Private Sector more Efficient than Public?

[Admiral Yi]

Care. Landscaping. The railway managers.

So now the assertion is that people who perform care, landscaping, and railway management for the government are motivated by the desire to help people, and those who do so for private companies are not motivated in this way?

Btw, what does care mean?  Is that wiping senior citizens bums or is that watching little kids?

[Martinus]

Wow, Tyr often says stupid shit but this must be one of his dumbest.

[Martinus]

For the record, efficiency isn't everything and this is why private companies perform worse in public service type of work, where universal coverage is more important. From the efficiency perspective, simply some places shouldn't be cleaned, get electrity or postal delivery - because the benefits simply do not exceed the costs. That's where you need public/subsidized service.

The only question is whether in such industries it would be better for the public company to serve simply as a non-profit subsidiary/supplementary intervening entity (e.g. deliver mail only to places where private entities do not) or should it act as a hybrid for-profit company which makes money on some and loses on other locations. I can see arguments in favor of both solutions.

[DGuller]

Interesting fact:

90 pecent of of all new mortgages originated in the Unites States are now guaranteed by the federal government.

I am not sure what the percentage is here but I would guess most mortgages are insured by CMHC - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.  The difference may be that CMHC wont insure any mortgage that doesnt follow its minimum guidelines regarding minimum downpayment and affordability.

It was the same in US, and may still be.  Even when Fannie and Freddie went into subprime mortgage business, they still had standards.

[The Brain]

Purchasing a product takes skill. There are many instances of the public sector doing poor purchasing. Delivering the product yourself though takes much more skill than purchasing it. I have no confidence that an entity that does poor purchasing will get better results from DIY.

[Josquius]

Care. Landscaping. The railway managers.

So now the assertion is that people who perform care, landscaping, and railway management for the government are motivated by the desire to help people, and those who do so for private companies are not motivated in this way?

Btw, what does care mean?  Is that wiping senior citizens bums or is that watching little kids?

Very little in this world is black and white. Generally however if you want to follow a career in altruistic fields then you go through the proper government channels. If you just need to make some money then you sign on for a private company.

Both.

[garbon]

Tee-hee.

[Ed Anger]

Wow.

[crazy canuck]

And what incentive is there for a government worker to do more than the "least possible work"?

You are confulsing two things.

One is a private contractor "efficiency" of providing as little service possible for the amount being paid.

The other is a workers motivation to work.  Whether they are in the public or private sectors employee motivation is a universal issue. 

Motivation is most important to getting the job done regardless of contract.

"getting the job done" for a private sector company contracting with the government to provide government services is expressly doing as little as possible under the contract for the money paid in order to maximize profit.

[Admiral Yi]

Very little in this world is black and white. Generally however if you want to follow a career in altruistic fields then you go through the proper government channels. If you just need to make some money then you sign on for a private company.

A more reasonable position, IMO, is that certain fields attract people motivated to help others regardless of whose name is on the pay check. 

[citizen k]

Generally however if you want to follow a career in altruistic fields then you go through the proper government channels.

Would the Ministry for Altruistic Fields be next door to the Ministry of Silly Walks?

[grumbler]

"getting the job done" for a private sector company contracting with the government to provide government services is expressly doing as little as possible under the contract for the money paid in order to maximize profit.

  And I bet you never had any contracts renewed, with that attitude!

"Getting the job done" for every private company I have worked for that had contracts to provide government services involved, first and foremost, keeping the government client happy and pleased with the selection process that got my company the job.  I saw companies use the CrankyCanuck approach, and they inevitably went out of business because they couldn't get contracts renewed.  To "expressly" do as little as possible in order to "maximize" profits as a mug's game; the startup costs for a government contract mean that you need to get at least some renewals (if not from the same client, then from a government client that has the same needs) to make any real profit.

The government generally, IMO, is wise to contract out jobs that are easily competed, temporary or that require a professional cadre smaller than the government can affordably raise, train, and promote.  It is better to contract out cleaning services, for instance, or building construction, or congressional dental care.  It is not better to contract out security, administration, or congressional staffers.

[The Brain]

I'm considering making my private sector a public sector.

[crazy canuck]

"Getting the job done" for every private company I have worked for that had contracts to provide government services involved, first and foremost, keeping the government client happy and pleased

Excellent Grumbler.  The fact that you are now a teacher tells me you were not that profitable.

[Ed Anger]

I'm considering making my private sector a public sector.

I'd wander those woods.