Just got a public sector job and

[SuburbanFarmer]

You're telling me it's not profitable, I'm telling you that they make more than enough profit to carry the dead weight anyway.

No, *if* you're making enough money to "carry dead weight" anyway, then you're a damn market miracle and the shareholders should fire the CEO. Yet, that model is considerably different than the common fraud, waste, and abuse taxpayer suffers at the hand of pork-barrel government employers. In one case you have an entity generating so much capital and commerce that it can survive on inefficiency. In the other case you have an organization largely generating nothing, and surviving solely by acquiring more funds from the citizenry, or from their future in the form of debt.
Not comparable.
Not remotely the same model.

Therein lay your limited understanding.

You're right. I was judging the situation based on the terms presented. I failed to take into account your feelings about government. I happen to feel that insurance companies produce nothing of value either, but that is clearly not how you feel.

The Feelz matter more, obviously - my mistake.

[DBTrek]

Well, when you can't separate fact from feelings it's no shock to anyone that your understanding remains perpetually limited.

For the record, government agencies operating off tax dollars was happening long before I was born, so the odds that my feelings are responsible for that particular 'business model' are precisely zero. The linear progression of time forbids it from being a possibility.

Food for thought.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, when you can't separate fact from feelings it's no shock to anyone that your understanding remains perpetually limited.

For the record, government agencies operating off tax dollars was happening long before I was born, so the odds that my feelings are responsible for that particular 'business model' are precisely zero. The linear progression of time forbids it from being a possibility.

Food for thought.

Uh huh. Therefore, since they take in tax dollars, rather than revenue, your point that their workers are far more inefficient is proven, because the feelz of tax dollars are different.

I think I understand now.

[DBTrek]

Uh huh. Therefore, since they take in tax dollars, rather than revenue, your point that their workers are far more inefficient is proven, because the feelz of tax dollars are different.

I think I understand now.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't think you do.
But I think everyone else does, so sometimes you have to let the bottom 15% remain mystified and just move on.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Uh huh. Therefore, since they take in tax dollars, rather than revenue, your point that their workers are far more inefficient is proven, because the feelz of tax dollars are different.

I think I understand now.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't think you do.
But I think everyone else does, so sometimes you have to let the bottom 15% remain mystified and just move on.

Works for me. I'll just wallow in my ignorance, while your blessed argument sails clear overhead through the beautiful sky.

Waimminit... does this mean that I get to call you an 'ivory tower elitist' and rise up against you someday? You don't happen to drink lattes, do ya?

[DBTrek]

Private sector financial failure -> bankruptcy.
Public sector financial failure -> levy more tax money/go into debt.

No. First you have to prove that you can't comprehend two simple sentences that explain the fundamental differences in how the organizations are held financially accountable for failure. THEN you can rise up against the 'academic elites' - starting with your local McDonald's fry cook, and moving through the rest of the population until you've brought down every other 'elite' capable of comprehending two consecutive sentences.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Private sector financial failure -> bankruptcy.
Public sector financial failure -> levy more tax money/go into debt.

No. First you have to prove that you can't comprehend two simple sentences that explain the fundamental differences in how the organizations are held financially accountable for failure. THEN you can rise up against the 'academic elites' - starting with your local McDonald's fry cook, and moving through the rest of the population until you've brought down every other 'elite' capable of comprehending two consecutive sentences.

Shit, I am not ready, Kimosabe. I cannot understand how an entire economic sector's employee productivity is judged simply by 2 sentences, yet it must be so. DB-san has said it.

[DBTrek]

[Martin Hash]

Private sector financial failure -> bankruptcy.
Public sector financial failure -> levy more tax money/go into debt.

No. First you have to prove that you can't comprehend two simple sentences that explain the fundamental differences in how the organizations are held financially accountable for failure. THEN you can rise up against the 'academic elites' - starting with your local McDonald's fry cook, and moving through the rest of the population until you've brought down every other 'elite' capable of comprehending two consecutive sentences.

Shit, I am not ready, Kimosabe. I cannot understand how an entire economic sector's employee productivity is judged simply by 2 sentences, yet it must be so. DB-san has said it.

This is why The Left does not debate. (Grumps is simply a masochist but I'd rather have him give it a try than never know what the assholes are thinking?)

[SuburbanFarmer]

Private sector financial failure -> bankruptcy.
Public sector financial failure -> levy more tax money/go into debt.

No. First you have to prove that you can't comprehend two simple sentences that explain the fundamental differences in how the organizations are held financially accountable for failure. THEN you can rise up against the 'academic elites' - starting with your local McDonald's fry cook, and moving through the rest of the population until you've brought down every other 'elite' capable of comprehending two consecutive sentences.

Shit, I am not ready, Kimosabe. I cannot understand how an entire economic sector's employee productivity is judged simply by 2 sentences, yet it must be so. DB-san has said it.

This is why The Left does not debate. (Grumps is simply a masochist but I'd rather have him give it a try than never know what the assholes are thinking?)

How was this even a qualified debate?

I and others offered personal experience to show that private sector employees are as wasteful as government ones, and that the problem is beaurocracy itself. DB took it upon himself to educate us on the fact that government takes in tax dollars. That's about it so far.

If the "Left doesn't debate" well enough for you, then it's because the Right can't even form an argument.