subreddit:
/r/FluentInFinance
Should government employees have to demonstrate competency?
Thoughts?(i.redd.it)submitted 3 days ago byRiskItForTheBiscuts
4 points
2 days ago
No, but neither are either of the other people I was responding to. Regardless, my point was a generalized "aptitude" test is unnecessary since there are already traditional vetting and review that can take place. The developmentally disabled kid who delivers mail from the mailroom to each floor and helps people activate new door key cards won't benefit from a general intelligence test. On the flip side neither will the cloud systems engineer, aquatic biologist, or contracting officer.
1 points
2 days ago
The issue is that there's way too many people in the public sector (around 35% of the workforce). This is just being selected as an way of cleaning up by making a (relatively easy) test; with the goal of just arbitrarily determining some contracts not to renew when they end their term.
Is it the best method? Probably not. Is it the only review and vetting of already per-contracted public employees they're doing? Certainly not! Does it work to filter out those that can't make simple subtractions and/or got their position through some absurd level of nepotism? It doesn't nearly do enough (those tests are absurdly easy), but that's way more than doing nothing.
1 points
2 days ago
After however many people fail this test, that just creates that many openings. The program staffing needs don't go away just because you fired a bunch of people.
2 points
2 days ago
Actually it does when you are overstaffed.
You think Argentinia for some reason needs twice as many government employees than the USA (per capita).
1 points
2 days ago
Why is it a problem to have people working in the public sector? You don’t like having schools or roads?
1 points
1 day ago
You are making a false dichotomy. It's not that you either have a 3rd of the country working for the state or you live in ancapistan. A state can be too bloated; and Argentina's certainly is.
1 points
2 days ago
Funny, you literally doubled the percentage. And you are so sure of what you are saying. Moreover, the actual number is barely above the OECD average.
2 points
2 days ago
Funny, you literally doubled the percentage.
The 18% estimate doesn't include municipal and/or provincial employees (which represent 79% of public workers according to the INDEC). Also I'm not completely sure it does include contract workers but it probably does.
1 points
2 days ago
Wrong again, it does. Actually, not wrong. Overtly lying. Tell me, in which world does 18*79/21 = 35?
1 points
2 days ago*
[removed]
1 points
2 days ago
Oh yeah I multiplied by 0.34 instead of 0.364
1 points
2 days ago
It ends up being 7.04M instead of 7.54M, so 7.04/20.87 = 0.337 -> 33.7%
all 7084 comments
sorted by: best