out on helping people.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      The pay scales are all public info for public sector jobs (in California at least). sfgov.org/careers or something should point you in the right direction, most of the tech positions I've seen listed fall under 104x or 106x. However (and I don't think this is unique to SF) most of the tech jobs are listed as civil service exempt. So it's kinda like USDS. No civil service exam required, mediocre pay, next to none of the typical civil service perks. Why would you work a government job given that it is underpaid unless there were benefits to even it out? To make the world a better place. Seriously. When I was starting out I went through the whole process with the SF school district. The folks I interviewed with seemed quite decent and were also realistic about the work environment. The top pay band was not far enough off from private sector pay to. matter to me. Unfortunately they could only offer me the lowest band because reasons. Megacorp pulled something similar when they asked me to come back. Bureaucracy is nasty no matter who's signing your checks.
- joefitzgerald 3y ago
  I use my adaptation of Hanlon’s razor frequently: > Never mistake for stupidity that which is explained by incentive structure. Seems to fit here also!
- Empact 3y ago
  Some years back I had a sobering realization: there is no outer limit for how inefficient a government program can be.
- makestuff 3y ago
  “ You don’t understand. The incentives are all wrong. There is absolutely zero benefit for a bureaucracy to make itself more efficient and require less money each year. No one is incentivized to ensure money is being spent well.” I would argue this extends to big tech as well. You don’t get the promo without building some useless shit to show “impact”.
opmelogy 3y ago
When I moved here a year+ ago, I was told by the leasing office for my apt that I needed to provide proof of rental information even though I had owned a house for 15 years (in another state, and had it fully paid off). They refused to process my application until I dug up contact info for a unit for a condo that was no longer being rented and for a property manager that did everything under the table. Now we just found out that the company we started a year+ ago didn't get registered in CA "in time" so we owe $800 even though it's made no money. And by "in time" I mean it was two weeks past their grace period for being exempt for your first year. So yeah, not really feeling CA nor SF at this point. We're looking to move and move the business somewhere else.

monero-xmr 3y ago

You don’t understand. The incentives are all wrong. There is absolutely zero benefit for a bureaucracy to make itself more efficient and require less money each year. No one is incentivized to ensure money is being spent well. The biggest incentive for a lifelong bureaucrat is to increase budget and headcount - the more money and headcount you have, the more important you are. There is never a time when you aren’t requesting more money and more people. If you have money left over at the end of the fiscal year you 100% guarantee you spend it lest your budget is cut rather than increased. I have seen so many bright and starry eyed idealists think they can fix government when they get in. In fact the best man at my wedding / best friend is a DC bureaucrat, and you get him a few beers deep and the stories he tells… My goodness. The money is not being spent well and he is jaded as fuck.

ed25519FUUU 3y ago
Couple that with the fact that it’s nearly impossible to fire people from these jobs, regardless of their competency. Some of the absolute laziest and rude people I’ve ever interacted with are CA government employees who deal with the public.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  How many fucks would you give if it was effectively impossible to get fired? It isn’t exactly surprising. When I worked at McDonald’s decades ago I would have greatly enjoyed telling numerous people to go fuck themselves, but I’m a consummate professional and needed the cash. Now isn’t it crazy that government employees, who ostensibly serve us the tax payers, treat their fellow citizens like shit? A travesty all around but it makes sense when you analyze the incentives.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    I worked for government for a long time. It’s no different managing government employees, it’s about leadership. Most people just want to do their job and go home. You probably had a decent manager at McDonald’s — many of them frankly suck. In city government, frequently the professional managers are on a leash. Some councilman, friend of the mayor, etc has the juice to take care of their friends or countrymen. In citizen facing situations you can usually see this when everyone in the office looks or sounds the same - those are likely not civil service employees, but patronage jobs serving at someone’s pleasure. I’ve worked in and around many big companies too — plenty of incompetence to go around there, even in sales orgs where getting fired happens routinely.
    - monero-xmr 3y ago
      I have come to appreciate that in the private sector, eventually, you will get fired. I recognize the nepotism and nonsense is rampant in the private sector. However there is the market test. In government it can be neverending.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
        There absolutely people who just keep messing up in the private sector until they reach retirement, never suffering consequences. You just have to be executive level. This dichotomy you're making between the free market and government is cartoonish and not particularly useful.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        The performance of executives may be more influenced by factors outside of their control than the performance of e.g. IC engineers, though. I wonder if that plays into the perceptive of many executives being incompetent, and how much context is considered when hiring an executive.
        rightbyte 3y ago
jltsiren 3y ago
I don't think it's about incentives. Or, alternatively, if it's about incentives, then you have already failed. For a long time, the US tried to export democracy and capitalism around the world. Sometimes it worked, but it was more common that the attempt failed. It failed, because the culture, the values, and the institutions needed to support a Western-style society were not there. There are countries where the bureaucracy is more efficient and functional than in the US. But maybe the attempts to import the best practices fail, because the culture, the values, and the institutions needed to support them are not there. So it's up to individual incentives, which is usually a recipe for failure.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I could not disagree more. In the countries where the bureacracy is considered "efficient", it's because in that time and place the best jobs for the most talented were in the government. In the US context that was 1930 to 1970, when the Great Depression, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, and the aftermath made stable government employment attractive. Once the situation tilts back to the private sector, which IMO is the natural state of things, it starts to get corrupted. My thesis is that over the longterm you must align incentives. In certain times in certain places you can avoid this. But the arc of the moral universe bends towards self interest.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    A concrete example: In many countries, most taxpayers don't have to file taxes. Those countries have taken many steps over the decades to make the tax bureaucracy more efficient. The US could try to do the same, but the existing institutions make it difficult. Another example: Many countries have a system of administrative courts. If someone challenges a decision made by a public official, the case goes there. The process is reasonably cost-effective and predictable, as the judge usually considers only whether the decision was made according to the correct processes. Determining whether the decision was good is left to elected representatives. If a similar case goes to a civil court, the process tends to be more expensive and less predictable, as the judge is more likely to consider the substance of the argument.
rayiner 3y ago
The US seems especially bad, though. Do other countries do things differently in terms of incentives?
- moltar 3y ago
  A subset of services in Ontario, Canada are handled by a private company on a tendered government contract. It’s called Service Ontario, and is sort of a DMV equivalent, but also handles healthcare cards and other daily minutia. http://www.ontario.ca/page/own-private-serviceontario-centre http://www.ontario.ca/page/own-private-serviceontario-centre I’ve used Service Ontario services many times, and they certainly feel like a balanced blend of bureaucratic process and efficiency. It’s certainly an oasis in the desert of dealing with the government.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  In Denmark government money is pretty good, especially when taken in with the benefits, for areas like being a social worker. Working in Gov tech is not that great but it isn't bad either, the problem is every gov I have ever seen makes it difficult to fire people and gives lots of benefits to make up for the fact that they don't give money. Why would you work a government job given that it is underpaid unless there were benefits to even it out? And don't say helping people is a benefit, that kind of thing lasts a couple years and then most people burn out on helping people.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    The pay scales are all public info for public sector jobs (in California at least). sfgov.org/careers or something should point you in the right direction, most of the tech positions I've seen listed fall under 104x or 106x. However (and I don't think this is unique to SF) most of the tech jobs are listed as civil service exempt. So it's kinda like USDS. No civil service exam required, mediocre pay, next to none of the typical civil service perks. Why would you work a government job given that it is underpaid unless there were benefits to even it out? To make the world a better place. Seriously. When I was starting out I went through the whole process with the SF school district. The folks I interviewed with seemed quite decent and were also realistic about the work environment. The top pay band was not far enough off from private sector pay to. matter to me. Unfortunately they could only offer me the lowest band because reasons. Megacorp pulled something similar when they asked me to come back. Bureaucracy is nasty no matter who's signing your checks.
joefitzgerald 3y ago
I use my adaptation of Hanlon’s razor frequently: > Never mistake for stupidity that which is explained by incentive structure. Seems to fit here also!
Empact 3y ago
Some years back I had a sobering realization: there is no outer limit for how inefficient a government program can be.
makestuff 3y ago
“ You don’t understand. The incentives are all wrong. There is absolutely zero benefit for a bureaucracy to make itself more efficient and require less money each year. No one is incentivized to ensure money is being spent well.” I would argue this extends to big tech as well. You don’t get the promo without building some useless shit to show “impact”.

opmelogy 3y ago

When I moved here a year+ ago, I was told by the leasing office for my apt that I needed to provide proof of rental information even though I had owned a house for 15 years (in another state, and had it fully paid off). They refused to process my application until I dug up contact info for a unit for a condo that was no longer being rented and for a property manager that did everything under the table. Now we just found out that the company we started a year+ ago didn't get registered in CA "in time" so we owe $800 even though it's made no money. And by "in time" I mean it was two weeks past their grace period for being exempt for your first year. So yeah, not really feeling CA nor SF at this point. We're looking to move and move the business somewhere else.