Silver Lining In The Government Shutdown

[Brian4Liberty]

Silver Lining In The Government Shutdown

A shocker article in the Daily Caller this week blew the lid on what it's really like among all those "public servants" working in the Federal bureaucracy: about 85 percent of them do nothing at all related to their jobs. With thousands of "workers" furloughed, the government offices are actually working better than ever. Is there a lesson in this somewhere???

[osan]

OK everyone - time to get serious, get on the knees, and get praying that this thing keeps going until the furloughs quit for greener pastures.

[Occam's Banana]

With thousands of "workers" furloughed, the government offices are actually working better than ever. Is there a lesson in this somewhere???

It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?

[Brian4Liberty]

OK everyone - time to get serious, get on the knees, and get praying that this thing keeps going until the furloughs quit for greener pastures.

Local news was lamenting the fact that some furloughed govt employees were having to get new jobs. As if that is a terrible thing. Government is long past due for an across the board lay-off, like real employers have to do.

[Stratovarious]

It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?

We have yet to see 'more efficient' government, efficient Govt=oxymoron.

[Occam's Banana]

We have yet to see 'more efficient' government, efficient Govt=oxymoron.

Hence my use of quote marks around "efficient" (and my use of the comparative term "more").

Just replace "more efficient" with "less inefficient" if you prefer ...

[Stratovarious]

Hence my use of quote marks around "efficient" (and my use of the comparative term "more").

Just replace "more efficient" with "less inefficient" if you prefer ...

I wasn't bustn' your chops nanner, just adding ........

[Swordsmyth]

It depends. Which do you regard as being more objectionable - more government employees, or more "efficient" government?

If we object to myriad things being done by "government offices", then do we really want those offices "working better than ever" ... ?

More employees is more objectionable, the government doesn't grow more inefficient as quickly as it just plain grows.

[Occam's Banana]

More employees is more objectionable, the government doesn't grow more inefficient as quickly as it just plain grows.

But the condition presented by Ron is that the government grows less inefficient with fewer employess, not more. I submit that "less inefficient" is worse than "more employees". Given that almost all of what the government does is objectionable, I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done. (Also, when we speak of the insalubrious effects of "big" or "growing" government, we are not typically referring to the length of its payroll, but rather to the scope of its purview.)

[Swordsmyth]

But the condition presented by Ron is that the government grows less inefficient with fewer employess, not more. I submit that "less inefficient" is worse than "more employees". Given that almost all of what the government does is objectionable, I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done. (Also, when we speak of the insalubrious effects of "big" or "growing" government, we are not typically referring to the length of its payroll, but rather to the scope of its purview.)

But if twice as many employees are 2/3rds as efficient they still get more "governing" done.

[Occam's Banana]

But if twice as many employees are 2/3rds as efficient they still get more "governing" done.

As they will if half as many employees are 3/2nds as efficient. And this illustrates the problem with this example: it implicitly assumes an inverse linear relationship between length of payroll and "efficiency". But there is no reason to make such an assumption. (Just the opposite, in fact - "efficiency" would be maximized with only one employee. The actual relationship is probably Gaussian or something similar.) That is why I used comparative terms ("less" and "more") instead of coefficients when I said, "I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done". As I mentioned before, what actually matters most here is the size of the purview, not the size of the payroll. I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second. And that is regardless of how much more or less "efficient" the park rangers and drug warriors might be.

[Swordsmyth]

As they will if half as many employees are 3/2nds as efficient.

That isn't true.

2X2/3=1 1/3
.5X3/2= 3/4

1 1/3 is more than 1, 3/4 is less than 1.

Less government workers is always better.

And this illustrates the problem with this example: it implicitly assumes an inverse linear relationship between length of payroll and "efficiency". But there is no reason to make such an assumption. (Just the opposite, in fact - "efficiency" would be maximized with only one employee. The actual relationship is probably Gaussian or something similar.) That is why I used comparative terms ("less" and "more") instead of coefficients when I said, "I'd rather live under a state that employs ten million and gets less of those objectionable things done than one that employs only one million and gets more of those objectionable things done". As I mentioned before, what actually matters most here is the size of the purview, not the size of the payroll. I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second.

I would like to target their purview as well but a crude attack on their numbers is profitable if that is all we can get right now.

If one man is made tyrant of the whole world with unlimited authority except that he can't hire anyone to help him then very little tyranny will actually take place.

[Occam's Banana]

That isn't true.

2X2/3=1 1/3
.5X3/2= 3/4

1 1/3 is more than 1, 3/4 is less than 1.

You are correct. Algebra fail on my part. I didn't stop to work out the math ...

Since we are using made up numbers, just replace "3/2nds" with "2 & 2/3rds" (or "half" with "nine-tenths"). The substance of the point remains the same.

Less government workers is always better.

No, it isn't always better ...

I'd rather have 10,000 park rangers and only 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors than 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - even though there are 1,000 more employees on the federal payroll in the first scenario than there are in the second.

What government workers do - i.e., their purview - makes all the difference. They are not interchangeably homogeneous units.

I would like to target their purview as well but a crude attack on their numbers is profitable if that is all we can get right now.

If one man is made tyrant of the whole world with unlimited authority except that he can't hire anyone to help him then very little tyranny will actually take place.

And ceteris paribus, a tyrant who employs 10,000 park rangers and 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors is less tyrannical than a tyrant who employs 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - despite the fact that he has hired more people to help him.

[Swordsmyth]

You are correct. Algebra fail on my part. I didn't stop to work out the math ...

Since we are using made up numbers, just replace "3/2nds" with "2 & 2/3rds" (or "half" with "nine-tenths"). The substance of the point remains the same.

I believe that the government workers become less efficient at a slower rate than their rate of growth, you believe that they become less efficient at a faster rate than their rate of growth, we won't ever agree unless one of us could be proven correct.

No, it isn't always better ...
What government workers do - i.e., their purview - makes all the difference. They are not interchangeably homogeneous units.



And ceteris paribus, a tyrant who employs 10,000 park rangers and 1,000 asset-seizing drug warriors is less tyrannical than a tyrant who employs 5,000 park rangers and 5,000 asset-seizing drug warriors - despite the fact that he has hired more people to help him.

I agree that attacking the kind of government workers is an even better option if it is available but we aren't talking about hiring a few more drug warriors while firing a lot of park rangers, even if we fire no drug warriors it is still a victory to fire some park rangers as long as we aren't hiring more drug warriors.

[Occam's Banana]

I believe that the government workers become less efficient at a slower rate than their rate of growth, you believe that they become less efficient at a faster rate than their rate of growth, we won't ever agree unless one of us could be proven correct.

That's not what I believe - indeed, my point was that such inverse linearity is a bad assumption (regardless of whether the slope is "fast" or "slow").

Thus, there is no constant "rate of growth" over the domain.

As I said before, the distribution is quite probably Gaussian or the like (with "efficiency" ramping up at first but inflecting at some point and then falling off).

I agree that attacking the kind of government workers is an even better option if it is available but we aren't talking about hiring a few more drug warriors while firing a lot of park rangers, even if we fire no drug warriors it is still a victory to fire some park rangers as long as we aren't hiring more drug warriors.

I agree. But that's not the claim to which I was responding (namely, that "less government workers is always better").