4 ms·

I don’t disagree with this assessment but it’s also a narrow view[0] that allows the problem to persist in the first place. Rather, I’d like to see what positi

I don’t disagree with this assessment but it’s also a narrow view[0] that allows the problem to persist in the first place. Rather, I’d like to see what positive oversight would look like, but that has not been put forth by any of these organizations thus far. It all comes down to “trust us” which is also hard to stomach [0]: most often but not exclusively held by Americans (of which i am one). We collectively fail to imagine government being a positive force and what that would look like.

vundercind 2y ago
This is a relatively new and carefully cultivated state of things. I mean, the early phases of this era are a half-century old at this point, but it’s not like it’s a law of nature that at least half the population of the US and about half the politicians must regard government as rarely-useful. It didn’t used to be that way. It’s not an American trait in some holistic historical sense.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  perhaps our government has become less competent? Having worked in the federal government briefly (and growing up in a place with lots of feds), it makes perfect sense that our government is generally incompetent/low-capacity. In the wake of the civil rights movement, lots of government civil service exams became presumptively illegal. The pay bands are also pretty trash. If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era. This. IMHO, the military's regular reassignment also solves a lot of bureaucracy-at-scale problems (even if it creates different ones around competency and long-duration projects). Preventing people from becoming entrenched in a single role/office is important to ensuring a healthy overall system and providing space for new ideas.
    - bumby 2y ago
      What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        The military has lots of waste and graft, but it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system (unlike a lot of the rest of government). I am skeptical that churn is a cause of problems, almost everywhere I have worked in government has by far the opposite problem. The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.
        bumby 2y ago
        (by plum brook, do you mean NASA? If so, I've met some smart people from there and other NASA posts, but also met some of the worst employees that epitomize some of what the discussion is against - very toxic, against any new ideas, refusing to retire, shirking duties etc. at one point one org had an average age of 59+, that's very indicative of a refusal to move on). >it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system I suspect you would get a very different perspective if you talked to enlisted servicemembers (or subordinate officers). I would argue the commissioning system is better than the previous aristocratic commissioning system, but still relatively poor at mating skills to positions. I think churn is a couple of problems for a couple of different potential reasons: 1) constantly moving positions tends to leave the more complicated problems unsolved. For one, it's difficult to truly understand the dynamics of a complicated system in a short period. Secondly, if someone is concerned with promotion, attacking small problems tends to get you a win during your tenure, while it's unlikely you'll make much headway on a really difficult or complicated problem. Even worse is the commander who has all kinds of great ideas they want implemented even before they really understand the problem (ie the 'good idea fairy' dilemma) 2) military churn can bias toward giving people responsibility beyond their capability, simply because they need someone to fill that role. This is especially with younger organizations (and the military definitely biases young). Meaning you tend to people with a lot of power/responsibility before their frontal lobe is even fully developed. Now I do think the military does a pretty good job at accountability, which can mitigate some of those factors. But if that's the case, we should be trying to optimize for "accountability" and not "churn". The better military organizations seem to have "churn" in the uniformed services in charge but a steady cadre of professional civilian staff supporting them.
- christophilus 2y ago
  I dunno. When I read the founding fathers, they seem pretty skeptical of power structures, both public and private. The way they configured the government, it’s clear that they had little trust that we’d have competent or honest politicians at the helm. Hence all the checks and balances and limitations to federal powers.

vundercind 2y ago

This is a relatively new and carefully cultivated state of things. I mean, the early phases of this era are a half-century old at this point, but it’s not like it’s a law of nature that at least half the population of the US and about half the politicians must regard government as rarely-useful. It didn’t used to be that way. It’s not an American trait in some holistic historical sense.

whimsicalism 2y ago
perhaps our government has become less competent? Having worked in the federal government briefly (and growing up in a place with lots of feds), it makes perfect sense that our government is generally incompetent/low-capacity. In the wake of the civil rights movement, lots of government civil service exams became presumptively illegal. The pay bands are also pretty trash. If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era. This. IMHO, the military's regular reassignment also solves a lot of bureaucracy-at-scale problems (even if it creates different ones around competency and long-duration projects). Preventing people from becoming entrenched in a single role/office is important to ensuring a healthy overall system and providing space for new ideas.
  - bumby 2y ago
    What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      The military has lots of waste and graft, but it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system (unlike a lot of the rest of government). I am skeptical that churn is a cause of problems, almost everywhere I have worked in government has by far the opposite problem. The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.
      - bumby 2y ago
        (by plum brook, do you mean NASA? If so, I've met some smart people from there and other NASA posts, but also met some of the worst employees that epitomize some of what the discussion is against - very toxic, against any new ideas, refusing to retire, shirking duties etc. at one point one org had an average age of 59+, that's very indicative of a refusal to move on). >it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system I suspect you would get a very different perspective if you talked to enlisted servicemembers (or subordinate officers). I would argue the commissioning system is better than the previous aristocratic commissioning system, but still relatively poor at mating skills to positions. I think churn is a couple of problems for a couple of different potential reasons: 1) constantly moving positions tends to leave the more complicated problems unsolved. For one, it's difficult to truly understand the dynamics of a complicated system in a short period. Secondly, if someone is concerned with promotion, attacking small problems tends to get you a win during your tenure, while it's unlikely you'll make much headway on a really difficult or complicated problem. Even worse is the commander who has all kinds of great ideas they want implemented even before they really understand the problem (ie the 'good idea fairy' dilemma) 2) military churn can bias toward giving people responsibility beyond their capability, simply because they need someone to fill that role. This is especially with younger organizations (and the military definitely biases young). Meaning you tend to people with a lot of power/responsibility before their frontal lobe is even fully developed. Now I do think the military does a pretty good job at accountability, which can mitigate some of those factors. But if that's the case, we should be trying to optimize for "accountability" and not "churn". The better military organizations seem to have "churn" in the uniformed services in charge but a steady cadre of professional civilian staff supporting them.
christophilus 2y ago
I dunno. When I read the founding fathers, they seem pretty skeptical of power structures, both public and private. The way they configured the government, it’s clear that they had little trust that we’d have competent or honest politicians at the helm. Hence all the checks and balances and limitations to federal powers.