3 ms·

Im curious in which ways is that a valuable way to look at it, opposed to headcount per road mile, land managed, package delivered, ect? I would expect some red

Im curious in which ways is that a valuable way to look at it, opposed to headcount per road mile, land managed, package delivered, ect? I would expect some reduction in headcount required as we dont need to hand sort every letter, ect. In a different way of looking at it, federal taxes have outgrown inflation by 10x if you benchmark 1950. In what area are 10X more services provided, and in what areas are 1X services provided. I've always been perplexed at the assumption that federal spending should track GDP.

jhbadger 2y ago
Lots of things. Neither Medicare (1965) nor Medicaid (1965), which provide healthcare to millions of impoverished, disabled, and elderly people, didn't exist in 1950. Nor did NASA (1958) and the US space program. The NSF (1950) which funds most non-biomedical research in the US, was founded in that year, and while the NIH technically existed in 1950, it was mostly just the research institute in Maryland, not the funding agency it also comprises today. DARPA (1957), the defense research and funding agency that among other things created the ancestor of the very network you are using to post here, also didn't exist. You could go on and on.
guax 2y ago
We don't need to sort every letter but we need to deliver them by hand. And packages, etc. How many people are required to run the government compared to the size of the population they serve is absolutely a valid metric and makes tons of sense. Not only comparable historically but also across countries. Per Capita is per person, not GDP btw.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I obviously know what per capita means. My point is interrogating the domains where that metric is useful and isn't. Are we delivering 10x more letters per capita? Does US mail sent use scale with GDP per capita? In many areas I would expect a 1:1 relation with population, but not GDP. For example, I would expect primary education cost to scale at with population (eg teachers and schools per student). If cost per student has gone up 10x instead, why is that?

jhbadger 2y ago

Lots of things. Neither Medicare (1965) nor Medicaid (1965), which provide healthcare to millions of impoverished, disabled, and elderly people, didn't exist in 1950. Nor did NASA (1958) and the US space program. The NSF (1950) which funds most non-biomedical research in the US, was founded in that year, and while the NIH technically existed in 1950, it was mostly just the research institute in Maryland, not the funding agency it also comprises today. DARPA (1957), the defense research and funding agency that among other things created the ancestor of the very network you are using to post here, also didn't exist. You could go on and on.

guax 2y ago

We don't need to sort every letter but we need to deliver them by hand. And packages, etc. How many people are required to run the government compared to the size of the population they serve is absolutely a valid metric and makes tons of sense. Not only comparable historically but also across countries. Per Capita is per person, not GDP btw.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I obviously know what per capita means. My point is interrogating the domains where that metric is useful and isn't. Are we delivering 10x more letters per capita? Does US mail sent use scale with GDP per capita? In many areas I would expect a 1:1 relation with population, but not GDP. For example, I would expect primary education cost to scale at with population (eg teachers and schools per student). If cost per student has gone up 10x instead, why is that?