I may be the only person in the world whose mind was blown by this article. This essay shattered my unexamined belief that the current system prevents politicization of our federal workforce. I had no idea this was already tried in the states.
No, I'm also shocked. There's a common unexamined assumption, and while I'd be very careful about this change, and not interested under a MAGA president...it's nice to know that there's a lot of safe room.
This work, as nearly everything associated with Manhattan Institute, starts with a conclusion rather than doing objective research to find real answers. Kinda tired of these people being promoted.
Every new Statecraft pod day is a good day! Another great one.
Something touched on here and underappreciated outside this Substack’s readership is the education requirements - and the EO removing barriers is a good thing.
The federal government should not be a jobs program for people with advanced degrees and it drives much of the overcredentialism that occurs more broadly in the workforce and drives up educational debt. It also inculcates a culture where there is dependence on the steady federal salary, meaning wrongheaded subregulatory administrative policy goes unchallenged and people are just happy to be employed without having much interest in outcomes.
Those who are invested in outcomes often wilt over time and under pressure to conform resulting in adoption of that same attitude. It is also pretty obvious that that education often does not impact the quality of work done and can even dilute it as advanced degrees proliferate and a false sense of competence is assumed from the educational process rather than work performed.
We clearly need a more nimble workforce to adapt to technological change, less red tape, but more strict enforcement for the red tape that is left. Amongst many of the other ideas here, I would put this educational issue first.
I may be the only person in the world whose mind was blown by this article. This essay shattered my unexamined belief that the current system prevents politicization of our federal workforce. I had no idea this was already tried in the states.
No, I'm also shocked. There's a common unexamined assumption, and while I'd be very careful about this change, and not interested under a MAGA president...it's nice to know that there's a lot of safe room.
This work, as nearly everything associated with Manhattan Institute, starts with a conclusion rather than doing objective research to find real answers. Kinda tired of these people being promoted.
Every new Statecraft pod day is a good day! Another great one.
Something touched on here and underappreciated outside this Substack’s readership is the education requirements - and the EO removing barriers is a good thing.
The federal government should not be a jobs program for people with advanced degrees and it drives much of the overcredentialism that occurs more broadly in the workforce and drives up educational debt. It also inculcates a culture where there is dependence on the steady federal salary, meaning wrongheaded subregulatory administrative policy goes unchallenged and people are just happy to be employed without having much interest in outcomes.
Those who are invested in outcomes often wilt over time and under pressure to conform resulting in adoption of that same attitude. It is also pretty obvious that that education often does not impact the quality of work done and can even dilute it as advanced degrees proliferate and a false sense of competence is assumed from the educational process rather than work performed.
We clearly need a more nimble workforce to adapt to technological change, less red tape, but more strict enforcement for the red tape that is left. Amongst many of the other ideas here, I would put this educational issue first.
Can anyone that can see behind the article paywalls list all the states?
What paywall are you referring to? Neither this piece or the underlying report are paywalled.