Restitution
New Member
When was the last time you ever heard of a business cutting unnecessary personnel and then adding their wages to those who remained?
So then.... you have no logical response to this? It was a pretty straight forward question
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
So then.... you have no logical response to this? It was a pretty straight forward question
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Agreed but we were talking about gummint. Or, at least I thought we were. At any rate, that's the context I meant.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. I think 80%
Restitution
New Member
Based on???
(Since you never answered my first question, I doubt this will get a response either...)
Larry Gude
Strung Out
teachable moment.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Seriously?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'm an 80/20 guy.
80% of the work, crime, effort is done by 20% of the group. So, what's that make it? 1/5th the people to do 80% of the load. And another 5th of that total to do the final 20%? So, call it 25-30% of the workforce.
Now, granted, we'd have to have the congress do what it ain't gonna do and allow this to happen.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The problem with that is - cut it in half, and it's still 80/20.
Cut it again, and again - and it's still 80/20.
Except now - even less gets done, because there's fewer in the 20.
Trying to cut out the 80 to leave the 20 is like trying to cut the north pole of a magnet off.
It's still there, but now you have two smaller magnets.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's gotta be right for gumint and union jobs and larger corporations but it ain't for small business. The moment someone ain't pulling their weight, they're gone. And then those behind take up the slack until more help comes along.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The problem with those two is - their mission is to protect jobs and in the case of government, there's zero incentive to make it more efficient, since there's no competition.
If it takes longer, it takes longer - who ya gonna ask instead? If it costs more, it costs more. No one else is doing it.
And the nature of the pay scale discourages ambition. If your business cannot technically expand (I know government DOES, but not for the same reason business does - you don't open a new government in the next county) and you want to advance - a great deal of the time as you move up, you just have to wait for the guy above you to retire. If you do a really GREAT job - well - you're not going to get a big jump in salary. It's technically possible but rare. Do a great job, and they might give you a plaque - but your salary ain't moving.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Totally understand.
That said, in an alternate universe where a bunch of business guys get ahold of the thing they'd set up internal reward systems.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Oh they have stuff - it's just not all that much because of extensive rules and policies to make sure there isn't any corruption.
Can't give a gift more than 10 bucks to this person, can't give a gift at all to that one, can't show favoritism this way or that.
Lots of them. We do want our government free from corruption, and these policies help protect us from that, but they make it so that internally, it's NOT run like a business is.
Give you an example - years ago, a position was about to open in my office. Boss came out and told us about it. I asked her if she wanted us to apply for it.
She just smiled and walked back to her office. She did this often over the next few days. Finally I went into her office and asked and she said to shut the door.
Policy was that she was NOT ALLOWED to tell us more than she did - there was a job, and we were qualified. The truth is, she could only post the job with its qualifications -
ones for which myself and a fellow office mate qualified - but she had to send it to the human resources section and THEY would give HER a list of people to interview.
She could make NO recommendations even though both of us were highly qualified. She said she'd LIKE to hire one of us - but she could not, and by explaining this to me,
she was making a minor breach of protocol. HR would give her a list of 10 that was vetted through their selection process, with all their requirements - and she may end
up with a list where NO ONE gets hired from it. (BTW - seen THIS many, many times).
Now in private industry, you could walk right out and say "Sam, you're promoted. Congratulations". In government, it must be reviewed to make sure it passes tests on
things like diversity and not show any sign of preferential treatment. Positions often go empty for as long as a year - even though there are qualified people around.
yeah about that .... depending on the level of the 'boss' Rules are ignored
Oh there is an outside hiring freeze
- but X gets hired By A because A wants that person, freeze be damned ... and Hired in RECORD Time HR be damned
- and I am not talking about senior level people politically appointed
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yeah, so I make comment that the gummint could be run by for profit business guys for 1/5th the cost with the assumption that they'd have the power to set aside the rules such as they are. And the premise for that would be my assumption that some, many, most, of the rules are only adding to cost and not productivity, such as your story. I think we all know that, attempts to control corruption not withstanding, that the gummint is a giant piggy bank for congress people and the constituents be it real estate, insurance, daily operations, procurement etc and what have you. That the stated objectives to such policies only add cost.
That said, I've been private sector my whole life, born a capitalist, seeing things in terms of costs v. price including people, materials, etc. It took a long time for it to sink in that, at some point, maximizing profit and minimizing costs isn't good business; it's just a race to the bottom, to extinction. The instinct, motives like that MUST be controlled, at least on the macro level.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I've been both - back and forth, with the current stretch of government being the longest. Staying with government for reasons people for some reason overlook (because they think making more money in the private sector is a simple matter of jumping ship, whimsically). At my age, I'm more interested in stability and a future for my children than about getting rich. Benefits outweigh job advancement, for their sake. And by middle age, private employers really aren't interested in you as much unless your credentials are outstanding. I'm much more willing to plod along in a dull job with less than great pay in exchange for job security and a secure future for my children and wife.
I agree. Hopefully, that motivation began to disappear in the 90's but some of it persists. The most successful small businesses I know depend on quality work for a fair price; on firm and fair behavior in business and - essentially - trust among those you work with. I think I'd rather have a lawyer I can *trust* than a lawyer who seems to win all the time. Over time, you learn who in your industry is out to screw everyone, and who knows the profession and has a reputation for fairness.
"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches..."
Larry Gude
Strung Out
And as I've aged I have totally come to understand the value of that. One of my BIL's is union and on the verge of retirement. He's hated his job every day for nearly 35 years but has made a solid salary, has a great retirement, fantastic benefits and is all set for the rest of their lives. I could never deal with the hate my job part, the rules, the lack of capitalism, when I was young but I got it. Now, he gets the pay off. That doesn't change the fact that he has lived off of you and me and everyone else for those benefits, same as gummint jobs, versus what the free market would have cost. But, again, I see the benefit now from a societal stability standpoint; he's been able to be there for my sister and their kids, have good vacations, be a solid community member and so forth. The funny part is he is a total capitalist, not willing to spend ONE penny more for anything than absolutely possible. He, in and of himself, if he had the power, there'd certainly be no unions.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That motivation has morphed into Too Big To Fail, a land of few, very big kings and then everyone else. If one can stay small, that's best but everything, every day totally depends on YOU. If yo try to grow very much, at some point, all those MBA's out there operate on a moral precept, that their responsibility is to see to it that they deliver the best value to the consumer. What that really means is maximize profit no matter what and if that means wipe out every last US producer in the process, it's for the good of the society.
What's left of it.
That's what I got myself caught up in. I had my chances but when the goal becomes to replace you, better to not miss the writing on the wall.