And yet the government budgets rise dramatically year after year.
What some people will call government waste - other people will call ethical employee treatment... sure there are a lot of other sources of inefficiency outside of your comment - but complaining about overpaid government bureaucrats is essentially advocating for the same race-to-the-bottom that has stagnated wages in large parts of the labour pool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement...
The teacher retirement systems I know of have rules like (age + years_worked)>=80 ==> full pension benefits.
Retiring after 20y will earn you a smaller monthly and is only possible (under that rule-of-80 above) if you start teaching at age 40. Teachers are much more likely to retire after 25+y (age_start=30, age_retire=55).
(There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.)
Defund the organisation to point of total chaos and near-collapse. Blame employees for collapse in work quality.
Here are some more generally true statements:
Increase profits and improve efficiency by cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents or outages on employees, customers, bystanders.
People die? Company goes bust? Who cares? Even if there are consequences, the executives/officials to blame have already taken the money and moved on to the next thing. You can't prosecute them or get the money back (unless they were stupendously dumb and got directly involved and stayed on 'til the bitter end and centres of power were so affected that prosecutors can't ignore it: see Theranos, Enron, etc.).
Otherwise good points I think, @scaramanga:
>>> cutting out maintenance tasks and firing the people who do them. Blame accidents ... Who cares? ... You can't prosecute them
> It's actually not sure that they are doing work. > (There are complexities and counter-examples that moderate this generally true statement.)
Guess, based on that I cannot really have a counter argument here :)
Hah, sorry. If you don't qualify a general statement, you'll get jumped on by people supplying the qualifier for you. I wish it weren't like that.
Relative size is a good point, certainly. We can look to several huge companies to see frustrating interaction points (hence my qualifier.)
But slack can also be perceived as waste, which can be cut.
And if your budget is cut, you are likely to see that slack as "first thing on the copping block" with the consequence that the queue begins to expand. But most systems have natural buffers which delay catastrophic failure. By that point there have been elections, you have retired, etc. and someone else is left holding the bag.
At that point you can blame the organisation for being "slow", or "inefficient", and then you can cut it's funding further, or destroy it outright or maybe outsource it to the private sector.
Then the private sector can drive profits by asset stripping and cutting safety or vital maintenance work, then when the whole system collapses, you can hold the taxpayer hostage by demanding a bailout of the, presumably vital, service (or you can renationalise it), and the whole cycle starts again.
Welcome to our planet, enjoy your stay, it's likely to be a brief one :)
I'm glad you've enjoyed writing your comments--like your style. :)
Yeah, more efficient nodes can delay that effect, but it seems that in real world system the existence of buffers means that consequences are delayed in ways that have significance (across careers, elections, etc) and those factors tend to dominate.
yw, nice that anyone reads it, without that i'd just be another mad shouty bloke on the internet, maybe i still am :)
What makes you think government is that much worse than the private sector in this regard?
Sure a lot of people coast in the private sector, hiding in the corners of their organizations. But if the business allows too much of that to happen, they go bust. In government, they just go get a tax increase.
You seem to think that people cannot escape the consequences of their actions, and that consequences arrive swiftly and fairly. But I should think a quick look around the world we actually live in will disabuse you of that notion in short order. Especially when it comes to gigantic centres of power with vast reserves of cash and well protected revenue streams.
And if you've worked in any tech company, you've probably already seen that the people who coast do not "hide in corners" they make up an entire class, called "management", especially "middle management", they're front and centre because they have no productive work to do so they can devote the majority of their time to extravagant displays justifying their existence and their elevated positions and compensation.
But eventually the work got done and we kept getting work because Big Companies buy from other Big Companies. You're not going to risk tendering to a 3 man office who gets it done faster, cheaper, better because if it doesn't happen questions will be asked. Unfortunately there are a lot of talented small businesses out there but they just don't get the work due to this.
Of course, eventually yes it's impossible to ignore the value gap. But I've seen companies threaten to leave but keep paying the bills for many years because in a big company, it's not really anyone's problem in particular and it's easier to just keep going along to get along. One example we had was B2C email communications, there are so many cheaper more capable players out there but they just got us to do it because we did other stuff for them.
Come on. They often try to sue each other out of business, get the government to declare competition illegal, "cut off their air supply", "knife their baby", etc.
> because we did other stuff for them
There you go. Not because of the goodness of their hearts.
I've known people in every corporation I've worked for who accomplished nothing and were not managers. I was often given the job of trying to turn whatever they did into something useful. Everybody knew who they were. I remember one person, we'll call "Smith". "Smith" would check in code, and it was always so bad that someone else would have to redo the whole thing. After a while, the term "smith-code" became a generic term for code that was worse than nothing.
How bad can you be that your name becomes a generic term for useless work?
"Smith" eventually got laid off. The team was relieved.
I've known a few Smith's in my time, one thing they all had in common was the protection of a manager who had no interest in the quality of Smith's work, as long as Smith would take his side in any disputes. When the consequences became too great, the manager would suddenly understand the problem and approve the minimum of changes to fix it, while taking credit for the work. Smith would not complain about this slight because he understood the nature of the transaction.
Edit: btw. congrats getting rid of your Smith, these people can be very difficult to dislodge. Presumably your guy did not have the protection of a manager.
Zilog was the maker of the Z80 microprocessor that powered a huge number of games consoles and simple computers in the 80s. Also still around - its parent company was acquired for $750 million.
I had to look up Curtis-Mathis because it wasn't a thing in the UK.
And MicroPro / WordStar International does seem to be legitimately dead: acquired by SoftKey who were acquired by Mattel who have since gotten rid of all the associated brands.
But in any practical sense, they ceased to exist. (I meant Lotus of 1-2-3 fame, not car fame.)
Their scopes are still for sale and still good.
> part of an umbrella corporation
meaning their former glory is gone. When I was starting out Tektronix was a very big deal in computers and electronics. I haven't even heard their name in 20-30 years.