These last few decades - post Reagan/Thatcher really - it's become widely accepted that privatized services are better and more efficient than those provided by the government.
These guys argue that it is not: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/private-sector-superiority-mythbuster
Do we actually have good case studies for/ against the proposition? Are there facts that can be discussed beyond the prevailing ideological battlegrounds?
I've always taken it as an article of faith.
Myself, I think sometimes nationalisation has made sense, for instance the government rescue/nationalisation of Rolls-Royce in the very early 1970s, a conservative government did that and it ended up becoming one of the two or three principle aero engine makers.
My company does business with county governments and they are usually very competent and productive.
The feds are a different story. They don't do anything. They just don't move. I imagine federal office buildings in DC full of people just hunched over their desks because they got so lazy they forgot to eat or breathe. Like the planet Miranda.
I'm willing to bet the UK public sector is nowhere near that bad. Probably closer to what you'd expect from one of our larger states.
Your link froze on me then crashed my browser, but not before I read the headline and the leder.
Based on the little I read, the argument seems specious. The fact that one privatized line got more subsidy than different, state-owned lines tells us nothing about their relative efficiency.
First give me money and security. Then, I will later worry about efficiency if I have the time.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that's correct. The private sector doesn't have the public service unions to deal with, which helps them a bit.
I've encountered far more waste and inefficiency when the government decides it needs to contract out to private firms than when it just gets on with things itself. That the private sector is more wasteful seems pretty common sense to me, the government just likes it as they create more jobs and help the government to fudge their accounts.
Of course it does. The rules those contracts operate under mandate the waste. I could write a book on this subject.
Edit: To put it succinctly, either the government wastes the money, or they mandate that the contractor waste the money. There is no difference and nothing gained by contracting it out. Except they usually add another level of bureaucracy to manage the contracting process.
I think efficiency is more a function of size rather than public or private. The bigger the bureaucracy of any organization the greater the opportunities for waste and mismanagement (internal inefficiency). However if the organization is well coordinated increases in size allow it to tackle bigger projects without strain and self competition (external efficiency).
Quote from: frunk on April 25, 2013, 08:07:58 PM
I think efficiency is more a function of size rather than public or private.
This is true.
Both have their pros and their cons.
Any organization that grows beyond a certain size tends to become bureaucratic - whether it be public (govt), semi-public (unions) or private (corporations) makes no difference. And bureaucratic organizations tend to a) foster the retention of information - b) encourage the duplication of structures and c) accelerate the dilution of accountability through the first two. The degrees in which these phenomenons manifest themselves vary depending on the specific structure of any given organization. In short - if one wishes to avoid the worst cases of red tape - one should insure an organization doesn't grow beyond a certain point.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on April 25, 2013, 08:09:56 PM
In short - if one wishes to avoid the worst cases of red tape - one should insure an organization doesn't grow beyond a certain point.
Unfortunately, that's a loser to both 1) voters, and 2) shareholders. So both cultures are fucked.
It should also be noted that once the threshold has been passed, a bureaucratic organization tend to devote most of its energies towards the expansion of its operating processes rather than towards fulfilling the purpose for which it was originally founded.
G.
A company that Cal used to work for once had an air conditioner professionally inspected every day for a month because they had to spend the money in their maintenance budget before year end or pay a million dollar fine.
UPS and FedEx are two very large organizations that to me seem very efficiently run.
I don't think I've ever seen evidence that private industry is more efficient the public sector. I'm not sure how would even go about finding such evidence. I've seen lots of people claim it though. Must be a faith thing.
Is the private sector more efficient? The question is at what?
If we are talking about competing in the marketplace the answer is yes for a whole range of reasons that I dont think are contraversial so I will move on to the second point.
If we a talking about providing government services in a monopoly enviornment the answer is no. Over the last 15 years or so this Province experimented with privatizing a number of services that government or government agencies had once provided to the public. In every case those decisions were reversed or substantially scaled back.
There is one simple reason. The profit motive doesnt work when it comes to providing government services and because the company providing the service needs to make a profit the cost of providing those services for the government ends up being more expensive then if the government just did it themselves.
Of course this leaves a question as to what services should be provided by government but that is a whole other debate.
I also have increasingly funny stories working with and in government, but I think I have reached a point where I need to keep quiet until I retire.
But private companies waste money on stupid crap to, such as lavish dinners and "morale events" when I would rather they just put that money in my bank account. I was forced today to order $300 worth of business casual clothes for myself that they paid for because the shirts are emblazoned with the small company logo.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 25, 2013, 08:28:49 PM
But private companies waste money on stupid crap to, such as lavish dinners and "morale events" when I would rather they just put that money in my bank account. I was forced today to order $300 worth of business casual clothes for myself that they paid for because the shirts are emblazoned with the small company logo.
Not to mention executive salaries and perks.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 25, 2013, 08:28:49 PMBut private companies waste money on stupid crap to, such as lavish dinners and "morale events" when I would rather they just put that money in my bank account. I was forced today to order $300 worth of business casual clothes for myself that they paid for because the shirts are emblazoned with the small company logo.
A certain company I won't mention spent over $700,000 on imported Italian marble for renovations of a particular public area once; just three years later, it was renovated again by the new CEO according to his tastes, and they
painted over it. All that gorgeous marble, simply white washed. I feel sorry for the schmuck that punches a wall there in frustration, thinking it's drywall. :lol:
And how can I forget the $20,000 handcrafted custom conference table that was hauled to the dump because its shade of cherry didn't quite match the woodwork on the ceiling. Not even returned, just trashed. And a new one ordered.
Yes, companies can be truly silly with their money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2013, 08:22:00 PM
UPS and FedEx are two very large organizations that to me seem very efficiently run.
Fedex is not that well run, especially when dealing with non-urban areas. Local routes are contracted, with far less oversight, and even express has to be centrally run through the main hubs - this means packages overnighted from, say, Denver to Colorado Springs must fly to Memphis or Indianapolis in order to return to Denver to be routed to Colorado Springs. They are too rigid and do not do regionalism that well. As far as I know, this is the norm for Fedex.
UPS seem far better at how they do their shipping models, but they also seem to take a higher margin and so their prices are about the same as the less efficient Fedex.
Use up the alotted funds. If a couch ends up in your house, so be it.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2013, 08:38:10 PM
UPS seem far better at how they do their shipping models, but they also seem to take a higher margin and so their prices are about the same as the less efficient Fedex.
They shattered the frame to my Royal KHM typewriter. They don't like hauling heavy parcels, so fuck them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2013, 08:41:01 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2013, 08:38:10 PM
UPS seem far better at how they do their shipping models, but they also seem to take a higher margin and so their prices are about the same as the less efficient Fedex.
They shattered the frame to my Royal KHM typewriter. They don't like hauling heavy parcels, so fuck them.
Both are the shit when it comes to heavy packages or oversized ones. Both also claim that any box shipped with them have to be able to withstand a drop from 3 feet onto a hard surface or they will not pay claims. This means a lot of boxes smashed or accordioned because they are "not right" for their standards.
UPS just gets their ground boxes, smashed or not, to their local locations at a better rate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2013, 08:22:00 PM
UPS and FedEx are two very large organizations that to me seem very efficiently run.
*Seem* is the operating word. I'm currently working for an average sized (2000 employees) company that is owned by a multinational holding.
Scratch that!
I'm posted at the site of an average sized company - owned by a multinational corporation - and serviced by my employer - another multinational corporation. In the last few months the IT infrastructure of the original client company has been forcibly integrated within the 'globalized' infrastructure. The turnaround services once provided within hours - are now delivered days later; those once offered within days are now delivered weeks later... And the amount of paperwork - written or electronic - has exploded.
Naturally, since the central hub has off-shored to 3rd world shitholes most of the services once provided by my employer it appears - on paper at least - that there are significant operating cost savings. However nobody seems interested in accounting for the 'intangible' costs of productivity loss due to the downtime of employees payed substantially more than the above 10- bucks-an-hour-and-a-bowl-of-rice-a-day slaves... But in this era of short term quarterly bonus reviews I suppose this isn't worth mentioning. The client we service is riddled with bureaucracy. Which makes it possible for my employer to double or triple bill the services provided without anyone being the wiser...
So no Yi, being private does *not* equate being efficient.
G.
Five years ago we got funds from the government to replace a broken elevator with a brand new one. $400,000. And a copier/printer/publisher machine. $500,000.
The new elevator is still not installed because the funds to do the install have never been released, and because the contract to install it has never been awarded. It is a small-business set-aside, and no business small enough to bid on it has the ability to do the work. The elevator is getting rusty.
The copier needed service after a year, and it's under a service contract together with a shitload of other federally-owned devices like it--but the bill on the service contract is overdue by four years so the company won't fix it.
Last year, $180,000 was awarded to build an urban garden in the same facility. They grow crops there on about an acre. But the soil is toxic on that site, and you aren't supposed to drink the water from the tap much less eat food grown in it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
Use up the alotted funds. If a couch ends up in your house, so be it.
You have to; you have no choice. That's the counter-intuitiveness of private sector budgeting.
Heaven forbid you don't spend all you ducats that year in some fit of fiscal responsibility; if you don't, The Powers That Be will determine you don't need a budget that size after all--and when you truly need it, it won't be there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2013, 08:34:00 PM
And how can I forget the $20,000 handcrafted custom conference table that was hauled to the dump because its shade of cherry didn't quite match the woodwork on the ceiling. Not even returned, just trashed. And a new one ordered.
i'd have a new dinning table :D
Quote from: HVC on April 25, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2013, 08:34:00 PM
And how can I forget the $20,000 handcrafted custom conference table that was hauled to the dump because its shade of cherry didn't quite match the woodwork on the ceiling. Not even returned, just trashed. And a new one ordered.
i'd have a new dinning table :D
No kidding. at the very least take that thing home and put it on ebay. :P
Quote from: HVC on April 25, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
i'd have a new dinning table :D
And a new living room table, and a new bedroom table...that thing could've landed a Boeing on it.
That would be my new sex table.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2013, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 25, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
i'd have a new dinning table :D
And a new living room table, and a new bedroom table...that thing could've landed a Boeing on it.
a chainsaw and varnish fixes all :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2013, 09:06:25 PM
That would be my new sex table.
can't. doesn t have a wheelchair lift.
I really hate the way the 'bureaucracy' has become some big negative buzz word to be done away with at all costs. Too many people don't realise just how necessary bureaucracy is.
Quote from: HVC on April 25, 2013, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2013, 09:06:25 PM
That would be my new sex table.
can't. doesn t have a wheelchair lift.
I get that next fiscal quarter.
Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2013, 09:10:24 PM
I really hate the way the 'bureaucracy' has become some big negative buzz word to be done away with at all costs. Too many people don't realise just how necessary bureaucracy is.
you sound suspiciously like a bureaucrat :shifty:
Quote from: Grallon on April 25, 2013, 08:46:46 PM
*Seem* is the operating word. I'm currently working for an average sized (2000 employees) company that is owned by a multinational holding.
Scratch that!
I'm posted at the site of an average sized company - owned by a multinational corporation - and serviced by my employer - another multinational corporation. In the last few months the IT infrastructure of the original client company has been forcibly integrated within the 'globalized' infrastructure. The turnaround services once provided within hours - are now delivered days later; those once offered within days are now delivered weeks later... And the amount of paperwork - written or electronic - has exploded.
Naturally, since the central hub has off-shored to 3rd world shitholes most of the services once provided by my employer it appears - on paper at least - that there are significant operating cost savings. However nobody seems interested in accounting for the 'intangible' costs of productivity loss due to the downtime of employees payed substantially more than the above 10- bucks-an-hour-and-a-bowl-of-rice-a-day slaves... But in this era of short term quarterly bonus reviews I suppose this isn't worth mentioning. The client we service is riddled with bureaucracy. Which makes it possible for my employer to double or triple bill the services provided without anyone being the wiser...
I've seen a lot of that crap in big businesses here as well.
For example, one of our clients has IT spread all over Europe. DB management in Turkey, account handling in Poland, as so on. It takes months and dozens of emails for shit to get done.
And everyone seems to be in a meeting, all the time. It's hilarious. One of the old timers actually asked us if things are like that everywhere nowadays. In the old days, he said, when something was broken he got up and fixed it. Now, he said, I've got to go to a meeting and spend hours telling all sorts of people about what the problem is and what we could do to fix it.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2013, 08:22:00 PM
UPS and FedEx are two very large organizations that to me seem very efficiently run.
You have got to be kidding me. Overpriced and annoying as hell to deal with.
Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2013, 09:10:24 PM
I really hate the way the 'bureaucracy' has become some big negative buzz word to be done away with at all costs. Too many people don't realise just how necessary bureaucracy is.
Kafka hates you.
Grallon hit it spot on. A big enough organisation will be wasteful regardless of being private or public. Difference is, that at some point a private company either reforms itself or it falls. A public company has no such concerns. There is tax money to keep them afloat
I don't think this is a function of size per se - although the bigger the organization is, the harder is to keep it efficient - but whether decision makers have a vested interest in keeping the organization efficient, or whether they have other, more primary interests, such as avoiding responsibility, covering your ass, or keeping your job (which happens when the organization is so big, it has to delegate decision making to people who do not have a vested interest in efficiency, and/or when the decision makers are not accountable to those interested in efficiency in the first place - which would be the case in public organizations, as well as corporations with a significantly dispersed shareholding).
Geniuses - such as owners/founders of big corporations - are capable of keeping them efficient despite their sizes, but when they give up the power to someone else, who is not as good at keeping them efficient as his or her primary goal, things usually go down the drain (vide: Microsoft and Apple).
Or to put it differently - efficiency is often a form of risk - you are essentially giving up some safeguards and processes in order to be faster in creating your product and taking decisions. Most people are sheep who prefer security to risk taking - so the moment the organization loses a visionary that guides it, it starts tending towards inefficiency. The difference between public and private organizations is that in the former you almost never have a visionary to begin with.
good point Mart.
And I am ready to believe that it is possible to make incentives in cases of some public companies to keep them efficient, but for sure it's a lot harder, when you have a -from your perspective- unlimited source of funds behind you, and the political necessity to not let you fail.
Somebody mentioned the state budget -> private companies transfer being wasteful. Well, duh! That's the prime way for embezzlement and corruption, OF COURSE it's ineffective. Thinking that it would be better just because the receiving hand would be a state employee, maybe somebody who can be appointed by the one handing out the money, is very naivé
I think the difference is less pronounced that might be thought, but the reasons for inefficiency are different to a degree.
Large private-sector firms, as is noted by posters above, also tend to find it hard to stay agile and lean. It's difficult to retain the shallow decision-making structures as a organisation gets bigger, and it's harder to ensure that everyone is working for the benefit of the company or maintain the average level of talent.
On the other hand, public-sector firms are at a much higher risk of legislative and political meddling, as well as the usual problems of size and so on.
Part of the supposed cost-saving of switching from public- to private-sector provision of services in the UK also comes from accounting trickery and optimistic bidding.
As an aside, competitive tendering processes also end up being horribly inefficient: I am involved in bids for publicly funding work, and the variation in processes is remarkable. For certain public institutions, it's one straightforward (albeit lengthy) form that is needed. For others, it's a byzantine process of compliance layer after compliance layer, with paperwork and "evidence" and "metrics" galore. Both sets of projects are for the same amounts of money, in the tens to hundreds of thousands.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2013, 01:01:02 AM
Geniuses - such as owners/founders of big corporations - are capable of keeping them efficient despite their sizes, but when they give up the power to someone else, who is not as good at keeping them efficient as his or her primary goal, things usually go down the drain (vide: Microsoft and Apple).
I disagree. In the majority of cases, the problem is that entrepreneurs find it hard to adjust from an innovative mindset to a managerial mindset. Different scales of firms have different problems. I think someone made the case a while ago that innovators should learn to step aside from leadership once their firms get large enough to focus on their specialism, rather than worrying about brand strategy and so on. Executive polymaths are quite rare.
The public sector is very inefficient, more so than the private sector.
Quote from: Tamas on April 26, 2013, 01:10:41 AM
Somebody mentioned the state budget -> private companies transfer being wasteful. Well, duh! That's the prime way for embezzlement and corruption, OF COURSE it's ineffective. Thinking that it would be better just because the receiving hand would be a state employee, maybe somebody who can be appointed by the one handing out the money, is very naivé
Yep. Generally the impact of contracting out government services directly, as in somebody bids and receives the contract to clean up Central Park or whatever, is the workers are more poorly paid. The public costs basically stay the same. Heck what usually happens is the contractor will just hire the old public workers for less and pocket the difference.
It can work but generally when the customer is the government itself paying out with tax dollars I do not think it is all that much more efficient to contract out. The benefits of the private sector are accountability to customers and markets and shareholders and all that jazz which sorta go away when they are just working to maintain their public sector contract.
That is my simplistic take anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2013, 10:18:34 AM
Yep. Generally the impact of contracting out government services directly, as in somebody bids and receives the contract to clean up Central Park or whatever, is the workers are more poorly paid. The public costs basically stay the same. Heck what usually happens is the contractor will just hire the old public workers for less and pocket the difference.
It can work but generally when the customer is the government itself paying out with tax dollars I do not think it is all that much more efficient to contract out. The benefits of the private sector are accountability to customers and markets and shareholders and all that jazz which sorta go away when they are just working to maintain their public sector contract.
That is my simplistic take anyway.
The workers who work on our government contracts actually make less money than what we would pay them if we had a choice. The contract specifies what we pay them. It also specifies what total percentage of the contracted amount must be spent on salaries, what percent for benefits, etc. Everything is decided before they award the contract to anyone.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 26, 2013, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2013, 10:18:34 AM
Yep. Generally the impact of contracting out government services directly, as in somebody bids and receives the contract to clean up Central Park or whatever, is the workers are more poorly paid. The public costs basically stay the same. Heck what usually happens is the contractor will just hire the old public workers for less and pocket the difference.
It can work but generally when the customer is the government itself paying out with tax dollars I do not think it is all that much more efficient to contract out. The benefits of the private sector are accountability to customers and markets and shareholders and all that jazz which sorta go away when they are just working to maintain their public sector contract.
That is my simplistic take anyway.
The workers who work on our government contracts actually make less money than what we would pay them if we had a choice.
Yeah, lower wages is one part of the story. But Valmy touched on the main reason the private sector is less efficient at doing government work. Profit motive gives an incentive for contractors to do the least possible work for the maxiumum gain under the contract. Therefore contractors are always on the bleeding edge of what they can get away with without giving cause to have their contracts terminated. Indeed so much time and money is spent by government to manage these sorts of contracts and try to get contractors to provide adequate levels of service that any notional savings of contracting the thing out in the first place are lost.
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2013, 07:31:05 PM
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that's correct. The private sector doesn't have the public service unions to deal with, which helps them a bit.
This. This, this, this.
Government isn't inherently inefficient. There's a risk of corruption to be sure, but ways to safeguard against it as well. I work in a non-union government position and I think we're actually quite efficient. The government definitely gets its pound of flesh out of me, but we're accountable for our mistakes, and decisions get made quite quickly.
where things slow up is when you start dealing with the unions. Now your lazy, good for nothing employee can hardly ever be fired. Now you're paying significantly more in wages then what is paid in the private sector.
And that's why contracting out can, sometimes be quite effective. The private company you hire doesn't have to pay union wages.
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2013, 12:26:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2013, 07:31:05 PM
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that's correct. The private sector doesn't have the public service unions to deal with, which helps them a bit.
This. This, this, this.
Both of you are ingoring the fact that public sector unions are downright docile compared to most private sector unions. Excepting the teachers unions of course.
Quote from: Tamas on April 26, 2013, 12:42:48 AM
Grallon hit it spot on. A big enough organisation will be wasteful regardless of being private or public. Difference is, that at some point a private company either reforms itself or it falls. A public company has no such concerns. There is tax money to keep them afloat
I don't necessarily agree that a large organization is always going to be highly inefficient, but the other point is spot-on. A private company that is too inefficient will eventually go out of business; government essentially has no such constraints. This doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently more inefficient, just that government inefficiency is more abiding.
Interesting fact:
90 pecent of of all new mortgages originated in the Unites States are now guaranteed by the federal government.
USSA
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2013, 12:26:16 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 26, 2013, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2013, 10:18:34 AM
Yep. Generally the impact of contracting out government services directly, as in somebody bids and receives the contract to clean up Central Park or whatever, is the workers are more poorly paid. The public costs basically stay the same. Heck what usually happens is the contractor will just hire the old public workers for less and pocket the difference.
It can work but generally when the customer is the government itself paying out with tax dollars I do not think it is all that much more efficient to contract out. The benefits of the private sector are accountability to customers and markets and shareholders and all that jazz which sorta go away when they are just working to maintain their public sector contract.
That is my simplistic take anyway.
The workers who work on our government contracts actually make less money than what we would pay them if we had a choice.
Yeah, lower wages is one part of the story. But Valmy touched on the main reason the private sector is less efficient at doing government work. Profit motive gives an incentive for contractors to do the least possible work for the maxiumum gain under the contract. Therefore contractors are always on the bleeding edge of what they can get away with without giving cause to have their contracts terminated. Indeed so much time and money is spent by government to manage these sorts of contracts and try to get contractors to provide adequate levels of service that any notional savings of contracting the thing out in the first place are lost.
And what incentive is there for a government worker to do more than the "least possible work"?
One of the many problems with the public sector is that it doesn't attract top talent.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
One of the many problems with the public sector is that it doesn't attract top talent.
:mad:
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2013, 06:35:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
One of the many problems with the public sector is that it doesn't attract top talent.
:mad:
He means McGill graduates.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2013, 06:51:30 PM
He means McGill graduates.
There was a piece on the news the other night with American college students at McGill and other Canuckistani universities, how they're going there to save money, where they can get a 4 year degree for the cost of 1 year at a major university in the US. They looked happy, and you could see the transformation into Canuckistani in their faces.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
And what incentive is there for a government worker to do more than the "least possible work"?
There is both positive and negative incentive.
On the one hand public sector workers will generally care more about their work. Many of them will have entered the public sector because they want to make the country a better place and have a genuine desire to help people- they could make much more money in the private sector afterall. Really depends what you mean by public sector there of course.
On the other hand public sector workers are in it for the long hall. They're not just doing a quick contract then leaving. If they do a shitty job they're the ones who'll have to clean it up a few years down the line. This one will be quite universal from the highest national governing civil servants down to the local pot hole fillers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2013, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 27, 2013, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
And what incentive is there for a government worker to do more than the "least possible work"?
There is both positive and negative incentive.
On the one hand public sector workers will generally care more about their work. Many of them will have entered the public sector because they want to make the country a better place and have a genuine desire to help people- they could make much more money in the private sector afterall. Really depends what you mean by public sector there of course.
On the other hand public sector workers are in it for the long hall. They're not just doing a quick contract then leaving. If they do a shitty job they're the ones who'll have to clean it up a few years down the line. This one will be quite universal from the highest national governing civil servants down to the local pot hole fillers.
We are talking about services provided to the public being provided by either government or private sector. Thus, a private sector employee servicing the public can also "make the country a better place."
A private company doing a shitty job loses the contract and future business. Why would they do that? If there are cost overruns, it will bill the government, which to date has happily obliged.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
And what incentive is there for a government worker to do more than the "least possible work"?
If I'm getting paid a flat salary what difference in motivation is there between someone working for a private company and the government?
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 09:52:02 PM
We are talking about services provided to the public being provided by either government or private sector. Thus, a private sector employee servicing the public can also "make the country a better place."
They can. But its not such a motivator for going into their field of work.
Quote
A private company doing a shitty job loses the contract and future business. Why would they do that? If there are cost overruns, it will bill the government, which to date has happily obliged.
The boss maybe thinks so. The workers doing the actual work, who as a supposed advantage of the private sector are expendable and can be fired if they demand a raise, don't give a crap.
Even with the managment- might it not be seen as better to do as bad a job as you can get away with so that things will break eventually and another contract will be in the offering?
A private sector vs. public? :hmm:
So Squeeze, your assertion is that train driver that works for the government is motivated by the desire to help others, while one that works for a private company is not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2013, 10:32:04 PM
So Squeeze, your assertion is that train driver that works for the government is motivated by the desire to help others, while one that works for a private company is not?
Nope. A train driver is motivated by a desire to drive trains.
I said it depends what we mean by public worker, it doesn't apply to all jobs.
Quote from: Tyr on April 27, 2013, 10:33:11 PM
Nope. A train driver is motivated by a desire to drive trains.
I said it depends what we mean by public worker, it doesn't apply to all jobs.
OK. What types of jobs are you talking about?
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 09:52:02 PM
A private company doing a shitty job loses the contract and future business. Why would they do that? If there are cost overruns, it will bill the government, which to date has happily obliged.
THe same reason private companies do shitty work all the time: poor management, incompetence, blah blah. Fortunately for them if they contracting for the government they can keep their contract by playing their politics well enough, while doing this which is harder to pull off when providing services for other sorts of customers. Which is why I doubt it really makes much of a difference efficiency wise whether the government does it inhouse or by contract. As I said the main difference I see is the workers are paid less...I find it weird that more poorly paid workers will be more motivated doing the exact same job just because they are in the private sector. But I guess it is possible with a well run organization with good management.
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
One of the many problems with the public sector is that it doesn't attract top talent.
Yeah but generally the public sector is doing pretty unchallenging things like maintaining parks. HOw much super talent do you really need for that?
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2013, 11:55:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
One of the many problems with the public sector is that it doesn't attract top talent.
Yeah but generally the public sector is doing pretty unchallenging things like maintaining parks.
That would have been awesome. :wub:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2013, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 27, 2013, 10:33:11 PM
Nope. A train driver is motivated by a desire to drive trains.
I said it depends what we mean by public worker, it doesn't apply to all jobs.
OK. What types of jobs are you talking about?
Care. Landscaping. The railway managers.
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 01:24:58 AM
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?
Wow, Tyr often says stupid shit but this must be one of his dumbest.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2013, 01:26:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2013, 02:02:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 01:24:58 AM
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.
Tee-hee.
Wow.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 09:47:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2013, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 27, 2013, 04:46:24 PM
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.
:frusty:
"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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 03:53:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 03:53:50 AMGenerally 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?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjpf5mZMsM6ffKLLSDxgvtMX6ohrHTVIlRIuzTDKKPCplTRbuM)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
:frusty:
"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.
:lmfao: 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.
I'm considering making my private sector a public sector.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2013, 02:26:08 PM
"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. :P
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
I'm considering making my private sector a public sector.
I'd wander those woods.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2013, 06:04:50 PM
Excellent Grumbler. The fact that you are now a teacher tells me you were not that profitable. :P
The fact that you believe this tells me that you "tell" poorly. :P
Is teaching is just a cover for grumbler? :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F36%2FKindergarten_Cop_film.jpg&hash=fa2bb43e98ba32fead6b82c62b35acb0f546c606)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 03:53:50 AM
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.
I don't think so.
I know several people who have gotten into caring for the elderly, teaching, etc... purely because it was a job on offer and they needed money. If somebody truly cared about a career doing that then they would go to university or at least college and get some qualifications in the field and then go through the proper channels to get a real public sector job.
With English teaching in Japan you see this kind of thing all the time. There are basically three ways to get a job teaching in schools in Japan; There's the old traditional one of Jet, which is not so much about teaching as it is just an international exchange programme with some teaching on the side, nonetheless it is pretty thoroughly vetted and the people doing it (are supposed to) get a lot of support so the 'quality' of person on the programme tends to be pretty high and even if they don't intend on following a career in teaching they certanly want to do that for a few years at least.
The without a doubt best way of employing teachers, for practically everyone involved, is direct hire. Experienced and qualified teachers who know what they're doing are hired directly by the city in the same sort of fashion as Japanese teachers. Doing this ensures they get a good teacher who intends on sticking around for some time to come. Of course since this is a skilled, experienced person it tends to cost a bit more looking purely at the surface costs, which leads to...
Private contracts. The lowest of the low. The companies competing for these range from somewhat reputable to utter scum. They undercut the cost of Jet somewhat to the city and pay a massively lessened salary to the people they employ; as such many of them will take anyone with a degree and a pulse. Or not even a degree on occasion if you can get a visa another way. These are people who generally have no interest in teaching, no competance for living in a foreign country or dealing with kids. Generally just people who want money or want to get into Japan by any means. Also the way many companies operate is they promise people they have to put in some time working in a crappy small town and then they can move to a desirable city- which really screws over the small towns and ensures the kids get a different inexperienced fresh off the boat and starting from scratch teacher every few months.
This isn't to say everyone on a private contract is an incompetant dick. Due to private companies undercutting costs so much they are taking a lot of the contracts which means they are actually forcing some of the competant people who would otherwise go down other paths to go with them. Certainly however you've much less of a guarantee of the quality of work you will get when dealing with a private company. It's no surprise that all the really good schools who actually give a crap about the quality of education they offer do direct hire.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Is teaching is just a cover for grumbler? :hmm:
Or, maybe, "teaching is what grumbler did after he made enough money in the private sector that he could afford to leave the rat race and become a private school teacher." :showoff:
For a guy that always gets goofed on for being so old, people seem to think you're not old enough to have done everything you've done.
The guy's already knocked out 2 careers while most of you are still trying to get your 1st off the ground, fellas. He's earned the right to sleep in and ogle MILF's on PTA night.
I've always thought grumbler was terrible like the crazed 80 year old great uncle with a pedophile's gleam in his eye from my childhood, but I've also always respected his service to our country in the Spanish-American War.
Tyr's post made me think about the parallel situation in the real world, and I realized that the real world was the reverse of the situation for English-speaking temporary foreign teachers in Japan.
In the real world, the biggest problem that the public sector has is the difficulty of getting rid of the dross. Because of byzantine rules for censuring and firing public-sector workers (rules adopted because of political interference in the hiring/firing process, for sure), public-sector bosses find it easier to transfer their bad eggs than fire them. This means, of course, that many people who are competent don't stick with the public sector, because they have to work with the turds. Worse, it is hard for the government to reward its top-performing public sector workers, because of the rules about equal pay. So the top people are hired away by private-sector companies that can, and do, reward top performance, while the lowest people cling to their public-sector jobs because they know they cannot get another. That makes it hard to keep the average schmoe. I've worked in the two "government service" areas in both the public and private sector, and there is no question that, where the private sector business CAN do the job and "get out" (so to speak), it does the job more efficiently.
I suspect that the reason that English-speaking temporary foreign teachers in Japan are in a different boat than those in the real world is because they are so few, and are by definition temporary (though I suppose that some do, eventually, stay).
As for the thread topic, the private market isn't a guarantee of maximum efficiency. I don't know whence it came that such a thing was believed. Having competition for your product is a very strong motivator to either try and position your product as being superior quality to your competitor or superior in value to your competitor. This means it is an incentive to make products better and cheaper, respectively. But in many areas where government does a pretty good job with efficiency it's an area where they have monopoly or near monopoly purchasing power or similar.
Take Medicare, yes it's often touted that its administrative overhead is vastly smaller than private insurance (this isn't true, just based on faulty calculation, it is true that unlike insurance middlemen who have to profit for themselves Medicare just pays Medicare administrative employees, but the total administrative costs are not that much lower), and that Medicare is much better ran than private insurance. It may or may not be better ran, but Medicare is able to keep costs down because of extreme purchasing power. There is basically no hospital in the country that refuses Medicare, and because Medicare has so many customers it basically gives the health care providers marching orders. Medicare bases its reimbursement rate on the actual average cost of a given procedure nation wide. So when hospitals try to charge these hilariously fictitious chargemaster charges Medicare just smiles and slashes it down to the national reimbursement rate.
In the past some of the largest private insurers had enough customers to be able to similarly reduce charges, but by and large hospitals now have so much virtual monopoly power, especially good hospitals in special treatment areas, that the insurance companies are now very weak relative to the hospitals. They are often maligned because who really likes dealing with insurance company claims agents and etc, but the truth is these days hospitals hold most of the cards unless they're dealing with Medicare in which the government does. So Medicare saves costs primarily because of purchasing power, not anything innate about it being government-ran.
And of course many areas of government service we as a society ask for and demand universal coverage, which simply is not comparable to the private market which would never provide it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2013, 06:21:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Is teaching is just a cover for grumbler? :hmm:
Or, maybe, "teaching is what grumbler did after he made enough money in the private sector that he could afford to leave the rat race and become a private school teacher." :showoff:
You were in a private navy?
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2013, 06:21:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Is teaching is just a cover for grumbler? :hmm:
Or, maybe, "teaching is what grumbler did after he made enough money in the private sector that he could afford to leave the rat race and become a private school teacher." :showoff:
:hmm: Your theory makes more sense than my theory.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 29, 2013, 06:41:53 AM
It may or may not be better ran, but Medicare is able to keep costs down because of extreme purchasing power. There is basically no hospital in the country that refuses Medicare, and because Medicare has so many customers it basically gives the health care providers marching orders.
Agreed, that is one of the reasons why the single payor system we have is superior to private medical insurance.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2013, 07:26:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2013, 06:21:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Is teaching is just a cover for grumbler? :hmm:
Or, maybe, "teaching is what grumbler did after he made enough money in the private sector that he could afford to leave the rat race and become a private school teacher." :showoff:
You were in a private navy?
McHale's Navy :contract:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 28, 2013, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
I'm considering making my private sector a public sector.
I'd wander those woods.
They are densely grown and rich in scent. :)
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2013, 11:33:48 PM
I don't think so.
I know several people who have gotten into caring for the elderly, teaching, etc... purely because it was a job on offer and they needed money. If somebody truly cared about a career doing that then they would go to university or at least college and get some qualifications in the field and then go through the proper channels to get a real public sector job.
With English teaching in Japan you see this kind of thing all the time.<snip>
I'm not sure how much of the conditions of the labor market for teaching English in Japan is transferrable to the broader issue of public vs. private sector efficiency.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2013, 07:26:17 AM
You were in a private navy?
Regular US navy, but even as a junior officer he made nice prize money from the capture of those British frigates.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2013, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2013, 07:26:17 AM
You were in a private navy?
Regular US navy, but even as a junior officer he made nice prize money from the capture of those British frigates.
:lol:
QuoteTyr's post made me think about the parallel situation in the real world, and I realized that the real world was the reverse of the situation for English-speaking temporary foreign teachers in Japan.
Hey, Japan is far more the real world for me than the US will ever be. :p
It isn't just temporary English teachers, it's all foreign English teachers. It's a temporary thing for me but I know several people who have made a life out of it, they're the ones who usually go onto direct hire contracts. The problem is the powers that be would often prefer to chance it with sub-contracting to save a little bit of money and recieve temp after temp rather than settling on a trained professional- because all the accountants care is that there is a foreign English speaker in every school, the quality of the education offered is rarely considered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 11:50:41 AM
I'm not sure how much of the conditions of the labor market for teaching English in Japan is transferrable to the broader issue of public vs. private sector efficiency.
It is a fair bit. As said back home I know people who have gotten into elderly care just because they want to earn some money and it was an easy job going. I'm sure anyone would much rather have a trained professional who has a clue what they're doing than some random guy hired because he's cheap and easy to fire.
Then there was my experience with the dole office and their ridiculous outsourcing to private companies in order to fudge their figures.
Quote from: Tyr on April 29, 2013, 09:23:42 PM
It isn't just temporary English teachers, it's all foreign English teachers. It's a temporary thing for me but I know several people who have made a life out of it, they're the ones who usually go onto direct hire contracts. The problem is the powers that be would often prefer to chance it with sub-contracting to save a little bit of money and recieve temp after temp rather than settling on a trained professional- because all the accountants care is that there is a foreign English speaker in every school, the quality of the education offered is rarely considered.
Yes, that is one of the down sides of having government bureaucrats making those decisions. Private education has none of those kinds of perverse incentives (it has others, but none
that perverse).
QuoteIt is a fair bit. As said back home I know people who have gotten into elderly care just because they want to earn some money and it was an easy job going. I'm sure anyone would much rather have a trained professional who has a clue what they're doing than some random guy hired because he's cheap and easy to fire.
Then there was my experience with the dole office and their ridiculous outsourcing to private companies in order to fudge their figures.
I am sure you want to think that your experiences in your quaint backwater back home really represent what the world is like, but it doesn't sound like it. I believe the part about the government bureaucrats lying to fudge their figures, but that has nothing to do with outsourcing to private companies. It just has to do with government hacks lying.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2013, 06:37:02 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 29, 2013, 09:23:42 PM
It isn't just temporary English teachers, it's all foreign English teachers. It's a temporary thing for me but I know several people who have made a life out of it, they're the ones who usually go onto direct hire contracts. The problem is the powers that be would often prefer to chance it with sub-contracting to save a little bit of money and recieve temp after temp rather than settling on a trained professional- because all the accountants care is that there is a foreign English speaker in every school, the quality of the education offered is rarely considered.
Yes, that is one of the down sides of having government bureaucrats making those decisions. Private education has none of those kinds of perverse incentives (it has others, but none that perverse).
QuoteIt is a fair bit. As said back home I know people who have gotten into elderly care just because they want to earn some money and it was an easy job going. I'm sure anyone would much rather have a trained professional who has a clue what they're doing than some random guy hired because he's cheap and easy to fire.
Then there was my experience with the dole office and their ridiculous outsourcing to private companies in order to fudge their figures.
I am sure you want to think that your experiences in your quaint backwater back home really represent what the world is like, but it doesn't sound like it. I believe the part about the government bureaucrats lying to fudge their figures, but that has nothing to do with outsourcing to private companies. It just has to do with government hacks lying.
Annnnd....yes, straight into debate club mode.
Felt I was taking a risk in trying to have a civilized conversation there.
That was predictable.
And Grumbler thinks he's punishing me by not responding to my posts. :D
I'm so tired of this shit, can one of you just advertise for a US national who can fucking carry a sentence?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2013, 03:46:20 AM
I'm so tired of this shit, can one of you just advertise for a US national who can fucking carry a sentence?
Huh?
I can carry an entire paragraph, if the money's right. :shifty:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 01, 2013, 04:46:29 AM
I can carry an entire paragraph, if the money's right. :shifty:
I spell for food.
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
Annnnd....yes, straight into debate club mode.
Felt I was taking a risk in trying to have a civilized conversation there.
There is always a risk that discussions here turn civilized, but your assertions that your anecdotes = compelling evidence minimizes that risk.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2013, 06:21:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 12:31:38 AM
Annnnd....yes, straight into debate club mode.
Felt I was taking a risk in trying to have a civilized conversation there.
There is always a risk that discussions here turn civilized, but your assertions that your anecdotes = compelling evidence minimizes that risk.
:lol:
From the guy who posted his own anecdote in this very thread this is rich indeed. I know you are old Grumbler but even you should remember posting this.
QuoteGetting 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...
But I guess you were too busy trying to score some silly debating point to realize your mistake.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 11:29:30 AM
:lol:
From the guy who posted his own anecdote in this very thread this is rich indeed. I know you are old Grumbler but even you should remember posting this.
I introduced an anecdote to evidence a specific argument, but made no general conclusions based on it. That's precisely how anecdotes are supposed to be used. I know that you are ignorant cC, but even you should know this.
QuoteBut I guess you were too busy trying to score some silly debating point to realize your mistake.
But I guess you were too busy trying to score a silly debating point to note that my argument referred to "every private company I have worked" not to "every private company." That's an easy blunder to make when you don't actually
read what you copy and paste. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
I introduced an anecdote to evidence a specific argument, but made no general conclusions based on it.
Oh my Grumbler. You used an anecdote to try to show that my assertion was incorrect. Then you got all butt hurt at the notion that you didnt make much money in whatever it is you did in the "private sector".
If you are going to attack someone you better make sure you didnt commit the same sin first.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 11:46:47 AM
Oh my Grumbler. You used an anecdote to try to show that my assertion was incorrect. Then you got all butt hurt at the notion that you didnt make much money in whatever it is you did in the "private sector".
Oh, my cranKy CaNuck. You made a false sweeping generalization, which I demolished with an example from my own experience (aka an anecdote). Then, you got all butthurt because you are still in the rat race and I can afford to abandon it because I made enough in the "private sector" to afford to shift to another, completely agreeable job in the "private sector." I love my job. I look forward to it every day, and I savor every hour of every day i am on the job (I will grant that I spend about three hours a month in meetings that are not so enjoyable). Can you honestly say the same?
QuoteIf you are going to attack someone you better make sure you didnt commit the same sin first.
Physician, heal thyself. I made no generalizations based on anecdotes. I have made no historical claims based on what I've read in novels. Can you honestly say the same?
:bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2013, 08:40:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 11:46:47 AM
Oh my Grumbler. You used an anecdote to try to show that my assertion was incorrect. Then you got all butt hurt at the notion that you didnt make much money in whatever it is you did in the "private sector".
Oh, my cranKy CaNuck. You made a false sweeping generalization, which I demolished with an example from my own experience (aka an anecdote). Then, you got all butthurt because you are still in the rat race and I can afford to abandon it because I made enough in the "private sector" to afford to shift to another, completely agreeable job in the "private sector." I love my job. I look forward to it every day, and I savor every hour of every day i am on the job (I will grant that I spend about three hours a month in meetings that are not so enjoyable). Can you honestly say the same?
QuoteIf you are going to attack someone you better make sure you didnt commit the same sin first.
Physician, heal thyself. I made no generalizations based on anecdotes. I have made no historical claims based on what I've read in novels. Can you honestly say the same?
:bowler:
Grumbler, you need a new keyboard as your Caps Lock is intermittently sticking.
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 09:34:03 PM
Grumbler, you need a new keyboard as your Caps Lock is intermittently sticking.
More evidence that we need the "whoosh" smiley here! :lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)
Poor Grumbler. I bet in his own mind he thinks people regard him as clever and full of useful points of view.
I do. He is one of the most eloquent insulters on this board. Always :thumbsup: very entertaining.
Meh, the majority of his insults boil down to, "I know you are but what am I".
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2013, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 09:34:03 PM
Grumbler, you need a new keyboard as your Caps Lock is intermittently sticking.
More evidence that we need the "whoosh" smiley here! :lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)
Shall I de-construct if for you or do I make the erroneous assumption that you're capable of understanding what you did wasn't actually clever or amusing? :hmm:
And Mongers falls on more punji sticks after wandering into to the tiger trap.
Only fair, Grumbler did invent the tiger trap.
Quote from: PDH on May 03, 2013, 08:39:51 AM
Only fair, Grumbler did invent the tiger trap.
And that was before there were tigers.
He called it the "velociraptor trap".
Quote from: PDH on May 03, 2013, 08:39:51 AM
Only fair, Grumbler did invent the tiger trap.
And sharpened pieces of wood.
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 09:34:03 PMGrumbler, you need a new keyboard as your Caps Lock is intermittently sticking.
:lol: