For Christ's sake, Tim! How many rooms must I chase you through before you stop this imitation of a rabbit in a marathon?!
Clearly, you have sidled away from your original position that public employees were unproductive. You now espouse the unrelated opinion that you do not LIKE (or value) what it is that public employees DO produce. Two entirely separate positions.
In terms of your original argument, I supported the position that public employees were as equally productive as private employees. This seemed to be a prima facie observation, but for some reason you seemed unable to understand it. Perhaps it was just too simple a concept. People tend to overthink their positions when they have strong emotional involvement in issues.
Here is a summary of the salient points I made:
1). Public employees often require higher level education;
Private employees often do not.
2) Public employees often require previous training;
Private employees often do not.
3). Public employees often require advanced skills;
Private employees often do not.
4). Public employees often meet extremely stiff competition that screens for aptitudes, skills, and other elements of productive potential;
Private employees often do not.
5). Public employees often are enclosed in an internal structure which screens out unproductive work;
Private employees often are not within such a structure.
6). Public employees are often accountable to explicit and measurable performance standards;
Private employees often are not.
7). Public employees are often evaluated on performance criteria on a regular and ongoing basis;
Private employees often are not.
8). Public employees are often--directly or indirectly--evaluated by the public whom they serve;
Private employees often are evaluated only by the discreet (and perhaps partial) segment of the public whom purchase their discreet gods or services.
In short:
A). The nature of public work inherently screens for capability, character, and other predictors of productive promise;
B). It is commonplace for the public sector to screen for the meeting of performance standards on an ongoing and regular basis;
C). There is no basis on which to denigrate and insult the productive character of any employee based on who they work for. Such stereotyping is small-minded, inaccurate, and unfair.
Now as to your new argument that you do not like or value what public employees produce. Well, that is no concern of mine. I do not value all public service either. But, I will summarize a few pertinent points:
1). An antagonistic lack of appreciation, or an overweening animus against ALL public service is somewhat disquieting;
2). The value of public service is not measured in wealth creation, but in public satisfaction. Your attempts to compare the value of services produced by the public and the private sectors by recourse to arguments of wealth creation, is not only in a different room--but it is in another building entirely.
3). The desirability of what is being produced in the public sector is determined by individuals; just as the desirability of what is produced in the private sector is determined by individuals; It is not determined by just one individual. One individual determines only personal value.
4). A great number of public services are valued by virtually everyone. Of those (more narrowly focussed programs) which do not have a set of universal end-users, a large number of people still consider themselves to have benefited by a kinder, more compassionate, and more civilized society; a society characterized by co-operation and shared humanity, by compassion and respect for individual freedom and dignity...and by a community where the poor, the sick, and the afflicted are give the chance to be productive, while being discouraged from paths of marginalization or antisocial necessity. Many people value compassionate capitalism as the greatest expression of human reach and growth. And compassionate capitalism means a public sector which satisfies the body collective and democratic, as to the values of the community they wish to live in, and to conduct trade and commerce in. It does not mean a public sector which produces wealth. It means a public sector which produces satisfaction.
Again, your original statement, that public employees are not productive, has been thoroughly discredited. Further, your addended argument, that what they produce is of little or no value, is contradictory on the face of it.
One acknowledges that the value of a particular service might escape Tim Fowler's appreciation and regard; but this neither dismisses nor negates the opinions of those who do value it--both as users, and as supporters.
It is good and proper that the roles of government and the private sectors, and the balance and proportion of each should be the subject of disagreement and debate. It is not good that either sector should endure haughty disdain or absolute inflexibility from the other. Democracy is of no value if the individual voices and opinions are considered unimportant in the face of a particular prejudice or bias. |
