I am sure we could find counterexamples here.
I made an appointment for mid-afternoon to register my motorcycle. I was in and out in 15 minutes.
When I had gone in 2 years ago to get my drivers license, I didn't know about making appointments. I spent 5 hours at the DMV that day.
This convenience or a single roadside service call can make the annual fee worthwhile (but check first if they can/will tow/service a motorcycle!)
in a larger area, it's a 'pick a number' and wait drudgery.
ymmv
You can also make mistakes too. However, if they are going to be easy with it, many people are also going to make "mistakes".
I say this not to say that you're wrong by any means, just to offer another anecdote.
In my state, actual government offices are generally less seedy looking, better staffed, and friendlier than the universally-privately-run DMV offices are.
Deputy Registrars are independent contractors and are selected on a competitive basis as described in the Ohio Administrative Code and RFP. Deputy Registrars receive service fees of $3.50 for each vehicle, driver license and ID card transaction; and $0.90 for each vision screening performed. All fees are established in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. Contracts are generally for two or three years per Section 4503.03 of the Ohio Revised Code.
All that said, the private contractors do get the job done, but they do it in a way that's efficient with employee time, not in a way that's efficient with customer time.
DMV in Connecticut is horrific. One of the worse "customer service" experience.
Which says to me, all of the reflexive "DMV sucks" comments are missing the real question - why does it suck in some states and not others?
It also depends greatly on which office you go to. Trenton is, unsurprisingly, horrible.
I'm aware this isn't the case in all states, but that says more about the priorities and competence of the people running those governments than it does anything else. Unfortunately a lot of people seem resigned to the idea that things are going to be run poorly and don't even bother punishing the politicians who are shirking their responsibility of administration and blaming their own failures on some abstract idea that government is always inefficient.
Good government service.
Service wise they do a pretty good job. They've spent the past decade or so beefing up their online and automated services. In most cases you don't even need to go to an actual office if you're dealing with a license or plate renewal.
I think you probably get the point.
Rather than leaving any hiring decision to anyone who knows the issue at hand, hiring is done based on a process which is optimized to be legally unimpeachable. When government succeeds, nobody gets credit, but when they get sued, its cover your ass time. This is why ALL government processes, including hiring, are first and foremost about CYA.
First the RFP has to be written, which itself is a very political process and may have been initiated by a contractor/sales-person convincing someone they need the software or process in question. They'll often help write the RFP if you let them. These RFPs are often signed off on by non-technical people who are not qualified to really understand the technical details.
Then the state has to get multiple bids. Sometimes the RFP is written so specifically that many options are excluded. For example, I've seen an RFP that required the state pay for the software. The way it was worded excluded an OSS contracting company from providing support for a Linux solution. A more public example is the LA School District looking for computers for their students. They are required to support both a keyboard and touch, which is prime market for Windows Surface devices. It could theoretically go to something like an iPad, but it makes it very hard for laptop makers to compete.
Finally the state is required to take the lowest bid that meets the requirements of the RFP. To reject a bid the state has to show that it does not meet the requirements. They can't simply take something that is better value, they have to take the cheapest solution that meets the minimum requirements.
If the government was able to fund it's IT operations at market rates, or pay outside the GS we'd all be much better off. I don't know about the federal level but my state relies on outside contractors to make web applcations, who mostly do a half-assed job and disappear when maintenance becomes a problem.
Whether those benefits are worth a decreased salary depends on the individual.
If you're young and job hopping I wouldn't look at a gov't job just yet. 35 with a family of 4? I would seriously consider it.
I can't speak to market rates but the Federal government does indeed have alternate pay schedules that they can use (in theory) for IT expertise. E.g. scientists and researches have their own specific pay grades for their work, "hourly" workers have FWS pay instead of GS, etc.
You're right that the government workers are generally underpaid in my experience though. I struggle with the same thing here in DC, except that I'm trying to fill GS-5 positions to do work which involves knowing lots of policies, manual interpretation of individualized orders, and having to do all of that in a "customer service" environment.
Within 10 years you'll get a capped GS-14 spot (105k-136k) and by 15 years, you'll have 5 weeks vacation, 13 holidays, alternative work schedule, 13 days of forever accruing sick time (think family medical leave for having kids). Oh, and you can't be fired unless you do something really stupid -- so clock in and out 9-5.
Oh and you get COLA increases even if you don't get step or grade raises.
I only lasted a year, but I have friends that are still there. The fact that you can't get fired also applies to the colleagues you'll be working with...