Money is the best tool we have to measure that. Sure it has pathological cases, but overall it's the least bad version to assign value. In the government case it's much worse at this since it's not voluntary and measuring aggregate government services vs. tax. The consumption/price is completely unrelated, etc.
>I know of several people that are 'employed' but net negatives and society is way better off with that arrangement than having them on the streets.
If we are heading towards an economy with labour shortage (demographics collapse), taking up people from the economy and keeping them employed with a useless skillset is going to be a double negative.
Money is a terrible tool to measure the value of government services for society.
Nobody gets rich delivering mail to remote locations, or providing food assistance, or managing forests, or letting people borrow books for free, but doing those things provides an invaluable service. There are many things we want from government that shouldn't make money. That doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile or that they are inefficient. An efficient government isn't one that spends less money, it's one that does the best job providing services for the people.
> If we are heading towards an economy with labour shortage
We aren't. Especially not with the nation's largest employer hemorrhaging workers. Companies are doing everything in their power to replace workers with AI and machines as quickly as they can. There is an endless supply of immigrants who'd love nothing more than to live and work in the US.
Government workers are not employed with "useless skillsets" either. Every single job in the government will involve skills that can be applied elsewhere.
How you measure matters. Looking at only the individual misses the value of the organization they are with. If businesses did this then only sales would be employed since they are the only ones actually bringing in money right? Everyone else is a net negative. With government you would have to step back from even the organization level view. The National Parks Service doesn't make money right? That whole thing can be cut because they are a net negative right? If you are going to use money as a value signal, which I am arguing is a very flawed signal at the government level, then at least go to something like median income and not the individual or organization level. It is terribly flawed to say 'high median income - good country' but at least it is a money signal that, maybe, captures a few features about the utility of government. I'd argue strongly against this signal but at least then you could look at various actions as a whole and say 'overall median income is up/down because of this move' and then things like employing someone that isn't great at their job just to keep them off the street becomes an obvious win because median income is higher because of that.
It does, such as the United States in 2025. We have left the realm of theory, just open your favorite stock market app or read any economic analysis being put forth by literally anybody except the Trump administration. The current policies are disastrous.
Money is the best tool we have to measure that. Sure it has pathological cases, but overall it's the least bad version to assign value. In the government case it's much worse at this since it's not voluntary and measuring aggregate government services vs. tax. The consumption/price is completely unrelated, etc.
>I know of several people that are 'employed' but net negatives and society is way better off with that arrangement than having them on the streets.
If we are heading towards an economy with labour shortage (demographics collapse), taking up people from the economy and keeping them employed with a useless skillset is going to be a double negative.