Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

This post is about how bureaucracy grows, not just within the Federal government, but at any government level at any government institution. The mechanism was described to me by an old Sergeant at a Defense Depot just before his retirement from the service. I had gone to the Depot to check on some maintenance work on vehicles that belonged to one of the Reserve units I was overseeing.

He asked me “How many vehicles do you think we maintain now versus twenty years ago?” I guessed it was roughly the same, and he told me that it was almost exactly the same. He then asked me, “How many mechanics do you think we have now versus twenty years ago?”. The answer was twice as many, with a budget at three times the original level (even AFTER adjusting for inflation). He then explained how this came about.

It seemed that twenty years ago, there were five mechanics for the hundreds of vehicles maintained by the depot. They worked hard and did a great job at keeping these vehicles ready for the units that used them. But eventually, they figured out that none of them was ever going to get a raise or a promotion. The only way to get ahead in the system (or any modern bureaucracy) is for you to get promoted, and the only way that can happen is if there are enough of you to justify someone becoming management.

So, what these five mechanics did is they slowed down their work. Soon many vehicles were not being properly maintained and would not pass inspection for use in training exercises. They just swore up and down that they were overworked and needed more help. Their leadership in a distant city was more than happy to validate these claims (for reasons that will be shortly apparent).

Soon they were able to hire a couple more mechanics. Once they had seven mechanics, they required an on-site supervisor. So, one of the five got a promotion and a hefty raise. They continued the gradual slowdown of work/productivity for years. And over the years, more and more mechanics got hired. Eventually they got to the point of having 10 mechanics. This level of headcount required a second supervisor, and, because there were two supervisors, an on-site manager was now required. The manager was again a former mechanic, as was the second new supervisor. The supervisors made about 50% more than a mechanic, while the manager made twice as much. So, after 20 years, the shop salary budget was three times what it had originally (10 mechanics at base rate, 2 at 1.5x rate, 1 at 2xrate; the equivalent of 15 at base rate). [note again that inflation has been taken out of the equation]

Meanwhile, those responsible for validating the expansion of the mechanic work force would have also received raises and promotions for the increase in the headcount below them.

To avoid the issues that could arise by blatantly obvious idleness in the workplace, work was created to keep everyone looking busy. This involved the creation of a host of programs like an oil analysis program, a tire pressure initiative, increasing the number of site visits to remote training sites, setting up a “maintenance excellence” program for Reserve units to compete in (judged by depot mechanics), increasing the number and complexity of reports that required filing, and so on.

This, in a nutshell, is how bureaucracy expands. And it also shows the driving force behind it. It is the desire of hundreds of thousands of nameless bureaucrats to increase the amount that they take home from the government.

All of the above is quite legal. Then there is the illegal. This is the kickback or “quid pro quo” things that go on with for-profit entities. For example, a contractor wants a government contract and is willing to pay a percentage to the bureaucrat who enables that contract. Don’t think for a moment that many if not most government employees have anyone’s interest at heart but their own. If they can get a job for their kids, or a job for themselves after government retirement, or a percentage of the hotel bills for illegal immigrants, in return for a bad contract, they are going to do just that.

I did a number of investigations into financial impropriety in the military and found that people would spend a hundred or thousand dollars of the governments money without blinking an eye if they could get a single dollar of it for themselves.

I want to reiterate that this is going on at ALL levels of government. It isn’t just USAID or the Dept. of Defense. It is local transit authorities (for example, the head of the Champaign-Urbana Illinois transit system, which has less than 500 employees and serves a rather small area, makes over $265K per year - look it up). It is local water boards and school boards. [As an aside I should point out that these government jobs, including the $260K per year one I just specifically mentioned, have massive pensions that those in the private sector can only dream of. A typical transit authority provides a pension of 2% per year of service - meaning that after 25 years, you get a 50% pension at 65. This is the equivalent of a 40% bump in pay, so the 265K is really the equivalent of $371K per year in a regular job]

This has been going on for a VERY long time. It was greatly accelerated by the Great Depression, when people decided the government should be responsible for taking care of them. It then went into hyperbolic mode during the 60’s when the government convinced us it could tackle all ills.

Our system is not corrupt because it is controlled by some nameless faceless cabal. It is corrupt because we have allowed the creation of this system by democratic means. There is no “secret organization” of controlling bureaucrats. Instead, the system is the result of the self-serving actions of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of bureaucrats, each trying to extract as much from the system as they individually can. And they are enabled by Politicians who are engaged in similar activity, using their power to enrich themselves by similar means.

This system cannot be reformed by a single politician. It would take a single-minded, honest, super majority of Congress years to dismantle this, since they are the ones that control government budgets and spending. And the odds of that happening are basically zero at this point.

Navigator, I will pray for your wife and you. Best wishes

As for reforming the government, I'm thinking that the crisis and the massive effect on the government (hopefully not completely destroying it) will lead to a new era in which the public good returns to ascension as it did after WW2. That seems to be the basic premise of 4th Turning philosophy and probably the only way out of the mess. It's also a part of the cause of the mess we're in. Putting self over the public good. Selfishness and the loss of connection with our collective similarities. Loss of faith in God. This seems to be the theme of the struggle, like a fever that's necessary before returning to health.

Navigator wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:40 amThe USA is not controlled by any one person, group, or some secret cabal (unlike, say, modern Russia, China, and Iran)

If a Left leaning cabal was controlling things, Trump would never have been elected in either 2016 or 2024.

If a Right leaning cabal was controlling things, Trump would not have lost in 2020 (nor would Obama have been elected in 2008 and 2012).

I'd say we have two cabals. As the people are dissatisfied with both, we keep switching between the two.

The difference? While both have the elites having too much influence on government, the right is full of it. Right now we have too many billionaires in high places. There is too much prejudice, trying to keep one culture dominant. There is disagreement on the amount of services provided, how much the people want and what taxes are required to provide them. The problem there is that one policy is being forced by the federal cabals rather than letting the various red and blue states set appropriate policies.

I'm still anticipating a major failure by the current administration, and a never again resolve to generate the traditional new birth of freedom. They seem to be mucking up the economy big time, though it is early to tell how much. There is far too much emphasis on revenge, too little on helping the people. We'll see.

We Are Closer To All-Out War In Europe, In Asia, And In The Middle East Than Most People Realize
February 17, 2025
https://themostimportantnews.com/archiv ... le-realize

While I have been happy with many of Trump's policies, one I am decidedly unhappy about how he is handling the Ukraine war.

Yes, it has been expensive. But the idea of backing Ukraine in their defense against Russian aggression is proper. Russia started the war by invading it, a country whose independence it had recognized. The Ukrainians have done much to reduce the ability of Russia to project power into the rest of Europe, and to weaken Putin politically, both of which are very good results.

The Europeans should have contributed much much more to Ukraine's defense. Especially the Germans, who have done almost nothing. They will rue their passive response.

Trump cozying up to Putin, an evil military dictator bent on military conquest (let alone being a pedophile), is NOT a good idea. Pulling the plug on Ukraine would ultimately backfire on the US, and would seriously undermine the security of Europe.

Yes, we should get much of our money back from Ukraine. AFTER peace is made with Russia. And that should only happen after the Russians withdraw and have to make concessions (since they were the Aggressor and started it). Until then, we should continue to support Ukraine with weapons and ammunition and other supplies. Cash should only be sent if it is traceable (as in wages to Soldiers or payments to widows/orphans).

Pulling the rug out from under Ukraine (as in the cessation of arms/munitions shipments) would probably allow Putin to actually win. This would then set him up in a pretty position for threatening and attacking Western Europe when the Chinese need him to.

Elon Musk:

"This idea that people can escape to New Zealand or some other place is false. If the central pillar of Western civilization, that is America, falls, the whole roof comes crashing down, and there is no escape," he stressed.

Trump hasn't been quite as bad as I feared on Ukraine, but I trust Putin's promises about as far as I can spit a brick. Worse, any success in Ukraine is going to convince China they can get away with their own aggression.

Quite frankly, the fact Europe can't get its own act together for defense is pathetic. Russia is far weaker than the Soviet Union was, and their military has only managed to take territory at great cost. In 2024, they managed to seize around 1,500 square miles, having to resort to T-62s and even T-55s in the process. NATO, even without the United States, is far stronger and more capable.

However, they've been content to let us do the heavy lifting, unwilling to provide aid unless we're there to hold their hand doing it. This doesn't describe everyone, as nations like Britain, Finland, Poland, and others have been willing to step up, but far too many in Europe aren't. It's been so long since they've had to stand on their own feet that they've forgotten how. Germany still hasn't managed any sort of military buildup beyond empty rhetoric. It would require minor cuts to their social programs, which they're just not willing to do. This is one area that Trump makes a strong point in, especially with Germany's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

At the same time, they're content to get on their soapbox and rant about how Americans are racist, stupid, ignorant, evil, etc. (Ignoring their own racial and immigration issues) 30 seconds on Quora and I can find numerous examples. This leads to substantial resentment on our part, wondering why the hell we should even bother, since China's far more important than Russia at this point. Why should we defend those who aren't willing to fight for themselves?

I support Ukraine, but I don't think they're going to win. Too many in Europe held on to the belief protests would remove Putin from power when they should have started rebuilding. They talk of an off-ramp; Putin isn't looking for one. He's on the path he wants to be on. I watched their jaws drop when the war began. Despite the buildup, despite numerous intelligence warnings, they refused to see it as anything other than rhetoric.

Russia's performance has been abysmal, but they're likely to succeed through sheer weight alone. Confirmed losses are around 3-2 in Ukraine's power, but Russia outnumbers them by around 4-1. They're in a wartime economy, with over 10% of GDP in their military (8% officially). Europe needs to follow suit, else see Russia turn on them next, but I don't think they're going to do it. The aid bill we passed last year bought them a crucial 6-12 months to gear up, but they've mostly squandered it.

In some ways, it reminds me of the opening of WWII in Europe. In attacking Poland, Hitler left his western border undefended. Most of his generals thought he'd lost his mind, knowing that if Britain and France launched an offensive, they had no hope of stopping it. However, Britain and France were unwilling to do so, which Hitler knew and his generals didn't. They paid a horrific price for their inaction, as did all of Europe. Like the United States, many in Europe see it as "not our problem, we've got worries at home to deal with."

But it's been 80 years and almost everyone with a personal memory of WWII is dead. Almost all analysts are speaking in terms of "Cold War II" because that's what they're old enough to remember. John's words about lessons being forgotten rings true.

FullMoon wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:48 pm Navigator, I will pray for your wife and you. Best wishes

What's going on? Are they okay?

DaKardii wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 8:35 pm What's going on? Are they okay?

My wife has terminal breast cancer. It recently moved aggressively into her liver. She is on chemo, but only as a way to forestall the inevitable. I think that she has about a year.

Trevor wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 3:50 pm Quite frankly, the fact Europe can't get its own act together for defense is pathetic. Russia is far weaker than the Soviet Union was, and their military has only managed to take territory at great cost. In 2024, they managed to seize around 1,500 square miles, having to resort to T-62s and even T-55s in the process. NATO, even without the United States, is far stronger and more capable.

However, they've been content to let us do the heavy lifting, unwilling to provide aid unless we're there to hold their hand doing it. This doesn't describe everyone, as nations like Britain, Finland, Poland, and others have been willing to step up, but far too many in Europe aren't. It's been so long since they've had to stand on their own feet that they've forgotten how. Germany still hasn't managed any sort of military buildup beyond empty rhetoric. It would require minor cuts to their social programs, which they're just not willing to do. This is one area that Trump makes a strong point in, especially with Germany's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

I think that Trump is going to hamstring Ukraine, if not pull out US support completely.

Unfortunately, I think it is quite personal. Trump had asked Ukraine to investigate Biden corruption while Trump was in his first term. They refused to do so. They also could have validated the Hunter Biden laptop, but, again, refused to do so. So Trump blames Ukraine for being complicit with the Biden's in his losing the 2020 election, which humiliated him.

On top of that, the Bidens were super-supporters of Ukraine during the war. I have no doubt this was because the Ukrainians had the goods on the Biden influence peddling racket that had been going on for years, and that they would have exposed the Bidens had major support not been forthcoming.

So Trump wants to get revenge on the Ukrainians. He is also used to be calling a Russian stooge at this point (thanks to the Democrats), so he has no problem with actually getting cozy with Putin, as the left is already convinced the two are in league.

All of this is a disaster for Ukraine, and they had better accept something quick that allows them some measure of independence from Russia. If not, the country up to the 1939 border between Poland and the USSR may be lost. (about a third of Ukraine, around Lvov, was actually Poland before WW2).

As you mentioned, and as I have commented on before, the European's ability to destroy their own collective security is mind boggling. Really on the Poles and Scandinavian countries are getting ready to defend themselves from a Russia coming off of the Ukraine debacle. Some countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Austria) even seem pro-Russian. The Germans have their heads completely up their butts, the French are in typical political disarray, while the English are just talk (their once elite military is now so weak it can't field a single brigade for more than a week of combat).

And, with reason, Trump is mad at Europe for not paying their share of their security. We have been carrying the vast majority of the load for decades.

The sad thing is that if (actually when) Europe caves and gets occupied by the bad guys during WW3, who do you think has to go back in their and save them? It will have to be us. Again.