David : To be sure --several times over since I have been shafted more than once in my life-- I hope you find something else that is reasonably good in terms of career if the worst case scenario comes to pass. Nor do I agree with Ash that gvt jobs should be better paid than Google, although you might make exceptions for special cases, like R & D, certain jobs at NASA, rare skills in intelligence, etc. My point was just that "pay," all forms of compensation as a whole, aggregated, not just the $$, should be competitive. All this said, in what way is gvt the villain if you were to get laid off ? If your job is being shipped to Bangla Desh it seems to me that is the glorious free market in operation, the wonders of free trade in action. Its not just the gvt that can screw people, you know. There is plenty in the private sector that is advertised as a virtue but that only benefits those at the top. Hence "all hail the bottom line" works great for immoral sons-of-bitches like Ichann, and works great for Goldman Sachs or Jamie Diamond, but the verdict further down the totem pole often is anything but good.
Anyway, if at all possible, I hope you survive this latest scare. Billy ================================= 3/15/2012 9:01:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The benefits in government also outweigh the private sector, so just how much of an advantage do you want to give the government?? They don't need more advantages. The beaten down private sector needs government off of it's back in more ways than one. It is possible that I will be laid off at the end of the year, perhaps even before, and there are NO jobs for me unless I move to Bangalore. Or at least that is how it seems. David _ "I am so Libertarian that I don't think lawyers and doctors should be licensed by the government. I am so Libertarian that I make some Libertarians cringe."--Neal Boortz On 3/15/2012 12:58 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: How about at least competitive salaries ? Otherwise you lose your talent to the private sector. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/14/2012 10:08:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: I do not believe that government workers should out-earn the taxpayers who pay their salary. We are not their subjects. Too bad most of them act as though we are. David "I am so Libertarian that I don't think lawyers and doctors should be licensed by the government. I am so Libertarian that I make some Libertarians cringe."--Neal Boortz On 3/14/2012 8:17 PM, Ash Roughani wrote: I'm always a fan of these types of white papers, but this one totally misses the elephant in the room: a hierarchical culture that's reinforced by the political power of public sector unions. Sorry to be so direct, but that's the issue. Working in government should be as good, if not better, than working for Google. Unfortunately, it's one of the most dehumanizing experiences that a college graduate who's eager to change the world can have. That's not just my experience - it's something I constantly hear from many of my friends and colleagues here in Sacramento. If you have a good idea, then you better be willing to wait your turn because there's no such thing as meritocracy in government. Again, it's the culture. :: ash On Monday, March 12, 2012 11:53_:19 AM UTC-7, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: It will take a painfully long time, but this is how government will work in the future: by nurturing innovative markets for public services. E @claychristensen at March 08, 2012 at 08:17AM http://t.co/6SH18SlG_ (http://t.co/6SH18SlG) ____________________________________ Thanks to _disruptive innovations_ (http://blogs.hbr.org/video/2012/03/disruptive-innovation-explaine.html) , much of our world today looks radically different than it did just a decade or two ago. Remember flying in the old days? Air travel used to be inevitably expensive and cumbersome — until _Southwest Airlines_ (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/southwest_airlines_is_playing.html) . Trips to the video store and looming late fees are now a distant memory, thanks to _Netflix_ (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/01/netflix_will_rebound_faster_th.html) . In industry after industry, disruptions deliver more for less and change everything from how we communicate with one another to how we work and shop. But, there’s one major economic sector where disruptive innovation remains as rare as a sunny day in Seattle: the public sector. In industries where disruption is common — think computing and communications — consumers enjoy falling prices and improving services. Conversely, the public sector’s dearth of disruption results in ever upward-creeping prices paid by taxpayers without commensurate improvements in services. Why does the public sector seem so completely immune to innovations that deliver more for less over time? Loyal HBR blog readers may say the answer is obvious: disruptive innovation in government is an oxymoron. Government is a monopoly that lacks both competition and a profit motive. It’s an institution that deliberately protects incumbent producers and programs against disruptors. What’s more, policymakers and voters tend to be averse to both risk and failure when it comes to government. To be sure, the public sector possesses structural disadvantages that make disruptive innovation more difficult, but difficult is not the same as impossible. In fact, offsetting these very real barriers are certain built-in advantages that policymakers can use to foster disruptive innovations that could produce meaningful cost savings in everything from defense to education to criminal justice. To see these advantages, however, we need first to view the public sector in a much different way. Instead of a byzantine maze of programs and bureaucracies, government’s myriad responsibilities and customers can be seen as a series of markets that can be shaped to cultivate very different, less expensive — and ultimately more effective — ways of supplying public services. What exactly do we mean by this? From elementary and secondary education to defense and security, from transportation to health care, government is either a dominant or the dominant buyer in many markets. At $500 billion annually, the U.S. government is the world’s largest purchaser of goods and services — to say nothing of the purchasing power of state and local governments. Intentionally or not, the public sector is already the 800 pound gorilla in many markets today. Given its size, the public sector can shape the markets in which it operates by taking cues from the private sector. For example, Walmart used its enormous buying power to deliberately shape the entry of products into new markets — and thus, help drive down the costs of household goods for rural America. Similarly, the public sector can use its buying power to shape and create “public sector markets” in ways that deliberately foster lower-cost, disruptive innovations. One way to do this is to open up the public sector to new, low-cost providers that compete with incumbents — including in-house resources. For example, in education, digital learning and “blended” learning approaches cost a fraction of their traditional, classroom counterparts. If policymakers wanted to revolutionize education and decrease costs, they could “grow” the market for digital learning by redirecting existing funds from traditional models. This, after all, is the same model the Pentagon used to grow a distinctly disruptive innovation: unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones.” Last year, the U.S. Air Force trained more “joystick pilots” than fighter and bomber pilots combined. Why? Drones incur just a fraction of the costs associated with manned aircrafts and satellites, but they can improve key performance capabilities such as flight longevity — and no pilots are put in harm’s way. Recent estimates indicate that the once tiny Unmanned Aerial Vehicles industry will become a $50-94 billion annual business within the next ten years. Another way to encourage disruption is to create institutions outside mainstream government agencies whose modus operandi is to nurture disruptive business models for public services. DARPA clearly plays this role for the Department of Defense, funding the development of everything from the Internet in previous decades, to cheap, small satellites today that can be put into orbit for one-third of the cost of traditional satellites. Similarly, the _UK’s new £600m Big Society Fund_ (http://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/news-and-market-deals/fundraising-deals/1644418/camerons-600-million-big-society-ban k-launched.thtml) was chartered to support new business model innovations in the social sector. Lastly, by removing subsidies, contracts, and other advantages that allow incumbents to dominate public services markets, governments can level the playing field and allow disruptive innovation to gain ground. Once it becomes clear that a disruptive innovation makes meaningful improvements, policymakers can reduce or end funding for bygone business models. Despite myriad obstacles, we’re beginning to see signs of disruptive innovations gaining a foothold in education, defense, and health care. If our political leaders truly want to deliver more for less, they’ll need to use the formidable tools at their disposal to nurture disruptions across the public services landscape. This post is adapted from the new _Deloitte GovLab_ (http://www.deloitte.com/us/govlab) study, _“Public Sector, Disrupted: How Disruptive Innovation Can Help Government Achieve More for Less.”_ (http://www.deloitte.com/govdisrupted) ____________________________________ (via _Instapaper_ (http://www.instapaper.com/) ) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
