AnimusRex
Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006 Status: offline
|
Heretic- OK, I will take you at your word- Here is the gist of your original proposal: quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think we need to fundamentally alter where our public servants come from. Mandatory national service. We replace the spoiled and bloated employment rolls with draftees, from the federal level, all the way down to a community services district. Patching potholes, administering the DMV eye test, writing parking tickets, guarding prison inmates... These aren't high skill jobs. It won't cover every job we need covered, but a barracks full of young people performing their national service is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we are doing. You are going to replace unionized public sector workers with non-union young enlistees with the goal of making it cheaper. Well yes, younger less experienced people are certainly cheaper, and non-unionized employees are certainly cheaper. But would they be better? Or even as good? Desite your references to filling potholes or administering eye exams, the majority of the public sector is just like the private sector. Only a small minority of job in any field, can be done by raw untrained people. The vast majority of jobs have to be filled by highly trained and experienced people. For example, in my field of architecture, we deal all the time with public sector civil engineers who check our plans for buildings and roads and bridges, to make sure they are safe; is a raw 18 year old kid going to replace them? God I hope not! These engineers are unionized, and make better money and benefits than their private sector counterparts. BUT....they make far, far less than the private sector engineering principals, who own their own firms. Its like the old saying, that in public sector you will never be broke, but you will never be rich; the spread between a raw entry level engineer and a senior department head is much smaller than in the private sector. But getting beyond pay- do we always want the cheapest result? Isn't there something to be said for a system that emphasizes caution and responsibility rather than speed and cost? I am harping on thsi for a reason- there is an erroneous assumption that the benefits offered by the private sector- speed and cheapness- are always the thing wee want. The public sector offers equality of service and availability, regardless of ability to pay. For instance, everyone gets a public street frontage, a sewer and water hookup, free eductation, and electric power availability, even if it isn't profitable for the public to offer it. This provide all kinds of benefits to society, by making everyone into a consumer of products. The public sector utilities and schools who create the roads and power and education do not give us these things at the cheapest cost- but they do give them to a wider availability than the private sector ever could. And that is what makes it worth the extra money we pay.
|