What The Wire does great is show how money and power is actually routed. It's capitalism hiding in plain sight. Why wouldn't it be the same way in a world with less government?
I'm not saying "defund all the things" is the right answer (mostly because I don't think it's that simple or it would have worked where tried and we'd have done it everywhere) but there's a very clear correlation between available wealth to allocate to government and bloated government. Not having government be a gravy train also seems to help select for people who genuinely want to be civil servants because the people who are just in it for the paycheck don't stick around in challenging environments like that.
It seems like all the innovation in government (e.g. novel program to keep the parks clean or whatever) comes out of places like Detroits and Buffalos of the world who actually have a pressing need to figure out how to stretch their resources whereas the NYCs and the SFs of the world just increase their intake.
So what you're saying is, we should enact regulation that forces companies to compensate C-level executives at a fraction of what they typically make now. That way, we select for the people who have a genuine interest in the success of the company instead of just a fat salary, right?
We live in a country where teachers often have to purchase school supplies for their classroom out of their own pocket because of people like you.
CEOs are compensated based on the success of the company. The problem with government employees is they get a decent salary regardless of competence or how the govt office performs its tasks.
This is partly true, but it's just one of the outcomes of the process.
I work for a state government that doesn't pay close to the median wages for similar positions. What my government offers is a lot of job security (I'm confident the state will not dissolve anytime soon) and lenient hiring requirements. Looking at my official job description, anyone who passed calculus in college and had the ability to learn basic programming could do it. And that was me, so I was hired. Once here, I realize people expect a lot more out of me, like statistical knowledge common to those with high-demand master's degrees. They keep the official description simple, because nobody who can already do the tasks would accept such low wages.
Which leads to a couple outcomes, and I've seen them all:
1. The government position is a stepping stone, either to a more politically influential role or a more lucrative position in the private sector
2. The person feels a sense of purpose in public service (I consider myself here) and stays a while. They will try to improve things, but this happens in short bursts when they meet similar people in other bureaus. Chances are, they'll burn out. Then they either leave or move onto the next group...
3. The person realizes they only have to do what's in the job description. So they stay for the security and resist professional development. Could also be the result of #2 burning out.
This is not, in my opinion, a good model for improving government. It relies on the hope you get enough people from group 2 that can do enough before burning out. But because group 3 exists, that burn out will happen quickly.