Detroit's unemployment isn't dropping because of recovery. It's dropping because people are giving up and moving away.

I think a lot of the "Well cut government jobs then!" people don't really have a clue either. They think it's all military, postal workers, IRS, and politicians. It's not. There are doctors and nurses, accountants, secretaries, IT specialists, janitors, cashiers, security guards, teachers, chefs, etc - every single job in the private sector has a public sector counterpart.

True about Detroit. Also, the shop jobs that you think it's oh-so-easy to repurpose is not so easy. It doesn't happen quite how you think it does. Sure, some shops get repurposed, most are torn down. So, instead of moving that shop job to another industry it is simply just gone. It's happened to quite a few shops that I can think of off-hand in the Flint and Lansing (Michigan) areas. Flint is a HUGE example of how just moving to a new industry just does not happen. GM built that city up big, then left, and the city is worth a whole lot of nothing these days. Crime and drugs have taken over. If your house gets broken into, forget it, the cops don't care. And the criminals know this.

Detroit's unemployment isn't dropping because of recovery. It's dropping because people are giving up and moving away.

I think a lot of the "Well cut government jobs then!" people don't really have a clue either. They think it's all military, postal workers, IRS, and politicians. It's not. There are doctors and nurses, accountants, secretaries, IT specialists, janitors, cashiers, security guards, teachers, chefs, etc - every single job in the private sector has a public sector counterpart.

True about Detroit. Also, the shop jobs that you think it's oh-so-easy to repurpose is not so easy. It doesn't happen quite how you think it does. Sure, some shops get repurposed, most are torn down. So, instead of moving that shop job to another industry it is simply just gone. It's happened to quite a few shops that I can think of off-hand in the Flint and Lansing (Michigan) areas. Flint is a HUGE example of how just moving to a new industry just does not happen. GM built that city up big, then left, and the city is worth a whole lot of nothing these days. Crime and drugs have taken over. If your house gets broken into, forget it, the cops don't care. And the criminals know this.

To clarify, I didn't say they were "oh-so-easy", I said they were relatively easy. As in, a person with 20 years experience in a single manufacturing position will likely have an easier time getting a new job than a person with 20 years experience in a similar single software development position (because industries like manufacturing don't change as fast as those like software; in manufacturing, having a deep-and-narrow experience or skill set isn't as much of a detriment as it is in software in that kind of time frame). Take a programmer from JP Morgan Chase, or one of the other banks, and have them try to get a job, and they're almost guaranteed to NOT find a job unless they do something to drastically update their skillset (ie - go back to college), because they have 20 years of experience in a dead language.

I don't think comparing experienced software engineers to workers experienced in a manufacturing position is the best way to get your point across. An experienced software engineer regardless of what languages they used will have very little difficulty getting employment. Once the manufacturing position is gone that's it. If the software engineer's job goes away they can easily leverage their experience into a new position. The language is not what gets you a job. Knowing wtf you are doing is what gets you a job To your specific example, I would be very surprised to find an out of work programmer with banking/finance experience.

oh so with regards to cutting government spending... It's not going to happen unless it is forced to happen. No politician will ever do it willingly as it would be political suicide.

I don't think comparing experienced software engineers to workers experienced in a manufacturing position is the best way to get your point across. An experienced software engineer regardless of what languages they used will have very little difficulty getting employment. Once the manufacturing position is gone that's it. If the software engineer's job goes away they can easily leverage their experience into a new position. The language is not what gets you a job. Knowing wtf you are doing is what gets you a job To your specific example, I would be very surprised to find an out of work programmer with banking/finance experience.

oh so with regards to cutting government spending... It's not going to happen unless it is forced to happen. No politician will ever do it willingly as it would be political suicide.

Actually it's a decent comparison, at least for some. Let's take my father, the retired systems analyst. For years and years he worked with mainframes. If he had gotten fired before he retired, it would have been be quite difficult for him to find another job because the technology simply jumped to a different area. He would have had to have learned to work with servers in a new way first.

Sure his skills in programming using the languages he knew would have helped him learn new technologies just out a frame of reference, but the same can be said for a factory worker.

My guess is that the best way of cutting government spending is to operate departments like individual private sector companies, demanding efficiency, results and a return on the investment for taxpayer shareholders. At least in the UK, there are too many government departments which spend money like water on endless 'consultations' and rebranding exercises, among other pointless exercises. The Department for Health doesn't need to be cool - it needs to be efficient. That means cutting un-necessary expenditure on PR etc and focusing on making the patients better. It also needs to mean an end to 'a job for life' in the civil service. If you're not achieving results, out the door with you. Better for the taxpayer and the patient (one and the same in this example).

However, as lour said above, to try to do it would be political suicide.

I'm all for increased efficiency, but I would disagree that "private sector companies" are the ideal model in all cases.

What's good for a private company--relentless pursuit of profit and growth--is often the antithesis of what people want from a government agency. Corporations today often engage in "race to the bottom" -- cutting jobs, lowering wages and benefits, doing whatever is necessary to achieve success. In a capitalist-based economic system, one can make the argument that this is necessary and proper--that greed provides the driving force.

In many ways, it is the role of government to act as a referee of sorts--set the rules, define the playing field, prevent participants from taking unfair advantage, protect society as a whole from the potential negative consequences of unbridled greed. In many societies, government exists to also provide a basic "safety net"--to "limit the losses" if you will of those who cannot succeed in the system, to provide a minimum basic levels of care that is available to all citizens.

So the mission and "business plan" of a government agency is often completely different than that of a private-sector business. Certainly we can and should have standards of performance that are relevant and effective for any government agency--I just don't know that "return on investment" is the best term to use or means the same thing.

Now I am moving into more subjective/ideological territory, but I also think that government has historically played a role in modeling positive hiring and employment practices.

For all the negative aspects of patronage, for example, it and the government jobs it provided in the past provided a gateway for certain immigrant/ethnic groups to start their pursuit of the American dream, at times when the private sector denied them access for reasons of prejudice and bigotry.

Programs like affirmative action and minority set-asides, as seriously flawed as they are, have also provided a lot of opportunities for groups who were ignored by the private sector to receive educations and develop businesses. It has allowed millions of people an opportunity they might not have had to join the middle class and contribute to society as a whole.

Requirements for "green" buildings have helped open up new markets and develop new industries and products. Governments requiring these practices not only stimulated growth in the private sector with market opportunities, but they have taken on the risk that private companies might not have been able to accept.

I am just proposing another way of looking at the "public vs private" argument and suggesting that supposed "private sector efficiency" might not be the answer to everything. I am sure someone else can draw up counterarguments to what I have mentioned--and I would probably agree with most of them. In the end, it gets to be a question of how each person evaluates the total picture.


Many private companies, esp those with shareholders, are slaves to the short-term balance sheet, often to the detriment of their long-term health.

My guess is that the best way of cutting government spending is to operate departments like individual private sector companies, demanding efficiency, results and a return on the investment for taxpayer shareholders. At least in the UK, there are too many government departments which spend money like water on endless 'consultations' and rebranding exercises, among other pointless exercises. The Department for Health doesn't need to be cool - it needs to be efficient. That means cutting un-necessary expenditure on PR etc and focusing on making the patients better. It also needs to mean an end to 'a job for life' in the civil service. If you're not achieving results, out the door with you. Better for the taxpayer and the patient (one and the same in this example).

However, as lour said above, to try to do it would be political suicide.

I'm all for increased efficiency, but I would disagree that "private sector companies" are the ideal model in all cases.

What's good for a private company--relentless pursuit of profit and growth--is often the antithesis of what people want from a government agency. Corporations today often engage in "race to the bottom" -- cutting jobs, lowering wages and benefits, doing whatever is necessary to achieve success. In a capitalist-based economic system, one can make the argument that this is necessary and proper--that greed provides the driving force.

In many ways, it is the role of government to act as a referee of sorts--set the rules, define the playing field, prevent participants from taking unfair advantage, protect society as a whole from the potential negative consequences of unbridled greed. In many societies, government exists to also provide a basic "safety net"--to "limit the losses" if you will of those who cannot succeed in the system, to provide a minimum basic levels of care that is available to all citizens.

So the mission and "business plan" of a government agency is often completely different than that of a private-sector business. Certainly we can and should have standards of performance that are relevant and effective for any government agency--I just don't know that "return on investment" is the best term to use or means the same thing.

Now I am moving into more subjective/ideological territory, but I also think that government has historically played a role in modeling positive hiring and employment practices.

For all the negative aspects of patronage, for example, it and the government jobs it provided in the past provided a gateway for certain immigrant/ethnic groups to start their pursuit of the American dream, at times when the private sector denied them access for reasons of prejudice and bigotry.

Programs like affirmative action and minority set-asides, as seriously flawed as they are, have also provided a lot of opportunities for groups who were ignored by the private sector to receive educations and develop businesses. It has allowed millions of people an opportunity they might not have had to join the middle class and contribute to society as a whole.

Requirements for "green" buildings have helped open up new markets and develop new industries and products. Governments requiring these practices not only stimulated growth in the private sector with market opportunities, but they have taken on the risk that private companies might not have been able to accept.

I am just proposing another way of looking at the "public vs private" argument and suggesting that supposed "private sector efficiency" might not be the answer to everything. I am sure someone else can draw up counterarguments to what I have mentioned--and I would probably agree with most of them. In the end, it gets to be a question of how each person evaluates the total picture.


Many private companies, esp those with shareholders, are slaves to the short-term balance sheet, often to the detriment of their long-term health.

While I agree that the public sector doesn't need to exactly mirror the private sector, I think the public sector would benefit from applying some of the principles in place in the private sector. Additionally, I think your view of the private sector as a whole, while warranted thanks to the large conglomarates, overlooks what a lot of smaller (and in some cases, not so small) companies do in regards to ethics, both in how they treat their people, and in balancing cost vs quality.

Worthington Industries (specifically, Worthington Cylinders) is a good example of a company that balances cost/ROI vs quality equation. Worthington Industries is a steel processing company, their Cylinders division holds something like 80% market share of their industry. Propane tanks (including the Blue Rhino and Coleman tanks for grills), helium/compressed air tanks (including Balloon Time tanks), and pretty much anything else that's cylindrical in shape and made of steel is very likely to be a Worthington Cylinder.

You know how they got there? By being the best at what they do, and selling high-quality products. Their failure rate is next to zero. They do tend to be a little pricier than the cheaper manufacturers, but consumers are more than willing to pay a little more for the higher quality (especially if/when their skimping on quality for lowest price backfires and the item fails on them). They don't do a "race to the bottom," sacrificing quality for pure numbers (in fact, the VP won't bat an eye at spending money if it means improving the quality of their work in some form or another). And you know what? They make money hand over fist.

There are a lot of companies like this, that value quality over short term profits, and it's these companies that I think the government could learn from. Whether people like it or not, the government is itself a form of business. It may not be in business to make money, but its actions do have an effect on the economy, and it has to be able to fund its initiatives somehow. I don't think it's too much to ask that they do more to keep the budget balanced and not go into debt up to their eyeballs (it may be inevitable to have to borrow some sometimes, but you shouldn't be borrowing more than you're bringing in to begin with).