Why government workers are fairly paid

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Are you serious? How does bookkeeping in the public sector differ from the private sector? A civil engineer working for the government is still a civil engineer. It is not like the public sector is some mysterious .

There are many reasons for variable output from jobs at two different employers that may require the same knowledge skills and abilities. This is not uncommon in the private sector, so its not a quantum leap of logic to consider that there may be such differences between public and private sector jobs. While a bookkeeper at employer "A" may have one set of expectations regarding productivity, hours of work, incentive pay, software used, access to resources, etc., employer "B" may have a very different environment that produces different levels of productivity and value of the wage dollars spent.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Perhaps government workers ought mostly be part time or volunteers. I do not think the analogy is valid. I also question the notion that government bureaucracies are inherently more democratic. I tend to think of government as the employer of last resort—an employer that accepts those that can't be competitive in the private sector.

How much do government workers contribute to our GNP?

Perhaps you should volunteer your time? After all you are incompetent and grossly overcompensated, and I personally regard your occupation to be trivial and unnecessary, whatever it is. Am I correct in this assumption?


Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

How much do government workers contribute to our GNP?

That is an excellent argument for shutting down Wall Street since they contribute nada, nothing, nowt.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Another area of disparity worth exploring is the wages that are spent supporting the inefficiencies in government that we all complain about. Do wage dollars spent in the public sector yield the same value for the dollar that they do in the private sector? I strongly suspect not, and I susect that that value is greater in the private sector, but I'm not aware of any objective data on the topic either.

Links please? Not all of us complain about inefficiencies in government, that tends to fall into the realm of "They Say"

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Links please? Not all of us complain about inefficiencies in government, that tends to fall into the realm of "They Say"

I'd post links, but I don't want to piss off noone.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Another area of disparity worth exploring is the wages that are spent supporting the inefficiencies in government that we all complain about. Do wage dollars spent in the public sector yield the same value for the dollar that they do in the private sector? I strongly suspect not, and I susect that that value is greater in the private sector, but I'm not aware of any objective data on the topic either.

I don't think it's the government, per se, but the size of an organization. I think, by definition, the larger the organization, the more inefficient it becomes.

I remember in business school a professor who claimed that any organization with greater than 500 people under one roof can stay very busy (internally) without really processing any input or outputting a product (i.e., people think they're really "busy," while actually just churning from within catering to the internal needs of the organization). While somewhat of an exaggeration, my experience since then have largely upheld the merit of his underlying point.

The bottom line - for any large organization (government, Army, GM, Microsoft, GE, AIG, etc.), certain levels of inefficiency are inherent. Railing against it is quixotic at best, disingenuous at worst.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The bottom line - for any large organization (government, Army, GM, Microsoft, GE, AIG, etc.), certain levels of inefficiency are inherent. Railing against it is quixotic at best, disingenuous at worst.

While I don't disagree with this, the best organizations are those that maximize their efficiencies. To suggest that this is an inherent weakness of large organization is partially true, but to suggest that its a weakness that cannot be addressed is just a disingenuous. This is one of the central lessons of the last 20 - 30 years of international business.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

While I don't disagree with this, the best organizations are those that maximize their efficiencies. To suggest that this is an inherent weakness of large organization is partially true, but to suggest that its a weakness that cannot be addressed is just a disingenuous. This is one of the central lessons of the last 20 - 30 years of international business.

I'm not saying that it cannot be addressed or improved, but yes it is inherent to large organizations, both from within government and from without. When one looks at case studies of outsourcing government functions to the private sector, it often comes up more expensive and with lesser results. Neither government nor the private sector is inherently good or bad. Well managed organizations are more efficient than poorly managed organizations, period.

Living here in DC, I know many people who work for the government and many others who work for IBM, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Bechtel, etc. For the most part, there is no material difference with how the government and these big companies are run, in terms of efficiency (or lack thereof). For that matter, many of the top executives/managers in these mega-companies came from the government. From my experience, the real dumbasses around here are with the beltway bandits (consulting services companies) servicing both.

BTW, top quality government managers (of which there are many) invariably get very sizable raises when they go to work in the private sector for these big companies or consultancies.

FWIW, I'd still rather mail a letter for $.44 with the USPS than send a $10 mailing envelope with FedEx.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Living here in DC, I know many people who work for the government and many others who work for IBM, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Bechtel, etc. For the most part, there is no material difference with how the government and these big companies are run, in terms of efficiency (or lack thereof).

Mr. Krugman might idealize the Chinese business/government model:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ted-inhumanely

On the other hand, businesses have a choice of raising prices or increasing efficiencies to keep costs down, or some combination of both, in a competitive market. In the public sector, we can opt to print money, raise taxes or go deeper in debt, but the choice of managing to increase efficiencies and / or do away with redundant services or agencies is almost never considered or acted upon.

[d-ray657]

It sounded like the company that was enforcing the hellish working conditions. The Chinese government can be faulted for failing to enforce regulations designed to protect workers. That is what the GOP's masters want here. Keep the unions out, do away with the minimum wage and overtime requirements, lobby for more lax safety standards . . . . In other words, what was going on in the link sounds more like a GOP paradise than Krugman's dream.

Regards,

D-Ray