Local governments, too.

In my neck of the woods, there are departments that have to make do with whole teams of low-skill employees because, while a more skilled person could do the work of at least four lower-skill workers, they would also require two lower-skill workers' worth of salary, and you just can't be paying any one person that much money because that would be Government Waste.

In America, it's probably more accurate to blame government labor unions for the preference of more lower skilled workers to fewer higher skilled workers

Unions tend to prefer fewer workers to more workers for obvious bargaining-position reasons. What they don't like is losing existing jobs.

They also have more bargaining power when they represent skilled workers compared to unskilled ones.

How often do labor unions campaign to impose salary caps on their own members? The very idea seems out of character.

Unions like to set salaries, because there are more mediocre performers who stand to gain compared to free-market wages than top performers who stand to lose. They don't exactly want a cap, but they greatly desire a floor, and accept it also serving as a cap as an acceptable tradeoff.

Whenever that first part isn't true for a union, then the market pressure is for the top performers to leave the union for free-market wages, until it is.

It was my impression, not supported by much, that unions do like to set a salary for a role rather than letting that be up to the company or negotiated between the company and the individual employee. (Unions featuring superstars, like the Screen Actors Guild, are an obvious exception.)

I think it's an interesting question how a government workers' union would be likely to feel about a hypothetical restructuring that lost 75% of existing jobs while doubling or tripling wages. I tend to suspect that if the union already existed and represented those low-skilled jobs, it would be adamantly against the restructuring.

Doubling wages while not cutting jobs would obviously be fine with the union, but what would the point of that be?

Rarely, but if the union official gets to chose between more people paying dues and fewer people paying dues, which are they going to pick?

We know that Unions don't oppose salary caps, but they oppose differentials in compensation based on job performance. Seems like that amounts to the same thing? Unless you're suggesting we just pay government workers more and see if we get any marginal productivity out of them.

I can follow your hypothetical right up to the point where the union official commits career suicide by trying to piss off every member single member of the union in a single stroke, and no further.

> so they can't attract enough good talent.

...and they have no real way to evaluate the talent they DO attract, so they're doubly-screwed.

And, with the military, it doesn't even have a cause people believe in.

Your conjecture is not factual, but rather represents beliefs that are not held by an overwhelming majority in the United States.

According to 538, the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan are the most unpopular wars in US history, except for Vietnam which is #1.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-th...

Firstly, that chat doesn't measure popularity, it measures "how justified were they".

Also, I think that a honest reading of that chart would be that there is the Vietnam War (with very low justification), WW2 (with high justification) and then two subgroups: WW1 & Civil War with moderate justification, and Korea, Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan with lower levels, but still significant levels of justification.

Popularity of conflicts du jour and opinion of the military as a valuable enterprise in general are different.

For instance, I joined and served in the military during the second Iraq war despite disapproving of the invasion.

This holds especially for career civil servants, as political winds shift and one may not always agree with the policies of the current government.

One does not serve because the nation is perfect, one serves to strengthen the nation and to have the opportunity to make it better for future generations.

> For instance, I joined and served in the military during the second Iraq war despite disapproving of the invasion.

And after your experiences would you recommend the same path to your children if they were thinking of doing the same?

I would, to the best extent possible, educate my children as to what military service actually entailed, and then I would let them make the decision based on their values and life goals.

According to 538 Hillary was going to win in a landslide too

False, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gav...

They were wrong by less, but still wrong.

Are you talking about the idea of a military as a whole, or the wars that were involved in right now?

I'm just suggesting that when the military is actively engaged in operations that many people dislike, that has an impact on the quantity and caliber of people that are interested in being part of it.