Good, we want the competent and skilled people within government to go to private enterprise in big numbers, so they can amplify their skills and effect in private enterprise. Then we can reduce the number of government agencies, because they are always less effective than private enterprises.
The problem is when we have the lazy and incompetent bureaucrats sticking around, and us the taxpayers are paying for their pension while getting back very little in return.
Honestly, I'm not sure what all the screaming and crying on hacker news is about; hackers are all about creating efficiency with unorthodox insights and skills. pretty sure no hackers have said "why yes, I've love to pay more in taxes for the bureaucrats to retire in style after doing very little"
> because they are always less effective than private enterprises.
I think this is one of those ideas that has been spouted for so long that we don't really stop to think about whether it is true. Private and public entities (and employees) certainly have different incentives, but they also have different mandates, and I've certainly known plenty of inefficient private enterprises and efficient public ones. Do you have any way of verifying or proving this idea that you can share?
> I think this is one of those ideas that has been spouted for so long that we don't really stop to think about whether it is true.
A lot of people with considerable expertise in the area have looked into whether it's true. They almost always come to the same conclusion: overall it's a wash.
If you look closer some industries (like say your corner coffee shop in a big city) are clearly better off private, and others like roads and fire fighting don't work when privately held.
In general a competitive market will out-do public owned, free markets that aren't competitive are worse than public owned.
But there are always exceptions. A fine example is the health system. I don't know why, but as the US demonstrates even with a competitive health market public ownership outperforms a purely private system by a fairly large margin.
Data obtained by fox news suggested that migrant arrivals at the southern border declined by 60% in the first week of Trump’s presidency compared to the last week of Biden’s administration. However, this figure differs from Trump’s 93% claim.
Biden 2021: 1,734,686 (378.68% from previous year)
Biden 2022: 2,378,944 (137.14% from previous year)
Biden 2023: 2,475,669 (104.07% from previous year)
Biden 2024: 2,135,005 (86.24% from previous year)
I couldn't find older that 2019, but it's clear that in trumps last year, it more than halfed from his previous year. Then it more than tripled in the first year under Biden. Then almost doubled again in the subsequent year under Biden, and then grew a bit in 2023. Then only in 2024, did it reduce by a tiny 14%. Notably a 14% of what is effectively a number 5 times higher than what Trump got it down to before he left office.
And yeah you could argue (like some of the journalist did) that "oh this is just because Trump created a backlog". Well that's what people wanted, and it stopped the flow of people over the border. That's solving the problem, and really just shows that Biden literally just opened the doors, let it grow huge, and then "claimed success" when it started going back down to it's pre-Trump average. This is why we can't discuss this, we have so many supposedly "smart" people arguing and using the supposed "data" to twist the truth, and then dismissing what every can see plain as day (and is in this case supported by the data).
Oh and let's also not mention that it surged quite a bit in the last few months of 2024 when people I would assume started to flood the border in anticipation of Trump's arrival. So all that supposed work the Biden team did somehow didn't apply then? Of course, because they did nothing and the numbers reflect the fact that the border just lets them go through.
Trump supporters watch Fox News, and listens to Joe Rogan. They are pretty in tune with the current politics, but they just don't try to go online and fight against the left.
You have many misunderstandings that you should probably have right first before continuing
CNN leans pretty far left, but not as left as MSNBC
NYT leans pretty far left, similarly to CNN
Reddit leans very far left, so does Facebook and Instagram
Media in general is very left leaning. For example, Youtube, Disney, Netflix are the biggest online video content house, and they all lean heavily left. Even Max leans slightly left. There is no right leaning online content house. And all contents are moving to online.
What you're calling "left" is center-right in the rest of the developed world. None of those are left leaning. They are all pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, anti-worker "infinite growth forever" media. Some of the journalists who work for them are left, but the owners are largely conservative and force them to cover Democratic scandals just as much as Republican ones, while Fox News and other conservative media outlets just outright ignore Republican scandals entirely.
If mainstream media in America was left, Bernie would have just finished up his second term.
The problem is when we have the lazy and incompetent bureaucrats sticking around, and us the taxpayers are paying for their pension while getting back very little in return.
Honestly, I'm not sure what all the screaming and crying on hacker news is about; hackers are all about creating efficiency with unorthodox insights and skills. pretty sure no hackers have said "why yes, I've love to pay more in taxes for the bureaucrats to retire in style after doing very little"