A nation of cronyism

In the public sector, the old adage still holds true: "you can't pay me enough to actually do anything"

Working for a state-owned enterprise here in the USA remains incredibly lucrative because of the steady revenue, the job security, the benefits, and all those little perks you simply won't find in the private sector.
The USA is deviating from one of the fundamental pillars of a market economy—the principle that salaries in the private sector should naturally be higher to compensate workers for operating in a much riskier environment, where they have to hustle for results and clear their own path, compared to employees in the cushioned safety of the public sector.
It’s one of those constant, desperate cries coming out of the private sector...

Public sector wages really ought to be tied to actual performance, perhaps by splitting them into a fixed base and a variable component based on measurable output.
When you ask government employees, they’ll tell you that public wages shouldn't be cut; if anything, some people should get raises. But the real necessity is to trim the fat—to get rid of those who landed their roles through political connections and essentially contribute nothing to society.
It's those unproductive individuals who end up dragging down everyone else working in the state sector.

Experts argue that this entire salary policy is illogical and inevitably leads to negative selection.
With such an oversized government apparatus, where many people literally do nothing at all, we need to redistribute pay based on merit, regardless of how much someone is currently being handed for doing zero work.
By maintaining this status quo, the USA shows it hasn't truly finished its transition from a socialist system to a capitalist one—which was arguably one of the most vital requirements back in 1990 when the referendum for an independent nation was held.

I’m opening this thread in light of the upcoming holidays... and I also want to wish all the bureaucrats, civil servants, high-level advisors, department heads, deputies, mayors, managers, and non-managers a very happy long weekend!
I'll be grinding away while you all relax, and don't you worry—when you get back, your paycheck will be waiting. As for me, I just hope I actually get paid for all the overtime and holidays I put in. You hear me? I'm hoping. But Nancy always finds a way to screw me over in this sinking ship of a country.

It’s no exaggeration to say they exist solely for their own sake.
I work for a private company, but I find myself dealing with government agencies, organizations, and unions quite frequently. Honestly, seeing how things operate makes me want to pack my bags and move. Between the sheer laziness, the constant tardiness, the endless coffee breaks, and the complete lack of basic tech literacy—and I'm not just talking about entry-level clerks, but directors and little executives too—it’s staggering. To make matters worse, everyone there pulls an above-average salary. That explains why the national average looks so inflated; those public sector wages are dragging everything up.

The worst part? By doing absolutely nothing, they aren't just parasites; in countless instances, they actively stifle growth in the private sector—the very sector that carries them on its back.

And the moment anyone even mentions budget cuts, the revolts start immediately. They start shouting about collective bargaining and various contracts, all just to protect their parasitic little nest.

Look, healthcare and firefighters shouldn't be touched; they are the backbone of society. Same goes for the police, though even there, you see a lot of laziness and shady dealings. But as for everything else? We shouldn't be talking about cutting costs tomorrow or the day after—we should have done it yesterday.

It’s a shame we don't have any politicians with enough backbone to actually trim the fat by cutting state employees by 5% and then taking a matching 5% off everyone else's salary to balance things out.

Timothy Evans2 said:In the public sector, the old adage still holds true: "you can't pay me enough to actually do anything"

Working for a state-owned enterprise here in the USA remains incredibly lucrative because of the steady revenue, the job security, the benefits, and all those little perks you simply won't find in the private sector.
The USA is deviating from one of the fundamental pillars of a market economy—the principle that salaries in the private sector should naturally be higher to compensate workers for operating in a much riskier environment, where they have to hustle for results and clear their own path, compared to employees in the cushioned safety of the public sector.
It’s one of those constant, desperate cries coming out of the private sector...

Public sector wages really ought to be tied to actual performance, perhaps by splitting them into a fixed base and a variable component based on measurable output.
When you ask government employees, they’ll tell you that public wages shouldn't be cut; if anything, some people should get raises. But the real necessity is to trim the fat—to get rid of those who landed their roles through political connections and essentially contribute nothing to society.
It's those unproductive individuals who end up dragging down everyone else working in the state sector.

Experts argue that this entire salary policy is illogical and inevitably leads to negative selection.
With such an oversized government apparatus, where many people literally do nothing at all, we need to redistribute pay based on merit, regardless of how much someone is currently being handed for doing zero work.
By maintaining this status quo, the USA shows it hasn't truly finished its transition from a socialist system to a capitalist one—which was arguably one of the most vital requirements back in 1990 when the referendum for an independent nation was held.

I’m opening this thread in light of the upcoming holidays... and I also want to wish all the bureaucrats, civil servants, high-level advisors, department heads, deputies, mayors, managers, and non-managers a very happy long weekend!
I'll be grinding away while you all relax, and don't you worry—when you get back, your paycheck will be waiting. As for me, I just hope I actually get paid for all the overtime and holidays I put in. You hear me? I'm hoping. But Nancy always finds a way to screw me over in this sinking ship of a country.

So what’s the big epiphany here? Is this guy trying to point out how we’re stuck in this weird limbo where we're half-socialist and half-capitalist? Like, when it's time to actually get some work done, suddenly everyone’s acting like they're in a socialist utopia, but the second it's time to cut a paycheck, we're all back to hardcore capitalism? Yeah, thanks, Captain Obvious, we already knew that.
And hey, don't act like you're the only one who has to show up tomorrow. Plenty of government workers are going to be clocking in just like everyone else and won't be enjoying some long weekend.
Stop putting your faith in Nancy because Nancy is a joke.

vividraven26 said:So what’s the big epiphany here? Is this guy trying to point out how we’re stuck in this weird limbo where we're half-socialist and half-capitalist? Like, when it's time to actually get some work done, suddenly everyone’s acting like they're in a socialist utopia, but the second it's time to cut a paycheck, we're all back to hardcore capitalism? Yeah, thanks, Captain Obvious, we already knew that.
And hey, don't act like you're the only one who has to show up tomorrow. Plenty of government workers are going to be clocking in just like everyone else and won't be enjoying some long weekend.
Stop putting your faith in Nancy because Nancy is a joke.

Nancy is all we've got left..

Most of them are just plain parasites living off people who can barely make ends meet
mostly just bureaucrats looking out for their own interests, serving no purpose other than themselves

vividraven26 said:So what’s the big epiphany here? Is this guy trying to point out how we’re stuck in this weird limbo where we're half-socialist and half-capitalist? Like, when it's time to actually get some work done, suddenly everyone’s acting like they're in a socialist utopia, but the second it's time to cut a paycheck, we're all back to hardcore capitalism? Yeah, thanks, Captain Obvious, we already knew that.
And hey, don't act like you're the only one who has to show up tomorrow. Plenty of government workers are going to be clocking in just like everyone else and won't be enjoying some long weekend.
Stop putting your faith in Nancy because Nancy is a joke.

It’s worth noting that they’re pulling in salaries 67% higher than anyone working in the private sector.
They enjoy being insulated like bears in a winter den, completely shielded from any actual accountability for their performance.

The poet wants to shake things up..

Timothy Evans2 said:It’s worth noting that they’re pulling in salaries 67% higher than anyone working in the private sector.
They enjoy being insulated like bears in a winter den, completely shielded from any actual accountability for their performance.

The poet wants to shake things up..

🙄
So, what, you don't work in that sector but you're suddenly an expert on everything happening behind the scenes?
Look, I work for a massive government agency, but we aren't exactly running on "public service" vibes. A few years back, we did some downsizing.
And guess what happened?
Because everything was handled based on political connections and nepotism, we ended up with a huge crowd of slackers and lazy bones, while all the actual talented, hardworking people either took their severance packages and bolted or were forced out entirely.
Now, our clients are practically screaming at us because nobody is there to help them and the wait times are insane!
We’re actually hiring again now just because we don't have enough competent "talent" left on the floor.
Who’s to blame? It’s the government policy—the same one you voted for (or didn't, whatever)—that keeps stuffing these positions with "their people" who basically choke out everyone else.
Why are these people inherently useless and incompetent by default? Who knows.
If you slashed their salaries drastically, you’d create a total shitshow because even the few decent workers left would jump ship, leaving behind a group of losers so incompetent you wouldn't believe they actually exist.
Believe me, I deal with people who pull insane salaries for doing literally thirty minutes of actual work a day, and they honestly think it's totally justified. If you dare to call them out on it, you're just labeled as the "angry jerk."
The solution isn't cutting pay; it's actually firing the dead weight. Then we'd see how efficient state agencies could actually be, but let's be real—that's a pipe dream because the reform would have to start at the very top of the administration.
Accountability? To them, that's a foreign concept.

Timothy Evans2 said:It’s worth noting that they’re pulling in salaries 67% higher than anyone working in the private sector.
They enjoy being insulated like bears in a winter den, completely shielded from any actual accountability for their performance.

The poet wants to shake things up..

Look, the poet can sit there and write all the beautiful verses he wants, but if nobody is actually publishing them, what's the damn point? What good does it do us? Who is actually going to step up, change the system, and trim down all this bloated bureaucracy? Is the Republican Party gonna do it? Or maybe some big corporate conglomerate? Neither one. Neither side gives a rip. And if they don't fix the jobs, where are they supposed to dump all those new members? Into a coal mine?
And let's be real, it's not like everyone is lazy—there's a massive group of people out there working their tails off, but they just get bullied by bosses who don't give a damn about talent or actual skill; they only care if you're willing to play along and dance to whatever tune the boss is whistling.

Timothy Mitchell29 said:🙄
So, what, you don't work in that sector but you're suddenly an expert on everything happening behind the scenes?
Look, I work for a massive government agency, but we aren't exactly running on "public service" vibes. A few years back, we did some downsizing.
And guess what happened?
Because everything was handled based on political connections and nepotism, we ended up with a huge crowd of slackers and lazy bones, while all the actual talented, hardworking people either took their severance packages and bolted or were forced out entirely.
Now, our clients are practically screaming at us because nobody is there to help them and the wait times are insane!
We’re actually hiring again now just because we don't have enough competent "talent" left on the floor.
Who’s to blame? It’s the government policy—the same one you voted for (or didn't, whatever)—that keeps stuffing these positions with "their people" who basically choke out everyone else.
Why are these people inherently useless and incompetent by default? Who knows.
If you slashed their salaries drastically, you’d create a total shitshow because even the few decent workers left would jump ship, leaving behind a group of losers so incompetent you wouldn't believe they actually exist.
Believe me, I deal with people who pull insane salaries for doing literally thirty minutes of actual work a day, and they honestly think it's totally justified. If you dare to call them out on it, you're just labeled as the "angry jerk."
The solution isn't cutting pay; it's actually firing the dead weight. Then we'd see how efficient state agencies could actually be, but let's be real—that's a pipe dream because the reform would have to start at the very top of the administration.
Accountability? To them, that's a foreign concept.

But really, why would it be?

vividraven26 said:Look, the poet can sit there and write all the beautiful verses he wants, but if nobody is actually publishing them, what's the damn point? What good does it do us? Who is actually going to step up, change the system, and trim down all this bloated bureaucracy? Is the Republican Party gonna do it? Or maybe some big corporate conglomerate? Neither one. Neither side gives a rip. And if they don't fix the jobs, where are they supposed to dump all those new members? Into a coal mine?
And let's be real, it's not like everyone is lazy—there's a massive group of people out there working their tails off, but they just get bullied by bosses who don't give a damn about talent or actual skill; they only care if you're willing to play along and dance to whatever tune the boss is whistling.

You hit the nail right on the head with that one. It’s nothing more than blatant cronyism, plain and simple. This is the noose tightening around our necks, the very canyon we’re plummeting into, and quite frankly, it feels like the final bullet that’s going to finish us off once and for all.

Timothy Evans2 said:But really, why would it be?

It’s because the administration knows they'll be back in power before we can even blink. Let's face it—we're a pretty complacent bunch who hate change more than anything else. Meanwhile, those useless bureaucrats just coast along, clinging to that old cliché that if you don't lift a finger, you won't have to take the blame. And of course, they all stick together in one big "immoral vertical" power structure.

We really need to talk about one of the absolute worst flavors of "employees" in the public sector—those little cliques working in local municipal offices. Most of them are either sitting on their hands with zero actual work to do, or they genuinely have no clue how to perform even basic tasks (since everyone just heads to the county seat anyway to get any real paperwork processed). Instead, they spend their time sucking up to the mayor to secure their spots. This whole crowd just helps sink the town deeper into debt while feasting on free lunches at local diners, all funded by the municipal budget. And let’s be real, those budgets are basically just handouts from the federal government because these small towns are broke as can be.

It feels like there’s absolutely no way to address performance or lack thereof within the federal civil service without resorting to a complete overhaul of the entire system every four years.

The reality is that once you land one of those permanent positions, you can basically just coast along with zero accountability until you hit retirement age...

brightheron64 said:It feels like there’s absolutely no way to address performance or lack thereof within the federal civil service without resorting to a complete overhaul of the entire system every four years.

The reality is that once you land one of those permanent positions, you can basically just coast along with zero accountability until you hit retirement age...

Got a minute to expand on that? Sounds pretty interesting...

Timothy Mitchell29 said:It’s because the administration knows they'll be back in power before we can even blink. Let's face it—we're a pretty complacent bunch who hate change more than anything else. Meanwhile, those useless bureaucrats just coast along, clinging to that old cliché that if you don't lift a finger, you won't have to take the blame. And of course, they all stick together in one big "immoral vertical" power structure.

We could practically carve what you wrote into stone... seriously, bravo.
But I see exactly where we stand, it's just that the proposed solution to this mess—which is essentially "just wait"—is completely unacceptable to me. How much longer are we supposed to sit on our hands waiting for some mid-level bureaucrat to realize he's being fed by everyone else? How many more decades do we have to let things slide before someone finally sets the record straight?
We've already wasted twenty years... are we really prepared to lose another twenty?

Steven Allen9 said:Got a minute to expand on that? Sounds pretty interesting...

To put it simply, let’s look at it this way.

Most positions within the federal government attract a massive wave of applicants, but here is the reality of what follows... people land the job, maybe even show some early enthusiasm, but before long, they get swallowed whole by the machine, and slowly—thanks to that guaranteed paycheck and total job security—they just sink into the gray monotony that defines bureaucracy in the first place.

Having a permanent contract with a guaranteed salary tends to kill any sense of initiative or drive...

So, if we implemented performance-based pay paired with a bit of relative job insecurity, it would actually spark passion and foster a much higher standard of work among employees. Plus, it makes it significantly easier for the government to trim away the excess weight...

We all said we wanted capitalism, right? Fine, but then let it actually set the rules for every structure, rather than having a system where some people toil day and night without knowing if they'll even have a job tomorrow, while others—in the most polite version of socialism imaginable—just coast through their roles without earning a cent, effectively acting as anchors on the entire system because their lack of productivity drags down everyone else who actually wants to work hard...

Therefore, wherever it can be implemented:

four-year employment contracts
performance-based evaluations
attendance-based metrics
customer satisfaction ratings
....

Once those terms expire, the top 65% of performers based on those scores would retain their positions and see their contracts automatically renewed. Meanwhile, the bottom 35% would be phased out, allowing their spots to be filled by new hires who have gone through a much more rigorous selection process than just mindlessly scanning through resumes...

brightheron64 said:To put it simply, let’s look at it this way.

Most positions within the federal government attract a massive wave of applicants, but here is the reality of what follows... people land the job, maybe even show some early enthusiasm, but before long, they get swallowed whole by the machine, and slowly—thanks to that guaranteed paycheck and total job security—they just sink into the gray monotony that defines bureaucracy in the first place.

Having a permanent contract with a guaranteed salary tends to kill any sense of initiative or drive...

So, if we implemented performance-based pay paired with a bit of relative job insecurity, it would actually spark passion and foster a much higher standard of work among employees. Plus, it makes it significantly easier for the government to trim away the excess weight...

We all said we wanted capitalism, right? Fine, but then let it actually set the rules for every structure, rather than having a system where some people toil day and night without knowing if they'll even have a job tomorrow, while others—in the most polite version of socialism imaginable—just coast through their roles without earning a cent, effectively acting as anchors on the entire system because their lack of productivity drags down everyone else who actually wants to work hard...

Therefore, wherever it can be implemented:

four-year employment contracts
performance-based evaluations
attendance-based metrics
customer satisfaction ratings
....

Once those terms expire, the top 65% of performers based on those scores would retain their positions and see their contracts automatically renewed. Meanwhile, the bottom 35% would be phased out, allowing their spots to be filled by new hires who have gone through a much more rigorous selection process than just mindlessly scanning through resumes...

Solid post. Now let me ask you: in your opinion, who actually has the power to fix the civil service and when? Don't just tell me nobody can do it...

brightheron64 said:To put it simply, let’s look at it this way.

Most positions within the federal government attract a massive wave of applicants, but here is the reality of what follows... people land the job, maybe even show some early enthusiasm, but before long, they get swallowed whole by the machine, and slowly—thanks to that guaranteed paycheck and total job security—they just sink into the gray monotony that defines bureaucracy in the first place.

Having a permanent contract with a guaranteed salary tends to kill any sense of initiative or drive...

So, if we implemented performance-based pay paired with a bit of relative job insecurity, it would actually spark passion and foster a much higher standard of work among employees. Plus, it makes it significantly easier for the government to trim away the excess weight...

We all said we wanted capitalism, right? Fine, but then let it actually set the rules for every structure, rather than having a system where some people toil day and night without knowing if they'll even have a job tomorrow, while others—in the most polite version of socialism imaginable—just coast through their roles without earning a cent, effectively acting as anchors on the entire system because their lack of productivity drags down everyone else who actually wants to work hard...

Therefore, wherever it can be implemented:

four-year employment contracts
performance-based evaluations
attendance-based metrics
customer satisfaction ratings
....

Once those terms expire, the top 65% of performers based on those scores would retain their positions and see their contracts automatically renewed. Meanwhile, the bottom 35% would be phased out, allowing their spots to be filled by new hires who have gone through a much more rigorous selection process than just mindlessly scanning through resumes...

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Steven Allen9 said:Solid post. Now let me ask you: in your opinion, who actually has the power to fix the civil service and when? Don't just tell me nobody can do it...

As long as we’re stuck with this current system where the administration is picked through general elections, we aren't going to see people making decisions based on what's actually right for the country. It's a bit like trying to run a high-tech laboratory using a popularity contest; the math just doesn't work. Democracy isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for every culture or landscape. No politician is ever going to volunteer to strip away benefits from their potential voters, and when you look at the electorate, they're looking for volume over substance—after all, every vote carries the same weight regardless of how much expertise is behind it. Is there a fix? Honestly, I haven't a clue. Our Constitution claims we are a democratic society, but perhaps things will change once we've burned through every cent we have. Maybe then the banks won't lend us a dime unless we agree to hand over our sovereignty over spending? Some kind of intervention from the IMF, perhaps? I don't know: