Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (11320)	4/30/2002 5:10:40 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"It often is in response to a special interest or an inflexible ideological position rather than a matter of public service" Although this is true in the private sector, it does not follow in the public. What you don't seem to understand about the public sector is one very simple factor--the only factor that matters: OUTCOME. That is all there is to the interaction of public agencies with the public: OUTCOME. If the outcome is what pleases the public, then the public is pleased--period. "Also even if a case may be made that a certain action is a good general public service paying for it is a matter of compulsion rather then the members of the public each freely accepting the service for a price" Irrelevant to our discussion about the work habits of employees. As well, it is mostly untrue. Most services may be paid for privately. As well, many people are undoubtedly paying for services they do not use, but for which you get the benefits. And private business, while it may not actually FORCE you to use its services--nevertheless, coerces you to a degree to which choice is essentially an illusion. You drive 60 miles to work, you gotta buy gas. You don't like paying for electricity, where are you gonna get the wood to heat your shack, if you're in the desert? Etc., and so forth. As to the rest of your paragraph, now you are discussing the valid differences of opinion people have as to the role and size of government in a decent society. This can be done without abuse to the assumption of equality of character, that all citizens have regardless of their workplace. Indeed, talking about employee productivity is a red herring. Good workers do their best; bad ones do their worst. It doesn't matter who they work for. "I said the incentives that they faced (or more accurately the incentives the the departments they work for and the politicians that set priorities face) are such that they are more likely to keep completely useless or counterproductive programs going." Originally, you said that you had: "reason to think that public employees are inherintly less productive than private sector employees." ...and they certainly are not. Furthermore, the incentives responded to by public employees are of a more compelling and realistic nature than those of private. Not only is it certain they will never keep "completely useless or counterproductive programs going" (remember...it is the OUTCOME that matters. The public wants the service they want. If they don't get that outcome it is game over), but it is just as certain that private companies often will. That is why they go bankrupt? You can now say that the public wants completely useless programs, but you beg the argument by such arbitrary and circular tap-dancing. "I do not think most public sector workers are lazy or that they are worthless or immoral people. I just think that politics (which provides the direction for the government) is a less efficient outcome that normally will lead to less efficient methods then the market even if the workers would otherwise be just as, or even a bit more, skilled and hard working than private sector workers" It would be unfair to state that most private sector workers are lazy, or that they are worthless or immoral people. There is no logical way to intelligently argue that either the public sector or the private is "better" or more efficient. Clearly, it is doubtful whether anyone in America would argue that NO public services are needed. Naturally, it is quite applicable to discuss or argue the value of any PARTICULAR and specific public (or private) service. And this can be done rationally, without prejudice, and without injustice.