Just to look at that a different way, 1970 = 1 fed employee for every 72.5 citizens, 2024 = 1 fed employee for every 113.3 citizens. Add on top of that a budget that likely has not increased proportionally, and the strain gets even greater. So it sounds like our government is able to operate half as effectively as it was in the 70s, and they think that is too much.
We mean the same thing I believe. I phrased it thinking of how on a per citizen basis they now only have half a fed workers time they used to, while your phrasing comes at it from the employee has to do twice as much with the same resources.
I’ll concede I probably was not clear in the way I intended and I appreciate you reframing my thoughts for me. 😅
No you’re right. Now that I’ve slept on it I see your point. When looking from the population perspective there are half as many fed agents available so they are half as effective (increased wait times, reduction of services etc).
We have succeeded in getting each other to see it though the other person’s perspective, so this has turned into a better comment chain than probably 90% of political posts! 😁
They may not be more effective, how many consultants, contractors etc. are on the payroll since then?
A lot of time with these budget cuts some politician will come in and fire a bunch of people or a department, realize they actually do need that work done and then hire a contractor or a consultancy company to do the same work often for more . So the amount of people directly working for the federal government may be down but the amount of people who are working for the government through some middle man goes up to compensate.
Good point about contractors and civilian labor. That’s a whole topic on its own. Some argue in favor of the flexibility and financial aspects of having private industry provide some services, and there is truth to that. It’s much of the basis as the idea of “running the government like a business.”
I personally feel many of the goals of the government have a hard time coexisting with something designed to function like a business. Some things need to be done that will never be profitable, and I think it is an important distinction that people are working directly for the citizenry, not for who holds their contract.
Nobody likes paying bills, aka taxes, even if they’re receiving benefit from it, but the goal should often be to just ensure we are getting our money’s worth of services more than if we should eliminate them or given control over to private parties.
Just to look at that a different way, 1970 = 1 fed employee for every 72.5 citizens, 2024 = 1 fed employee for every 113.3 citizens. Add on top of that a budget that likely has not increased proportionally, and the strain gets even greater. So it sounds like our government is able to operate half as effectively as it was in the 70s, and they think that is too much.
I think you mean double effective. Seeing as each fed needs to cater for double the populace.
We mean the same thing I believe. I phrased it thinking of how on a per citizen basis they now only have half a fed workers time they used to, while your phrasing comes at it from the employee has to do twice as much with the same resources.
I’ll concede I probably was not clear in the way I intended and I appreciate you reframing my thoughts for me. 😅
No you’re right. Now that I’ve slept on it I see your point. When looking from the population perspective there are half as many fed agents available so they are half as effective (increased wait times, reduction of services etc).
We have succeeded in getting each other to see it though the other person’s perspective, so this has turned into a better comment chain than probably 90% of political posts! 😁
What fresh hell is this humanity of people getting along and coming to understandings?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
They may not be more effective, how many consultants, contractors etc. are on the payroll since then?
A lot of time with these budget cuts some politician will come in and fire a bunch of people or a department, realize they actually do need that work done and then hire a contractor or a consultancy company to do the same work often for more . So the amount of people directly working for the federal government may be down but the amount of people who are working for the government through some middle man goes up to compensate.
There’s usually a significant increase in contractor use after various reductions in force.
Good point about contractors and civilian labor. That’s a whole topic on its own. Some argue in favor of the flexibility and financial aspects of having private industry provide some services, and there is truth to that. It’s much of the basis as the idea of “running the government like a business.”
I personally feel many of the goals of the government have a hard time coexisting with something designed to function like a business. Some things need to be done that will never be profitable, and I think it is an important distinction that people are working directly for the citizenry, not for who holds their contract.
Nobody likes paying bills, aka taxes, even if they’re receiving benefit from it, but the goal should often be to just ensure we are getting our money’s worth of services more than if we should eliminate them or given control over to private parties.