OCinBuffalo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Obama has been talking "teachers, firemen, and police" again. The fundamental flaw here is the assumption that "hiring public workers" as some macroeconomic wave....is the solution to anything. It's no more of a solution than laying off large swaths of workers. In either case, you have no idea what the effect will be on each community, whether it will help, and therefore, have no idea of whether it will be effective politically. It is the notion that all of this can be centrally planned that is the ultimate fallacy here. I want less government, not because I hate public employes, but because the scope of government is out of control, and they have no way to do what they are being asked. These big government concepts fail not for lack of trying, and certainly not for lack of money, or noble ideas. They fail because they are designed poorly. Period. They fail because we are better served letting local people make local decisions, and only having an escalation system in place for when things go bad. Why is the decision on whether an 80 year old gets a new knee, something that concerns the Federal government? The Federal government has to make decisions about war, peace and international affairs.....and Mrs. Smith's knee? How in the hell are they supposed to take each case seriously enough and get all the facts to make that decision? Answer: they can't and they don't. Instead, they create a nameless, faceless centralized system whose only priority is making the impossible job they have, a little easier for them. But ultimately, it fails all of us, and them. This debate is already over, it's just that the less-informed, or less insightful, don't know it yet. That's why these questions ultimately won't matter. Here's why macroeconomic waves of hiring/firing public workers as a "solution" is doomed: De-centralization of government is the future. How do I know? Because of IT. For the relevant person, by that I mean: likely voter, our national viewpoint is being shaped by how IT is being used to decentralize our work and decision making. Don't waste time arguing. This is fact. And no amount of cherry picking "the cloud" or "the Internet is just a giant mainframe" arguments invalidates the fact that IT is decentralizing our work, and has been since the advent of client-server and tiered architecture. In fact, those that would argue for centralization, merely don't understand the internet...at least not from a technical/organizational theory/philosophical standpoint. They may understand how to use email, or a message board... Whichever party, or politician, understands that IT is creating an unstoppable, new, decentralized reality...first, will benefit. Those that don't will be burned. Example: Legions of illegal immigrants being turned into citizens...will not save the Democratic party as long as they remain committed to centralized systems. That's because: immigrants use IPhones and Droids too. Silly Far-Left people, you don't see that, do you? In fact, I doubt you can even comprehend it. Immigrants want the same thing we all want: things to operate in a way they can understand, quickly, and without hassle..and without things they don't need/care about. Now take any Federal government work product, in any Department...and judge it by that standard. Yeah, Epic...FAIL. Some things will always be centralized, like national security. But for everything else: the countdown has begun. Silly Democrats taking about demographics? That's like Blackberry marketing people talking about why the IPhone won't kick their ass...because of the "loyalty" of their users to the Blackberry "brand", "concept"...and their unwillingness to demand more than a centralized text messaging system and/or centralized "features for all". We saw how that worked. Edited June 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Obama has been talking "teachers, firemen, and police" again. The fundamental flaw here is the assumption that "hiring public workers" as some macroeconomic wave....is the solution to anything. It's no more of a solution than laying off large swaths of workers. In either case, you have no idea what the effect will be on each community, whether it will help, and therefore, have no idea of whether it will be effective politically. It is the notion that all of this can be centrally planned that is the ultimate fallacy here. I want less government, not because I hate public employes, but because the scope of government is out of control, and they have no way to do what they are being asked. These big government concepts fail not for lack of trying, and certainly not for lack of money, or noble ideas. They fail because they are designed poorly. Period. They fail because we are better served letting local people make local decisions, and only having an escalation system in place for when things go bad. Why is the decision on whether an 80 year old gets a new knee, something that concerns the Federal government? The Federal government has to make decisions about war, peace and international affairs.....and Mrs. Smith's knee? How in the hell are they supposed to take each case seriously enough and get all the facts to make that decision? Answer: they can't and they don't. Instead, they create a nameless, faceless centralized system whose only priority is making the impossible job they have, a little easier for them. But ultimately, it fails all of us, and them. This debate is already over, it's just that the less-informed, or less insightful, don't know it yet. That's why these questions ultimately won't matter. Here's why macroeconomic waves of hiring/firing public workers as a "solution" is doomed: De-centralization of government is the future. How do I know? Because of IT. For the relevant person, by that I mean: likely voter, our national viewpoint is being shaped by how IT is being used to decentralize our work and decision making. Don't waste time arguing. This is fact. And no amount of cherry picking "the cloud" or "the Internet is just a giant mainframe" arguments invalidates the fact that IT is decentralizing our work, and has been since the advent of client-server and tiered architecture. In fact, those that would argue for centralization, merely don't understand the internet...at least not from a technical/organizational theory/philosophical standpoint. They may understand how to use email, or a message board... Whichever party, or politician, understands that IT is creating an unstoppable, new, decentralized reality...first, will benefit. Those that don't will be burned. Example: Legions of illegal immigrants being turned into citizens...will not save the Democratic party as long as they remain committed to centralized systems. That's because: immigrants use IPhones and Droids too. Silly Far-Left people, you don't see that, do you? In fact, I doubt you can even comprehend it. Immigrants want the same thing we all want: things to operate in a way they can understand, quickly, and without hassle..and without things they don't need/care about. Now take any Federal government work product, in any Department...and judge it by that standard. Yeah, Epic...FAIL. Some things will always be centralized, like national security. But for everything else: the countdown has begun. Silly Democrats taking about demographics? That's like Blackberry marketing people talking about why the IPhone won't kick their ass...because of the "loyalty" of their users to the Blackberry "brand", "concept"...and their unwillingness to demand more than a centralized text messaging system and/or centralized "features for all". We saw how that worked. Can you give us the shorthand...3 million words (and 2 emoticons) or less! Edited June 12, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Can you give us the shorthand...3 million words (and 2 emoticons) or less! "Computers are kewl." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) So what are we to think about these public sector workers? Reagan/HBush/WBush all added more during recession to help and we've been in the worst recession basically ever and yet we've lost public sector workers. TV crap says 1.whatever million workers could be added with the money Obama wants Congress to give to states. Theoretically this is 1.whatever million unemployed people now employed with income who are then ready to buy housing and goods and get off unemployment/food stamps/other programs etc...spend this income to help the private sector come back...and we've done this over and over in the past to help the overall economy in times of need. At the same time...the money isn't forever and a lot of the states that fired all these people did so b/c they ran out of money... presumably they will again unless we get back to booming and the revenue is back up which is a big "if" relative to when the money runs out etc...it does put the states in a rough spot...plus as we all know reform in public sector benefits is a big issue (rightfully so in many states) and until that is taken care of it's even more reasonable for states themselves to feel apprehensive about this from a management standpoint...even assuming they would phase some out gradually as the economy gets better b/c some may be unnecessary they fired them at great political cost even now it will be more difficult in a theoretical future where we are back to normal and revenues are better... All that said...these unemployed people live in these states so it's not as if they take on the burden without getting some of the benefit. Then there's the money in the first place...some people want to aggressively attack the federal deficit now others are fine for now provided we link it with long term stability... ...what to think...is there truth somewhere in the middle? Should we maybe hire some back but not all, should we hire a bunch, should we not hire any, should we cut more? How does the answer to that effect how we view the actions of past Presidents who have increased public sector workers in recession? Also we know Romney doesn't plan to slash government spending/public employment when he's in office based on his Time interview so are we just waiting until Obama is out? As 3rdling posted in the other topic: http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/7190-private-jobs-down-46-million-from-january-2008-federal-jobs-up-114 "President Obama’s statement Friday that the private sector is “doing fine” drew so much ridicule that he was forced to backtrack hours later. But it’s clear that Obama and many other Democrats see job problems — and solutions — starting and stopping with government employment. A quick look at payroll stats shows that’s not the case. Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4%, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8%. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4% increase. That’s right, up 11.4%" So we know that over the course of economic depression the states have fired hundreds of thousands...overall gov't drops 407K while the Fed increases 225K...so while we may want to downsize what we are doing right now is one of the greatest downsizing in modern times during one of the greatest depressions in modern times. And while Mitt Romney will hit the campaign trail and say it's great...that's not what he says in interviews...maybe he should talk to Congress or something....but we have BEEN downsizing and it's not helping in the short term so I think at the very least we should admit that if this is the way we are going to go it's going to prolong the economic disaster...maybe it's worth it...that's the debate. Edited June 12, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) Can you give us the shorthand...3 million words (and 2 emoticons) or less! Blow it out your ass. You simply know I'm right, and you don't like it. "Computers are kewl." Not really. Ok, Ok, I will shorten it a little for Buftex(mostly so she has to read it again, and realize I'm right, again): The fastest I can say it: decentralized workflow and integration, and the importance of each in today's business climate, are forcing decentralization upon all of us, whether we are aware of it or not. This will color our thinking politically, whether we wish it to or not. The success of these approaches, compared with that of "Mainframe thinking", is undeniable. Sooner or later, this will cause a paradigm shift leading us away from centralized approaches in government. We keep seeing decentralized approaches in IT leave centralized ones in the dust. Iphone > Blackberry. This is why things like: "how many public workers should we hire via massive swings at the Federal level?" "the demographics in the Southwest, and in states like North Carolina, means that things will be stacked for Democrats" will soon be irrelevant. Edited June 15, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 ....bunch of crap that is irrelevant to this post.... The bottom line is: IT will replace mindless activity in the public sector sooner, rather than later....just as it has in the private sector. This is because states must now cut cost/spending in order to survive, like the private sector does. Make work jobs are no longer a cost effective way for those on the left to gain power/reward supporters. The benefits those jobs pay are simply too expensive to justify. And, as this happens, people will realize that there's no point in moving $1 to DC, just to have .60 return, when DC doesn't add any value for the .40 it keeps or sends elsewhere. It's trickle down government, and it's days are numbered. We are seeing an object lesson in this be expressed in the type of IT systems that are successfully deployed. It's only a matter of time until this shifts to politics, and becomes the standard there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The bottom line is: IT will replace mindless activity in the public sector sooner, rather than later....just as it has in the private sector. You really think Congress is being replaced by laptops anytime soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 You really think Congress is being replaced by laptops anytime soon? I thought he meant this It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 You really think Congress is being replaced by laptops anytime soon? Yeah, that's what I said. I fear Congress, and the type of staff that writes 2000 page laws, and thinks "we should pass it, so that we can find out what's in it" is a good thing to say, will always be with us. However, I highly doubt all of Medicare's 100k+ employees will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Blow it out your ass. You simply know I'm right, and you don't like it. Not really. Ok, Ok, I will shorten it a little for Buftex(mostly so she has to read it again, and realize I'm right, again): The fastest I can say it: decentralized workflow and integration, and the importance of each in today's business climate, are forcing decentralization upon all of us, whether we are aware of it or not. This will color our thinking politically, whether we wish it to or not. The success of these approaches, compared with that of "Mainframe thinking", is undeniable. Sooner or later, this will cause a paradigm shift leading us away from centralized approaches in government. We keep seeing decentralized approaches in IT leave centralized ones in the dust. Iphone > Blackberry. Is that why over the last three years every single IT firm has been touting its "cloud" capabilities to move computing back to centralized servers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The bottom line is: IT will replace mindless activity in the public sector sooner, rather than later....just as it has in the private sector. This is because states must now cut cost/spending in order to survive, like the private sector does. Make work jobs are no longer a cost effective way for those on the left to gain power/reward supporters. The benefits those jobs pay are simply too expensive to justify. And, as this happens, people will realize that there's no point in moving $1 to DC, just to have .60 return, when DC doesn't add any value for the .40 it keeps or sends elsewhere. It's trickle down government, and it's days are numbered. We are seeing an object lesson in this be expressed in the type of IT systems that are successfully deployed. It's only a matter of time until this shifts to politics, and becomes the standard there as well. You've obviously never been to Connecticut.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I thought he meant this It Why replace clowns with more clowns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 Is that why over the last three years every single IT firm has been touting its "cloud" capabilities to move computing back to centralized servers? Yeah, and remember when I said "cherry pick the cloud as an argument" above...."doesn't invalidate what I'm saying"? Apparently not. Well, now you require correction. Actually, every single IT firm has been talking about the cloud....but for fundamentally different reasons. Some understand it's design benefits properly, and its proper use, and proper place in architecture thinking, and in the overall set of tools that can be used. Others....and this is always the case....shouldn't be in my business, because they treat every single new thing as though it is the solution to all things. But their presence is tolerated, and even encouraged, because there simply aren't anywhere near enough people doing what we do. These turdbots, will talk about anything, if it means looking like they know what they are doing, and the proper manipulation of them into saying "windows-based" over 9000 times in meetings? These are what made Microsoft....not Windows NT. The problem is: Wall Street types like yourself can't tell the difference, because you can't be bothered to understand the difference. We "all look the same" to you. Those of us that understand the cloud, and the business, understand the very real dangers of the very real siloing of the cloud that is occurring as I write this, and for which the "others" are responsible. Because they fundamentally don't understand the cloud, or it's context, relative to other approaches, they don't see that the proper way to use cloud design...is to decentralize it. Here's a test to see if you will bother with understanding the difference: Just because something is occurring on a massive scale....doesn't mean it can't, and shouldn't, have a low-level scope. A key tenet in cloud design is to, reasonably, create lots of low-level scopes and then then string them together at run-time to produce results. This way design can change without hassle, as it merely means manipulating these scopes, or, replacing one with another, etc. This is similar to the concept of "replaceable parts"(and no, it's not just "modular design" .) This cannot happen if we have deployed monolithic thinking and therefore, a giant scope, into the cloud. But the "others" can't comprehend any of this. As such, they will bring chaos and failure, as they always do, and we will be called upon to fire them, fix their mess, and move forward, as we always do. As I said above, none of this will change the reality that our work is being decentralized. PROPERLY deployed cloud....MEANS decentralized. Look at it this way: clowns didn't stop client server, they just delayed, monkey wrenched parts, and obfuscated it a while. The same thing will happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The problem is: Wall Street types like yourself can't tell the difference, because you can't be bothered to understand the difference. We "all look the same" to you. Those of us that understand the cloud, and the business, understand the very real dangers of the very real siloing of the cloud that is occurring as I write this, and for which the "others" are responsible. Because they fundamentally don't understand the cloud, or it's context, relative to other approaches, they don't see that the proper way to use cloud design...is to decentralize it. Here's a test to see if you will bother with understanding the difference: I thought it was "Which part of China, India, Russia are you from? " And yes we fully understand IT, you guys spend 50% of your billable hours telling us how great you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) I thought it was "Which part of China, India, Russia are you from? " And yes we fully understand IT, you guys spend 50% of your billable hours telling us how great you are. Hehe..the best IT guys still come from here. Well, when it comes to new thinking/new design. While that may be true, you still don't bother to understand why we are so great. So, you can't tell who is bragging, and who can do it. (Exhibit 1: what you guys fund/IPO vs. what you don't.) And, besides, you have to listen either way, in case you're dealing with the latter, because the upside is too big not to listen...isn't it? How about the contrapositive? I'll tell you the following for free, and I won't tell you how great I am: Anybody who tells you that building uber-cloud functionality...all in one big system, even with an API/SaaS constructs...is missing the point of the cloud, and is not following it's philosophical intent, or leveraging it's very real financial advantages. If they are talking convention, and downplaying configuration, "because you don't care anyway", then, they are looking out for themselves and not you. That may work for you. But, purely in terms of money and especially, change management, it's a dumb choice. Doing all this cloud stuff...just to end up building a...mainframe... is patently retarded. 2 years from now, you will know this to be true. Hopefully, you will have paid attention, and will have made/saved money as a result. Then, you can say how great I am, and I won't have to bother. Edited June 15, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 http://www.lohud.com/article/20120616/NEWS02/306160055/Audit-Metro-North-train-safety-unit-often-missed-work-surfed-Web-fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 http://www.lohud.com...-surfed-Web-fun 1. Thanks for yet another example of why centralized systems fail. If decision making, and therefore, accountability, was driven down to each safety inspector, and failure/issues were raised immediately, then at the very least we'd know we had a problem, right now. 2. This is what you get when you deploy people/systems that record business process....but don't deploy workflow, BI/analytics, business rule engines, and escalation/accountability systems alongside. Literally. 3. The only way they found out about it? Going through the records that were created, by hand, via the audit. That's the best you can hope for without the systems described in 2. Or, if you do have an electronic system....you can run the same report every 15 minutes...and see what is happening that way. But, it's too late to do something about it. That merely tells you when you've failed. 4. It's awfully hard to track a train trip, in terms of safety, from behind a desk. Looks like a mobile solution is required. Perhaps it's time for a phone call. Thanks, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If public sector growth grew like it normally would following a recession, we would have an extra 1.4 million jobs in the country and unemployment would be below 7%. That's not taking into account the economic impact each job has the public sector. And the top 3 positions in the public sector: 1. Teachers 2. Police 3. Firefighters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If public sector growth grew like it normally would following a recession, we would have an extra 1.4 million jobs in the country and unemployment would be below 7%. That's not taking into account the economic impact each job has the public sector. And the top 3 positions in the public sector: 1. Teachers 2. Police 3. Firefighters Please take your economics textbook, strap it to a 3' pole and then proceed to smack your face with it for 1 hour. That will give you a better understanding of how the world works. THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOES NOT GROW THE ECONOMY. Lather, rinse repeat. Your inane point ignores the reason why the rebound is not like any other post-recession recovery. And who is going to pay for that public sector employment when private sector isn't rebounding? The problem we have is that the private sector is sidelined because nobody is stupid enough to take risks under this administration. Yes, you can increase public sector hiring and give everyone a handout to artificially prop up demand, and set yourself up for a nasty reckoning when your economics degree gets you a job sweeping floors in the local Starbucks because private investment is crowded out. Or you can recognize that true growth won't return until the guys who are in charge of hiring feel good enough about the future to start adding to private sector employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOES NOT GROW THE ECONOMY. You are an idiot. Get out of your Manhatten mailroom and look out a window and see who is dredging New York Harbor. From 2006: "While the corps' Slezak says that the environmental concerns are important, he acknowledges that Congress is most interested in the economic benefits of getting more business to the ports. When the container ships began to grow and need deeper channels, Halifax, with its naturally deep bay, tried to line up business. Baltimore was interested, too. The only way to maintain the largest port facility on the East Coast -- the third largest in the nation, which generates 230,000 jobs regionally - was to deepen the channels. It doesn't matter which party is in power, Republicans or Democrats, the New York/New Jersey ports get their funding. The expense of Hurricane Katrina affected Corps projects elsewhere in the nation, but not the New York Harbor, says Slezak. Even the environmentalist Larry Levine supports the deep channels for the harbor. The only issue for everyone concerned with the dredging is whether the Army Corps of Engineers will make the effort to keep contaminants from swirling around and adding to the considerable pollution already there Even Slezak would not eat the fish from these waters. It is not just the dioxins that make the water hazardous. This is a long-term problem generated by years of industrial pollution. It remains to be seen whether the Army Corps of Engineers dredging operations will make it better or worse." Most recent: New York Harbor "...They said the $250 million, nearly two-mile-long tunnel — officially, a water transmission main known as a siphon — was an infrastructure investment with a rapid payoff for New York, the nation’s third-busiest port. “If we want New York City’s economy to stay competitive,” Mr. Bloomberg said, “we must accommodate new megaships.” Mr. Foye said his agency had set aside $1 billion for the dredging project, which is separate from the cost of the tunnel. Officials said the channel would be deepened to approximately 50 feet, from the current depth of 45 feet. The Port Authority and the Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for the dredging. The city and the Port Authority are splitting the cost of the tunnel project, with the city’s Economic Development Corporation managing the project. The dredging necessitated the replacement of two existing tunnels, one that dates to 1917, the other to 1925. They are 56 and 60 feet below the surface, respectively, and would be too close to the channel bottom after the dredging, officials said. The new tunnel will be 100 feet below the surface. Like the old tunnels, the new ones will provide only a backup source of drinking water for Staten Island. Staten Island — as do all of the city’s boroughs — draws water that originates in reservoirs upstate. Most of the water that ends up in the sinks and tubs of Staten Island gets there through a 42-year-old tunnel from Red Hook, Brooklyn. If that conduit ever failed, the new tunnel would be able to pump up to 150 million gallons a day, the officials said. Under normal conditions, it would deliver five million gallons a day, or about 10 percent of Staten Islanders’ demand for drinking water..." Edited June 21, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts