Sub Statement: *more electability slop — I’m on a roll!!*
Author Nicholas Bagley talks on a 1500 person poll, emphasizing the finding that respondents overwhelmingly support pay-for-performance/easier firing -style accountability in government, similar to private sector employment.
There’s also a good rebuttal in the comments — “Deep Sleeper” noting that Democrats ought not over-interpret public opinion into an excuse to slash government workforce protections and benefits.
TL:DR; I think it’s interesting *mostly* with respect to the perpetual “sewer socialism” aspect of abundance, where you can pretty much always win people’s support by talking into how you want to make government services better, more accountable, more efficient, whatever. I know the “liberal DOGE” football gets kicked around a lot — beyond the ethical imperative to provide people with services commensurate to their payments to the state, it’s also just good politics.
The actual technocratic / empirical question of *what that looks like* is complicated (and boring!) — for instance, I’m fairly skeptical that pay-for-performance will really revolutionize education outcomes, at least without some considerable trade-offs — but it’s great politics to tell people you won’t waste their money! Win elections, govern in wonkiness, what a day, what a lovely day.
surreptitioussloth on
Why did I not think of just negotiating for things I want and not what the opposing side want
I’m going to start pursuing this strategy of rejecting demands from others that they care about but I find counterproductive
2 Comments
Sub Statement: *more electability slop — I’m on a roll!!*
Author Nicholas Bagley talks on a 1500 person poll, emphasizing the finding that respondents overwhelmingly support pay-for-performance/easier firing -style accountability in government, similar to private sector employment.
There’s also a good rebuttal in the comments — “Deep Sleeper” noting that Democrats ought not over-interpret public opinion into an excuse to slash government workforce protections and benefits.
TL:DR; I think it’s interesting *mostly* with respect to the perpetual “sewer socialism” aspect of abundance, where you can pretty much always win people’s support by talking into how you want to make government services better, more accountable, more efficient, whatever. I know the “liberal DOGE” football gets kicked around a lot — beyond the ethical imperative to provide people with services commensurate to their payments to the state, it’s also just good politics.
The actual technocratic / empirical question of *what that looks like* is complicated (and boring!) — for instance, I’m fairly skeptical that pay-for-performance will really revolutionize education outcomes, at least without some considerable trade-offs — but it’s great politics to tell people you won’t waste their money! Win elections, govern in wonkiness, what a day, what a lovely day.
Why did I not think of just negotiating for things I want and not what the opposing side want
I’m going to start pursuing this strategy of rejecting demands from others that they care about but I find counterproductive