Comment by s1artibartfast
2 months ago
>This fails to explain why private corporations (which presumably have from one to millions of stakeholders that care about cost saving) would waste millions of dollars.
Of course it fails to explain something was wasnt talking about. I wasn't offering an explanation of private corporation waste. were you under that impression I dont think it exists?
I have a 50 million dollar project right now for a private corporation that I think is a waste, despite being the being the one to create and lead it. I'm doing it for short sighted reasons. My boss thinks it will make him look good, I expect a promotion out of it, and we will both be gone when it is cancelled with absolutely nothing to show for it.
This also happens in government. As a taxpayer, I dont want to pay it. I love the idea of someone looking out for waste and even counter productive spending.
>The second assumption that I think you're making is that "wasteful outcomes" are by definition a bad thing...
Please don't strawman me and put words in my mouth. are you arguing against points I didn't make.
My point is that true waste, however you want to define it, exists, and can be improved. Are you claiming there is no room for improvement?
> I wasn't offering an explanation of private corporation waste. were you under that impression I dont think it exists?
Earlier you had said:
> .... if there is a stakeholder that actually cares about cost savings.
which tends to be short-hand these days for "in the context of a for-profit company where people actually care about this stuff". I accept that you may not have meant it that way.
> Are you claiming there is no room for improvement?
Certainly not. But starting with the claim that a gigantic percentage of US federal government spending is wasted (as the whole DOGE thing starts with) is almost certainly not the way to find actual improvements.
>which tends to be short-hand these days for "in the context of a for-profit company where people actually care about this stuff". I accept that you may not have meant it that way.
Are you think of shareholders instead of stakeholders? Either way, that was not my intention. In terms government, there are lots of ways to introduce new stakeholders with different incentives. These can be inter-agency review, or as simple as a government employee who's job it is to save money, and gets promoted based on that.
>Certainly not. But starting with the claim that a gigantic percentage of US federal government spending is wasted (as the whole DOGE thing starts with) is almost certainly not the way to find actual improvements.
Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.
> Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Not everything in a comment in a thread on HN is about the comment that immediately preceded it. This particular subthread has featured the so-called DOGE quite significantly, and that is how we've ended up talking about efficiency, waste, improvements. DOGE is the embodiment of the claim I'm describing, and that's not directly related to anything you've said.