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 (11878)	5/3/2002 2:16:18 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"I also summarized how your original assertion had been discredited" You reply: "These (sic) seems (sic) to be one (sic) of your favorite tactics It is not a tactic. Summarization is simply summarization. You are implying that you did not read it, so here it is again: 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. "Because buying "X-ray" glasses has no value for me, does not mean that private enterprise has no value." You copied this reference from my post. If you wish to say something about the truth value of this reference, please do so. I am not interested in chasing you from room to room. "The public sector doesn't respond to normal supply and demand it can produce anything and then tax people to pay for it" That is the most STUPID statement I have heard in a long time. Is it that you hate democracy, or just that you don't have a clue?? The public sector owes its existence to supplying what is in demand. And the process is open and dynamic with continuous debate, discussion, lobbying, and media coverage. Not a meaningless trip at all Of course it is meaningless. The time spent on a project is the time spent. More time spent is more; less time spent is less. To say that more is more is trite and redundant. "If productivity depends on the value of what is produced, and value is subjective, then there is no objective way of determining or stating productivity." Value is always subjective; and it is objective when measured by objective standards. It is not one or the other--it is always both. The value of an employee depends on whether or not the needs of the employer are meant. It has nothing to do with whether you personally are a consumer of the product or service. If you are, in fact, a consumer of the product, then you would have an opinion on the value of the service or product for you. The value of the employee has nothing to do with you unless you are the employer, or the spouse. "I don't think I have ever been at such a stage, nor do I think it is likely that I will reach such a stage in the future." That is fine. We have a difference of opinion on this. I have seen and heard your story before. "If someone disagrees with your arguments they are apparently not only wrong, but illogical or deluded or immature or playing some sort of game rather then actually dealing with the subject." Illogical, deluded, and immature people exist. Indeed, they predominate. When people exhibit these qualities in order to protect a private bias or agenda then they ought to be called on it. When you said that public employees were less productive than private employees, I responded to both the insult and the irrationality. When you ran to other rooms and started talking about wealth creation and God knows what, I took the time to politely reign in your wild ramblings and to give them some structure and coherence. You seem to resent this. But I am not responsible for your feelings, nor for your opinions.

To: TimF who wrote (11878)	5/3/2002 2:52:20 PM
From: Neocon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Tim, thought I would jump in to make a few points. The simplest thing is to ask what is the proxy for market discipline in a public sector agency? And if one exists, how efficient is it likely to be? If there is no adequate proxy for market discipline, then it is inevitable that there will be redundancy in the work force and inefficient utilization of other resources. This is true, incidentally, in necessary areas of public service, like the military. The difference is that some things are worth doing, even if we have doubts about the level of efficiency, and some things might better be contracted out or dropped altogether. If we look at an industry like steel, which was protected for a long time from competition, we see that protection led to feather- bedding and a lag in retooling. On the other hand, when Detroit started feeling serious competition from Japan, it began to shed redundant workers, negotiate more reasonable compensation, and retool factories for state of the art production. Inherently, it would seem that government has a monopolistic/cartelistic immunity from competitive pressures. It is true that there may be legislative oversight, internal auditors, and the press, but there is not much to set the standard or the pace of improvement, it is all theoretical. What is state of the art in an industry is determined empirically, from advances in technological application and managerial decision- making dictated by the pressure to gain comparative advantage. When Detroit began losing out to Japan, it had to look to see what they were doing right, or what new things might be done to erase the advantage. Without that, the tendency is to preserve jobs, maintain accustomed practices, be skeptical of the value of technological investment, and to be complacent rather than making major managerial reviews and innovations. Thus, one can have the best educated work force, and have everyone be personally busy and responsible, and yet have the organization lag in efficiency, productivity, and even elementary usefulness, when compared to standards prevailing in the private sector. And that seems, indeed, to be the case with the public sector........