StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Optimal efficiency perhaps not but optimal is also lean and runs risks, so certain essential services it may be better to run a bit fat and heavy to ensure continued service at levels that a private enterprise may not optimally profit from.
Anyway, it's not state or federal, and I know it's expensive, but in Rochester I remain very, very pleased with the snow clearing here. There are a ton of vehicles and they are not cheap with the use of salt. They come out sometimes before a storm to put down salt, even, and during storms are out in full force then continue their efforts post-storm until the roads are all in great shape. This contrasts with some other cities I've been in in which the snow clearing takes care of the main stuff but has no qualms about letting slush or other snow sit around for days. I :heart: the snow clearing here. So, efficient, maybe not but they do get the job done and very well, imo.
Anyway, it's not state or federal, and I know it's expensive, but in Rochester I remain very, very pleased with the snow clearing here. There are a ton of vehicles and they are not cheap with the use of salt. They come out sometimes before a storm to put down salt, even, and during storms are out in full force then continue their efforts post-storm until the roads are all in great shape. This contrasts with some other cities I've been in in which the snow clearing takes care of the main stuff but has no qualms about letting slush or other snow sit around for days. I :heart: the snow clearing here. So, efficient, maybe not but they do get the job done and very well, imo.
People in here don't realize how much more efficient and CHEAPER the government is in comparison to private contractors who charge TRIPLE to do the same job. Some of the retirees were replaced by contractors and we have to pay them over $100 hour plus they get to work in the same office and use our phones and supplies. This is nothing more than a kickback from people who are at the top and are friends with the contractors. Smaller government=kick back to private firms.
The USPS, The Interstate Highway System (in most states), Unemployment Insurance, Ohio and PA DMV, Many State Universities (in comparison to private schools), FAFSA, PHEEA, US Military, US Police Force (most).
If they are good enough for you to take for granted, they are good.
If they are good enough for you to take for granted, they are good.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's exactly right. Decades of anti-government RNC propaganda had been quite effective with gullible people who need scapegoats for their own frustrations and failures, but the truth is government can be just as good -- and just as bad -- as any private company. I always get a kick out of seeing someone blast big government, then turn around and laud the "economies of scale" one purportedly gets by allowing corporations to grow without restriction. Having worked for and with many government agencies and Fortune 100 companies, I've seen first hand how both can be well-run and efficient, and both can be bureaucratic quagmires dominated by incompetence and greed.
True, but if a private company is slow, inefficient, greedy and corrupt I usually go somewhere else where none of those are a problem--hence why the private sector is more efficient; choice. Don't usually get that with govt.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Absolutely true, especially at the federal level (you can move to another town if your local government stinks), but it presumes two things, that you know which companies are bad, and that you have a choice, i.e., there is a non-bad alternative available. As we get fewer and bigger companies, both presumptions become less likely.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Efficiently? No.
The first purpose of a government program, regardles of its stated intent, is to perpetuate itself. This automatically means it can't run efficiently.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who really really can't do, run government programs.
The first purpose of a government program, regardles of its stated intent, is to perpetuate itself. This automatically means it can't run efficiently.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who really really can't do, run government programs.
LOOK at cta. Chicago transit authority. It is highly inefficient and extremely expensive. In the past 10-15 year, there is like no new route service increase while the administration cost double or triple. They blame the price increase on the gas but that is far from the truth. Does that tell you anything about government run service?
People that run government programs are often handcuffed by politicians. Privatization of government services is a scam.
CTA is government run, believe it or not. And guess what, we got casino bus running here 24/7 to Indiana and they are free to ride on to casino and back. They are free too.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It's a great bumper sticker, but parroting propaganda doesn't make it meaningful, no matter how earnest you may be. Every organization, public or private, tends to try to perpetuate itself. Following your insinuation, that means all organizations are bad, right? Naturally you also both ignore the counterexamples and the fact that big business can be just as bad as the worst of government.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Except perpetuating one's self in the private sector means changing and becoming more efficient to survive - unlike the gov't where perpetuation means less results to keep the "need" there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter