"No my position has pretty much been the same the whole time"
No, in the beginning you said you had:
"reason to think that public employees are inherintly less productive than private sector employees."
That is where I engaged you; and that is what we have discussed. Recently you moved to asserting that what was produced by the public employees was of less "value" than fake snot (my example), or whatever else might be acquired due to the productivity of an employee in the private sector.
I covered this change of rooms most recently, here:
Message 17411974
I also summarized how your original assertion had been discredited, and I then pointed out some of the problems with your attempting to judge subjective value by comparing the productive outputs of entities which produce two entirely different types of value.
"The public is often dissatisfied with public agencies, I submit that they are more dissatisfied with public agencies and the level of taxes they pay then they are with private companies"
You just continue to miss the point, Tim. The "public" is NOT dissatisfied with public agencies. Some of the public are dissatisfied with some public agencies; just as some of the public is dissastified with some private agencies. Because buying "X-ray" glasses has no value for me, does not mean that private enterprise has no value.
"If productivity is how satisfied the customers are (which you seem to think it is)"
No, Tim...(sigh). Satisfaction is the VALUE which affirms that something VALUABLE has been produced. It is the value which shows that needs and expectations have been actualised in outcome. It has nothing to do with the productive output of the employee; it has to do with the subjective VALUE of that output.
I have already demonstrated for you that both private and public employees are enjoined to produce by the laws of supply and demand. I have also shown you that the value of what is produced is personal and subjective. And finally I showed you that the value of private knick-knacks was of primary concern to only those desiring the knick-knacks, while the value of public services was of concern to all of the public, because the cost is often universal. This is one of the reasons that public service has a broader and more significant scrutiny as to value, than has private concerns, which are as narrow as the particular consumer base.
"Usually the more the government is involved in a project the more time it takes"
This is a meaningless trip into another room. A project takes a certain amount of time. If you involve yourself in it for a longer time, then I guess it would take more time.
If a person puts less time into a project it would clearly take less time. Which proves what? That the more time you spend on a project the more time it will take?
"Government could be less productive then the private sector for me, more productive for you, and just as productive for someone else. There would be no objective or even consensus criteria."
Again you are missing it. Your first sentence is true; your last sentence is false. And your use of productive is unhelpful. The public does not care about your production. They care about the VALUE of what they are paying for. A suit and a drug cure for cancer may be produced with the same efficiency of productive labour; but I will pay a million times more for the suit because I appreciate the VALUE. Now, the determination of value for the larger public relates to a broader level of self interest...so the value of the suit, if paid for from a very selfish public, might be a great deal less.
"You don't really seem to have an accurate feel for the motivations for or ideas behind my opinions or even the opinions themselves"
To the contrary. Many of us reach a stage in life where we have all the answers. Many of us reach the stage where some book or some guru has all the answers. But in the end, life will gently teach us that the answers belong to all voices and not just to our own. I am well aware of your opinions and your motives. I lived through them and survived them. You will, too. |
