re: Can someone explain the animosity towards Government workers?

Keep in mind that many "private" jobs these days rely heavily (some very) on government contracts. So even private jobs are now more or less dot gov jobs.

I believe that the government shouldn’t be taking anyone’s income. Tax should be generated from sales tax and maybe tariffs. The government is inefficient and unreliable in a lot of aspects, we have had record tax revenue after the tax cuts, and yet we constantly hear about how taxes need to be raised. Why?

quote:

---

Keep in mind that many "private" jobs these days rely heavily (some very) on government contracts.

---

A more interesting question is the difference between consultants/contractors for government versus private business. I’ve seen too many consultants that are just as lazy and inefficient as the government workers they “work” for.

Go to the courthouse and try to get anything useful from someone that works there, then return here and answer your own question.

quote:

---

1. the animosity of jealousy. People actually getting retirements with benefits. 2. Some scorn in there too. Nice piece, op.

---

When you read stupid shite like this, you know it comes from someone with a .gov or .edu email address.

Because the stereotype of Shaniqua/LouAnn sitting behind a desk doing her nails whilst not giving a damn about your problems isn't just a stereotype.

If govt. workers really cared about their reputations, they would insist on making it easier to fire them for incompetence.

Federal workers receive more total compensation than comparable private sector workers. Federal workers pay (and increases) isn’t merit based, but more so a function of time in position and some form of schedule.

quote:

---

A prevalent sentiment on this board is that private industry is always better than government and that it is the only true source for jobs.

---

Sometimes generalization language betrays the underlying bias against the opinion.

So, let me start with the easy one. From an economic standpoint, the vast majority of government jobs are a "drain" - taking money away from the private sector is anathema to economic development. Obviously, there are exceptions. If, for example, the government puts a military base in the middle of nowhere, economic activity will flourish in this previously undeveloped region because there will be money to be made from the military and civilian employees (and families) of that base. But, this is a zero sum game - all those folks leave somewhere else and collect at the base because of their jobs. It is not market driven and does not benefit from market efficiency. Superficially, it will look like government spending is driving economic development.

Now - this is not to say the government has no role in economic development. Obviously public safety is a huge boon to residential and commercial development. Where government often fails is allowing crime to set in and this will crash property values and drive economic activity and investment to safer areas. Private actors can only tangentially affect public safety, not directly improve it.

Same thing for infrastructure - particularly roads, bridges, highways - maintenance of those for the benefit of all is an economic boon, generally. It would not be cost effective in many cases to privatize because it may have to operate at a loss for extensive periods of time (perhaps forever) and it is one of the rare things outside of national defense that tax money is clearly the best option to fund.

But:

quote:

---

Teachers, Construction, Post Office

---

- demonstrably could be done better, more efficiently, more responsively by private actors than public entities. You sincerely believe that the government funds the majority of construction projects? By dollar value? By worker? Sure road construction is almost exclusively done for government clients, but that isn't all the work in the rural areas.

quote:

---

Government is more of a long term investor than an entrepreneur.

---

The problem with (and my defense of) government agencies is that there is no particular incentive to turn a profit. Therefore, there is no reason beyond budget constraints to limit spending. Their charge (as it should be) is to provide the best, most responsive service they can to the taxpayers. There can be free market principles introduced (bonuses/awards/promotions for fiscal responsibility), but it is difficult to take that next step.

Contrast that to a homebuilder, for example. Yes, he wants to maintain good customer relations. Yes, he has to provide good customer service and communication. But, at the end of the day, his success or failure is driven by his ability to minimize cost and maximize revenue. The genius of capitalism - enlightened self-interest.