Hacker News Reader

Comment by xnx | Hacker News Reader

> And if you're an ambitious, hard-nosed type that can really turn the screws on vendors,

Absolutely not. Cost savings is career suicide in the public sector. The goal is to spend all budget and then beg for more. Regardless of ridership, the ironclad rule is "budget must go up".

View on HN

It funny because having worked both in private industry and public (transit!) service, my experience is the exact opposite. In private anytime my department were coming in under budget on anything, there was always the end of the year pressure to spend it on something lest accounting take it away. Meanwhile in the public sector my team went to great lengths to get rid of vendor services that weren't providing value.

Good example. That budget behavior is common. Fortunately, if that has true negative effects, the market corrects by putting one company out of business.

Let me know when the market gets around to that. At this time it's ignored all the ones I've worked for.

Is it "ignoring" it, or is it priced in to the company's valuation?

I mean could be, maybe their stock would be a touch higher, but it doesn't stop them from being some of the biggest players in their markets. A far cry from being "put out of business" as the commenter I replied to promised.

In my fantasy world where I run things as a benevolent dictator, people would get bonuses for finishing the year under budget while still achieving all their objectives. I suppose that would just incent them to inflate the budgets to begin with though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com