4 ms·

This basically shows why DOGE is a thing. This sort of attitude is why governments are slow to achieve anything, why any government contract ends up over budget

This basically shows why DOGE is a thing. This sort of attitude is why governments are slow to achieve anything, why any government contract ends up over budget, etc... I await your downvotes.

kweingar 2y ago
If the government was a dynamic work environment, it would burn just as much money. But instead of saying "the project went over budget", they'd say "we executed a strategic pivot." Instead of employees "stagnating", employees would launch all sorts of initiatives and then abandon them after getting promoted. Instead of maintaining legacy systems for decades, teams would turn down systems so that employees can work on shinier greenfield projects, leaving users in the lurch. I do not oppose government efficiency. I support reforms to identify and eliminate waste in government. Unfortunately that's not what DOGE is doing.
- mrcsharp 2y ago
  > But instead of saying "the project went over budget", they'd say "we executed a strategic pivot." Yeah, politicians already do this. They use different words but to the same effect. I am not going to pretend I have the ultimate solution to all of this, but the idea that government employees get to sit there, do bare minimum for the entirety of their careers, and without any desire to improve anything for the sake of the people they serve (because clearly they forgot they work for the citizens of the country in which said government operates) is just so wrong. Maybe we deserve to live in mediocrity. You can, at least, vote out a congress, house, or a parliament member if they are mediocre and not doing much (doesn't always happen but the option exists). Government employees are un-elected (technically) and get to spend their entire life in a "stable" job regardless of their performance. Is this status quo actually good for the country?
  - kweingar 2y ago
    If you want private sector work ethic, you gotta pay private sector salaries. (Many federal employees have a better work ethic than the average private sector worker. But you can't make that an expectation if you're paying less than they could make elsewhere.)
pelagicAustral 2y ago
Not every software project needs the mentality you want to stamp on it. Most software in the world is boring, stagnant, legacy code. Maybe it was 'hip' one time, no one cares... that's the reason we have tons of COBOL still running around... I am not here to tell you what we SHOULD do. Not to tell you who SHOULD get a job. My point is to tell you that some people, in this crazy world, want to do some work, and some of that work is not fancy, and for that they get a special place in the current environment.
- mrcsharp 2y ago
  > My point is to tell you that some people, in this crazy world, want to do some work, and some of that work is not fancy, and for that they get a special place in the current environment. And this is fine. It is good to recognize this and build around it. My comment and my annoyance is with the idea that the government is a good place to act as a, and I mean no offense, dumping ground for such people. The reputation of government jobs being very stable attracts such people and they then form the majority and things stagnates and nothing improves because there is no will. To be clear, I am not saying every government department should be a copy of google in how they work and hire. But a balance needs to be struck between keeping government departments stable and striving to trim the fat and improve.
  - archagon 2y ago
    > The reputation of government jobs being very stable attracts such people and they then form the majority and things stagnates and nothing improves because there is no will. This is substantiated entirely by feels. Do you actually know any government workers?
    - mrcsharp 2y ago
      I'm only allowed an opinion on governments and government jobs if I personally know government workers? Do you know what "reputation" actually means?
      - 2y ago

This basically shows why DOGE is a thing. This sort of attitude is why governments are slow to achieve anything, why any government contract ends up over budget, etc... I await your downvotes.

kweingar 2y ago

If the government was a dynamic work environment, it would burn just as much money. But instead of saying "the project went over budget", they'd say "we executed a strategic pivot." Instead of employees "stagnating", employees would launch all sorts of initiatives and then abandon them after getting promoted. Instead of maintaining legacy systems for decades, teams would turn down systems so that employees can work on shinier greenfield projects, leaving users in the lurch. I do not oppose government efficiency. I support reforms to identify and eliminate waste in government. Unfortunately that's not what DOGE is doing.

mrcsharp 2y ago
> But instead of saying "the project went over budget", they'd say "we executed a strategic pivot." Yeah, politicians already do this. They use different words but to the same effect. I am not going to pretend I have the ultimate solution to all of this, but the idea that government employees get to sit there, do bare minimum for the entirety of their careers, and without any desire to improve anything for the sake of the people they serve (because clearly they forgot they work for the citizens of the country in which said government operates) is just so wrong. Maybe we deserve to live in mediocrity. You can, at least, vote out a congress, house, or a parliament member if they are mediocre and not doing much (doesn't always happen but the option exists). Government employees are un-elected (technically) and get to spend their entire life in a "stable" job regardless of their performance. Is this status quo actually good for the country?
- kweingar 2y ago
  If you want private sector work ethic, you gotta pay private sector salaries. (Many federal employees have a better work ethic than the average private sector worker. But you can't make that an expectation if you're paying less than they could make elsewhere.)

pelagicAustral 2y ago

Not every software project needs the mentality you want to stamp on it. Most software in the world is boring, stagnant, legacy code. Maybe it was 'hip' one time, no one cares... that's the reason we have tons of COBOL still running around... I am not here to tell you what we SHOULD do. Not to tell you who SHOULD get a job. My point is to tell you that some people, in this crazy world, want to do some work, and some of that work is not fancy, and for that they get a special place in the current environment.

mrcsharp 2y ago
> My point is to tell you that some people, in this crazy world, want to do some work, and some of that work is not fancy, and for that they get a special place in the current environment. And this is fine. It is good to recognize this and build around it. My comment and my annoyance is with the idea that the government is a good place to act as a, and I mean no offense, dumping ground for such people. The reputation of government jobs being very stable attracts such people and they then form the majority and things stagnates and nothing improves because there is no will. To be clear, I am not saying every government department should be a copy of google in how they work and hire. But a balance needs to be struck between keeping government departments stable and striving to trim the fat and improve.
- archagon 2y ago
  > The reputation of government jobs being very stable attracts such people and they then form the majority and things stagnates and nothing improves because there is no will. This is substantiated entirely by feels. Do you actually know any government workers?
  - mrcsharp 2y ago
    I'm only allowed an opinion on governments and government jobs if I personally know government workers? Do you know what "reputation" actually means?
    - 2y ago