I’ve pulled together an article that brings together two very different thinkers talking about issues of relevance to the Prime Minister’s reform of the civil service.
Here’s a question: if it’s so easy to find 15% waste or BS jobs in every government department, then why not keep funding on the same trajectory, and leverage these apparently obvious paths to efficiency to drastically improve the quality of programs and services?
Why is the ‘solution’ seemingly always to cut funding?
In general you make a good point. I suppose in some cases it would be possible to cut costs and increase service.
Unfortunately, Carney is committed to dramatically increase spending but not taxation. I don’t know much about how he views things like wealth stratification but as someone who has been involved in politics I do know politicians have to support crazy stuff to get elected.
We were in a nasty place before the last election and stuck having to choose between Carney and Milhouse while the orange goof threatened our existence. As I said in the article, I don’t know what Carney wants or plans on doing, but I do believe we should expect more from our civil services and I don’t think the real problem is lack of funds.
Carney did not run on tripling the military budget, nor did he run on slashing 15% from the public service.
He didn’t run on cancelling the DST, nor cutting the CBC.
Those facts alone should be enough to oppose these cuts just on principle.
And we don’t have a US electoral system. We did not “choose between Carney and [Poilievre]”, we elected local MPs. Carney didn’t have to “support crazy stuff to get elected”, because ha’s not dependent on multi-million-dollar dark money PAC funding.
Anyway, you didn’t really address my question.
Eh. Bullshit jobs exist, no doubt. But the points mentioned in the article seem a bit askew – even just the consultanty-vibe saying consultants are usually bullshit seems a bit off, though amusing.
I doubt the federal govt will be able to realistically cut just bullshit jobs / structure job cuts in an efficient way. I’ve spoken to managers in the public service before, and they’ve whined that it takes like 2 years to fire someone who’s not doing their job, with all the hoops that are required due to the union etc. I’m starting to wonder if Carney’s govt will even last that long.
This sounds a bit related to David Graeber’s concept of “Bullshit Jobs”.
More than just a bit.
The article opens with:
I just finished reading the late David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs and it’s got me thinking about the reforms to the civil service that Prime Minister Carney has been promising.
If you cannot name your job in one word - maybe 2 if you’re lucky, You have a bullshit job. (Ie pilot, cop, engineer, teacher, doctor). Actually typing out “Senior Director of Enterprise Accomplishment Developer Engagement” on LinkedIn is LOL.
Marine Hydraulic technician/ Ship repair mechanic. Ptfo with that bullshit.
So “mechanic” is the actual answer. Good job
Oh, so you’re that sort of ignorant.
deleted by creator
Every fast food worker.
Every call center worker.
The vast majority of retail employees.
The entire TSA.
A ton of middle managers and c-suite.
Everyone who works with crypto.
Honestly, there are a ton of tertiary service jobs that people would just do themselves if they had the time. (Cleaners, recruiters, travel agents, realtors, “landlords”, most restaurants, tax accountants, gym businesses)
Of course, all of this requires actually being capable of envisioning a world where people aren’t expected to waste their own time.
