I agree with your point that things may not be more efficient in certain big companies of the private sector but there is a crucial difference between the two.
The difference is that the government's employees are paid from taxes collected from productive companies, aka companies that create jobs and achieve a profit big enough to warrant paying taxes in the first place.
A private sector company, unless it is subsidized in some way or has a monopoly on a certain market will eventually try to rectify these inefficiencies because its makes it more resilient in the fight against it's competitors.
On the other hand, there is no incentive on the government side to make things more efficient.
If a government looses money, they can just borrow more, increase the national debt and sweep any kind of reform under the rug. Because of this lack of incentives, some state and government agencies act as de facto subsidized job's programs.
It's the same problem in many western nation, just look at how many people are employed in France by the government.
Many basic services are actually decaying but the government keeps hiring more people.
If we remove the employees who work as teachers, cops, in the military, and all other essential services, the rest of them, I am just not sure what the hell they do with their time.
My point is that it should be a duty of the government to be as efficient as possible. To do more with less, should be a priority unless the tasks require more people.
So I can understand when people complain of the inefficiency of a government agency.
The difference is that the government's employees are paid from taxes collected from productive companies, aka companies that create jobs and achieve a profit big enough to warrant paying taxes in the first place.
A private sector company, unless it is subsidized in some way or has a monopoly on a certain market will eventually try to rectify these inefficiencies because its makes it more resilient in the fight against it's competitors.
On the other hand, there is no incentive on the government side to make things more efficient.
If a government looses money, they can just borrow more, increase the national debt and sweep any kind of reform under the rug. Because of this lack of incentives, some state and government agencies act as de facto subsidized job's programs.
It's the same problem in many western nation, just look at how many people are employed in France by the government.
Many basic services are actually decaying but the government keeps hiring more people.
If we remove the employees who work as teachers, cops, in the military, and all other essential services, the rest of them, I am just not sure what the hell they do with their time.
My point is that it should be a duty of the government to be as efficient as possible. To do more with less, should be a priority unless the tasks require more people.
So I can understand when people complain of the inefficiency of a government agency.