In the US, the only time the average person interacts with the government (that they notice, so not like roads an air traffic control) is filing taxes and going to the DMV which are both terrible experiences in the US. This shapes everyone's view of what the government is capable of.

I think you are oversimplifying things. People interact with government services when using water at home. They interact with government services through the local k-12 school system; through the Post Office; and they know roads are largely funded with taxes. People interact with government far more than as you describe and attributing a general attitude about government to the two things you mentioned does not seem reasonable to me. Do you have good reasons for the belief you have other than a general perception? It’s ok if not and there’s nothing wrong with holding a pet theory without studies to back it up.

> People interact with government far more than as you describe and attributing a general attitude about government to the two things you mentioned does not seem reasonable to me.

Welcome to US politics.

Not with a government office or employee that is not part of utilities though.

The know the roads are but because it is a physical infrastructure they don't pay attention.

Look at the Post Office issues recently, from your comment.

If this were on almost any other thread, especially one focusing on the particular topic, the K-12 system would be shit on too along with the roads and post office. The only one of those that arguably reliably beats private services with similar level of funding would be water utilities, and that's partially because water rights in the Western US are a legal quagmire.

You missed the point that was made. The point wasn’t that government is efficient or good but that the experiences with the IRS and DMV don’t account for the sentiment toward government services in the country. The person I responded made a claim that interactions with these two services explain the attitudes people have toward government. I think that is an overly simplistic explanation.

I think you're probably correct. I've had better experience with the IRS and DMV than I have had with most the rest of the government.

I've used non-terrible DMV in two states. The key is to not underfund them so that offices are sporadically available and serving an excessively large population.

What states?

When I went to the CA DMV to get my real id, the person helping me was very pleasant and nice. I told her this was in remarkable contrast to my usual DMV experience, and she told me “we’re the new generation.”

I've never had a problem with the Michigan Secretary of State (which handles DMV stuff here).

There's probably some locations that are chronically busy, but I've had the luck to not use them.

Also, some of these improvements would take an initial investment that would pay off over time (and possibly lower running costs over time) but that doesn't mesh well with the "lower my taxes/starve the beast" crowd.

The problem is rarely lack of funding but rather a complete lack of work ethic.

I’ve known people that have worked at the DMV on a temporary basis and they would get in trouble every time they got work done because they made regular people look bad.

The idea is is that if you can not fire a person, department, agency or whatever but you’re forced to use them than the end result will often be bad.

Basically the exact same reasons that most people hate HOAs.

I’ve worked in government for over 20 years and have never encountered anyone getting mad because someone worked too hard. I’ve heard people say what you are saying but have never had it backed up with stronger evidence than you have provided. It’s simply not believable and comes across as an urban legend to me.

Deliberately starving public services so that they get shitty enough to consider eliminating or privatizing them has been going on since at least the Reagan years. Probably longer, but that’s when one of his advisors said the infamous line about wanting a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub”.

See:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

The federal beast is being starved so badly that it's consuming 4x the fraction of non-wartime GDP that it was 100 years ago (oh yes, except the blip during participation in a WORLD WAR). It's the kind of starvation only obese America can understand.

https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/outlays-GDP....

From what I understand the UK is pursuing a similar approach from Thatcher era onwards, they only seem to be slow with it.

Reagan did more than starve public services. There was an entire cultural moment during that presidency that made working in government low status. It's unsurprising that smart, competent people did not venture into government service, and basic things like "renew my ID/passport" are Kafkaesque endeavors as a result.

It’s become popular to blame things on Raegan, but it’s been 40 years. Come on. My passport renewal this decade was simple. And if you have an emergency it’s not Kafkaesque. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32609897

>>A not insignificant portion of our population buys into the myth that government is fundamentally incapable of providing timely and cost-effective services like this.

but in this case, they are not 'providing timely and cost-effective services', so is it really a myth?

I assume the myth being that will never be able to provide 'timely and cost-effective services', not that they currently aren't.

If the belief is that there is no way that the government could ever provide good services, then the only solution seems to be to get rid of them and have someone else provide good services. The challenge I see with this solution is that private service providers have a very very strong incentive to get people to believe that this is the only solution: it's hard to compete with an effective monopoly.

If the belief is that they could provide good services, then we might see that maybe they don't provide good services for a number of reasons and try to improve them as well.

It could also be that one party WANTS to provide good services while the other party is bought by the private industry and thus never wants government services to be good.

EXAMPLE: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/biden-cannot-fir...

I agree but maybe could have said it differently:

> The challenge I see with this solution is that private service providers have a very very strong incentive to get people to believe that this is the only solution: it's hard to compete with an effective monopoly.

The myth is that governments are "fundamentally incapable." That they're not in this particular case doesn't speak to the larger issue.

One political party has been devoted to handicapping government functions at every possible point for at least 40 years, and still some parts of the government continue to function well, so well that people don't even notice or think about them.

People notice the IRS--underfunded on purpose, and with intense lobbying to ensure it is illegal to provide a higher quality of service--and the DMV--underfunded in most states--but not anything else that works cost-effectively, like public schools or the USPS.

When you have evidence that some governments are timely and cost-effective, then it's a myth that governments are fundamentally incapable.

How is it a myth? Yes I was able to get my passport in a day, in person, after paying a bunch of money But most things take forever. Can it be done in a timely manner? Perhaps, but the government hasn't shown much evidence that it is capable

They know the truth. It can be competent if the citizenry good it accountable to being competent. The myth is that the disinterested citizen isn't responsible, and it's socially acceptable to shift the blame away from themselves.