[doodlebugging]

Your comments show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have never worked for the federal government and likely have never worked in state or local government.

>In a bureaucracy where responsibility is diffused and the culture is purely political and not merit/performance-based, few are willing to step out of line to do the right thing.

Federal employment is merit based. Advances are earned, not doled out to the teacher's pet or the ass-kisser with the most perfect pucker. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no idea where you or anyone else got the idea that a government employee has no responsibility or incentives and works strictly for political ends and even worse, where none are willing to speak up. You clearly have no experience in that space and should focus your comments on things that you better understand through direct experience.

>And those people don’t last long in political/bureaucratic environments where the incentives are misaligned.

This is bullshit and you are grossly misinformed. Plenty of people fight the polarization of the system on political lines from within the system. They use the laws that are in place in order to prevent systemic abuses. They may not win every internal fight but they do go to battle for the right reasons.

You just have no idea.

[fc417fc802]

I don't think your attitude here is in keeping with the guidelines (or constructive discourse for that matter). You've made a number of uncharitable assumptions about the other party on the back of which you then launched into baseless personal attacks.

Notably everything in the comment you replied to applies equally to the public and private sector. They are neutral observations about systemic motives and the associated perverse incentives.

Also it's not clear to me that any of the utilities in question have anything to do with the federal government so I'm not sure why you dragged them into this.

[doodlebugging]

>I don't think your attitude here is in keeping with the guidelines (or constructive discourse for that matter).

I'll make a note of that. Any comment that I make on this site is made in the hopes that there will be discussion generated. Sometimes that happens and other times it doesn't. I don't spend any part of my life wondering why people choose to or choose not to engage. Most of us have busy lives and this (HN) for us is an opportunity to catch up on interesting things.

>You've made a number of uncharitable assumptions about the other party on the back of which you then launched into baseless personal attacks.

I am not sure that noting that a poster has no experience in a subject and has no idea how it really works in practice becomes an uncharitable assumption. It may look like a personal attack but it is based entirely on the content of the user's own posts, which support the conclusion that I reached.

>They are neutral observations about systemic motives and the associated perverse incentives.

From /u/moscoe original comment in the thread:

>Incentives and performance management are fundamental problem in civil service. The incentives to set high standards and hold individuals accountable simply do not exist.

These two sentences here demonstrate that /u/moscoe does not have any experience working in the public sector for federal, state, or local government entities yet somehow they feel qualified to speak confidently (incorrectly) that those who have worked in that capacity are ham-strung by the system and disincentivized to make waves. That is false.

I mentioned federal employees specifically because they are civil servants (referenced by /u/moscoe above) and someone close to me has worked a long career in the federal government under several administrations from both political parties.

I think you have your opinions and you are entitled to those opinions. I am also sure that you are wrong about the content of my post. It was not uncharitable nor were there any assumptions. The conclusions that I drew were supported by the statements made by /u/moscoe. If it ends up looking like a personal attack then there was a basis for that personal attack.

It's possible that you read my comment without reading the full thread so some of the context was missing.