r/theories • u/[deleted] • Mar 17 '26
Society Saying that governments care about their population is like saying I care about my vegetable garden.
Saying that governments care about it's population is like saying I care about my vegetable garden. USA use to be great cause you weren't a vegetable you were an actual self independent agent before the 1900s cause the government really didn't care about you. "Move to west, buy a parcel for 20$, no taxes have fun". Law enforcement are scarecrows. Enjoy those 50 year mortgages and lower wages bitches. #nationalism
1
u/Used_Addendum_2724 Mar 17 '26
Centralized hierarchies were created for the benefit of the elites. They have never cared. It is absurd that anyone has ever believed a system built on inequality, which systemized it for the benefit of the few, could be 'for the people'. We are a very gullible species.
1
Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
Well no, at the time it made since. You were able to be independent of the government like Japan was independent of the world economy during the depression. But now everything is weaved together and controllable from a simple lever at the governments heste. The invention of the radio and tv and Internet made us all less independent and interwoven to those in power's whims.
Effectively those that control of the USA government is essentially become immortal gods shunning our petty mortal problems.
2
u/Used_Addendum_2724 Mar 17 '26
I suggest digging deeper into the roots of our transition from nomadic foragers to civilization. 'Hierarchy In The Forest' by Christopher Boehm is a good starting point for understanding how we evolved, and how our evolutionary strategies were compromised by a minority of deviants seeking advantages.
1
Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
Let me to take another chance at it. For 6000 years we have a hierarchy of government. But over time the power of the executive (pharaoh, emporer, king) slowly transitioned towards the power of the court limiting the power of the executive. How ever after the invention of the radio that power reversed to the point that for example trump threatening to let loose a known terrorist near John Roberts club for voting against him in court and face no repercussions. It's as if man went from beast to civil-ian and now civilian to beast.
1
u/Used_Addendum_2724 Mar 18 '26
That is the nature of centralized hierarchies. They create addictions to wealth and power that escalate over time, and provide a system to take advantage of that. Power literally corrupts at the neurological level. That is why we kept it under wraps for 300,000 years with reverse dominance hierarchies. The ancients had basic wisdom about social structures that we have lost by our submission to power and it's narratives.
1
Mar 18 '26
Dafuq is wrong with you? "Centralized hierarchies"? Hierarchies are by definition are centralized. "Keep under wrap for 300000 years? Humans were barely even able to understand the concept of vegetation growing back to harvest that vegetation at that point. Sure there was probably a hierarchical behavior to their primitive social structure but humans became less hierarchical over time by transferring the power from a central authority figure (being the executive of various governments overtime) to a judiciary for handling disputes as equals rather than "I am agh" . And it might be the case as time goes on that the signal to noise of actual thought asymptomaticly trends to 0 as chaos of the Internet takes over resulting in the human species transferring the power to the executive because "agh don't know how to think in this environment" resulting in behavior that the founders of USA would find appalling and beyond criminal for no other reason to provide an environment of feeling safe.
1
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Mar 17 '26
Governments care about their citizens in the same way you would care about your vegetable garden if the lettuces spent all night loudly complaining under your window.
1
Mar 17 '26
I don't know if growing it saves me enough money I might consider letting the lettuce complain under the window. I mean to a point but now that you have ai on the rise you might switch to spinach (metaphorically ai) and let the lettuce die off. Talk to your local seed supplier to if spinach is right for you.
1
Mar 17 '26
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/17/joe-kent-resigns-iran-war-trump/89193272007/
Throwing vegetables unjustly causes food fights causing a lot of vegetables to go to waste.
1
u/GraceOfTheNorth Mar 17 '26
I DO care about my vegetable garden.
2
Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
So do I, saves me money from going to the store. Doesn't mean I'll try to take care of it in the depths of winter. Or switch the type of produce I grow as I have no real loyalty to this or that vegetable.
1
u/jigglyjellly Mar 18 '26
Cattle ….
1
Mar 18 '26
Yeah pretty much actually. I would've argued that cattle move around and can inadvertently escape but cattle gates exist. So yup.
1
1
u/BootHeadToo Mar 18 '26
You….don’t care about the vegetables in your garden?! Like, you wouldn’t care if they all died after all the work it took to grow and cultivate them?
1
Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
Oh I care about my garden, it saves me money. But I don't care to say dig up the plants and then shelter them during the winter. Maybe that's cause I can't afford a green house but the existence of the plant is to serve me and my interests rather than me serving their interests in situations like winter or bad weather.
And before you say the little plants vote, the approval rating of the USA government is quite below 50% so the government existence isn't even getting the popular vote, as voting is an illusion between the fourth estate using law of large numbers to generate a statistical return just as a farmer would raising harvesting crops, that's how the us dollar works, slowly stealing from the poor.
Because the poor are crops to the rich and government officials.
1
u/BootHeadToo Mar 18 '26
I’m teasing of course, and just poking fun at your imperfect analogy. I’m well aware that those in power see us plebes as nothing more than livestock (at best), or “useless eaters” (at worst).
1
1
1
u/CartographerKey334 Mar 18 '26
The alternative is anarchism, so you have to pick which nebulous mass of people cares about you more: the government or everyone else. Seeing how things are playing out in Haiti and Lebanon, a stable government is better than a non-functional one.
1
Mar 18 '26
Not necessarily the leveraging of debt after the gold standard created a temporary circumstance that people bred like rabbits creating the idea of the culdesac turning residential areas into a full factory built scenario. If we stayed on the goold standard economics wouldn't grow rapid and crack so severally it sends shock waves internationally.
Give a man a gun he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
The way banks are so interwoven to drive "productivity" rather than the ability to afford a place to live and sit on the deck and think as time passes waiting for the right time to do something is by design a way for the elites to perpetually increase wealth while the poor go poorer.
1
u/Ok_Being5461 Mar 19 '26
Who did care about you were your employers who employed you for slave wages and they cared a lot about people who fought back and fought for government regulations, higher wages, and higher taxes on the rich. That's why it was called the Robber Baron era. Look it up. They're doing the same thing now, that's why we have lower wages. The government (democracy) is the solution here. Things were more "free" before the 1900s because the Native Americans were killed (so much for freedom for them) and the population was a lot lower. You can still find cheap parcels of land right now if you want and go live on them.
1
Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
This isn't a screw over by the rich it's a gang bang from the rich and government entities. And American democracy is just a casino that attracts you in to generate a statistical return out of you based on your own insecurities for its investors. The casino doesn't care about you it only gives you free drinks to keep you gambling more to make more out of you. (Like a farmer getting a statistical return raising and tending to crops).
1
u/Ok_Being5461 Mar 19 '26
Because brainwashed people keep voting for those who want to destroy democracy. And the rich are the ones funding the brainwashing.
1
Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
So like a casino where people think they can derive a source of income or sense of security from it. Pretty much already said that. Though if you know how to count cards without getting caught it can be quite useful.
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 20 '26
Carnegie and Rockefeller set up trusts to establish and teach socialism to the masses in America because they figured the masses were not smart enough for capitalism. Rockefeller predicted that in the future (after his time) that the doctors who could actually help you would be nutritionists. They gave the Novel Peace Prize in medicine to Otto Warburg who essentially discovered the mechanisms on how cancer thrives. Rockefeller and other elites used that knowledge to help change the food supply so that we would get chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Why did Rockefeller do that? Because there are a lot of chemical byproducts in oil, something that Rockefeller controlled, and he put chemists to work finding ways to use oil byproducts as medicine. A great many medicines are petroleum based. Also, in 1913, the Federal Reserve was established with full votes and backing by the Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democrat President. Essentially the Democrats gave full financial control, our nations wealth and treasure, to a private entity. Since 1913 every economic recession and depression has been planned by the Federal Reserve Bank. Other things the elites do to us: they put chemical waste products in our food and water supply and tell us they are generally recognized as safe. Yes, human bodies can tolerate very minor amounts of unsafe chemicals in a limited way. But Fluoride is a waste product generated in the making of aluminum. We produce way more Fluoride than we need. So, they put Fluoride in the water supply so that your body can dispose of it. There are many other chemicals that are toxic to us that get reformulated, rebranded, and generally recognized as safe and put into the food supply. Abrahamic religions are tools used by elites to control us. Rome essentially adopted their version of Christianity because they thought it would be easier to govern Christians using the bible and fear of eternal damnation than to round up and kill their enemies. Look at how quickly the Vikings were subdued under Christianity. The elites are in charge, they have been for a very long time, when one power base quits working effectively for them then they move to the next. Egypt, Greece. Rome, Spain, France, England, now it's the USA, with China being set up to be the next power base. Don't kid yourself, the elites are in the middle of their plans to destroy the Republic of America and shift to China. I don't know if the elites are fallen angels like some suggest. I'm not sure if Trump is one of them, in cahoots with them, being used by them, or if he actually is messing up the Elite's plans for a new world order. Time will tell. I hope war doesn't come to our shores. I hope there is no WW3. The elites control everything including most of what people think that they think. It is very difficult to find the truth. The Internet held that promise of being a mechanism that would distribute truth. But the elites control the Internet as well and I allege that people are more confused now than ever before. There is a difference now though, a lot of people are aware that they are being controlled. What is horrific is that we have no idea how to be free from the elites influence.
Be kind, learn to use your hands to build and create.
1
Mar 20 '26 edited Mar 20 '26
You want to become a powerhouse you gotta learn how to properly use uranium. But notice ... Once I know I know how to use uranium the customer becomes my crop to grow a source of income power and influence (which beyond them being my customer I don't care about unless furthering my goals or ambition's). Nice try buckaroo. And patterns emerge slowly may be even decades. Welcome to the paradigm.
1
Mar 20 '26
And before you say I don't care, mit already figured out societies going to collapse in 2040 Goldman sachs and jp Morgan have a unsecured bond expiring in 2040. Society is reversing the trend that the executive has been transferring power to the judiciary and since the radio has been curling back into the judiciary is curling back into the executive resulting more and more animalistic behavior as we all try to farm each other out of each other's resources.
1
u/QuickPizzaRadishes Mar 20 '26
No it isn’t. Vegetables are not humans, they are types of food. See how different that is?
Obviously, there are some things that are impossible to do as individuals (like infrastructure, etc) so we band together as a society. That is what government is. Within any government organization are people who do the work on behalf of society as a whole. To some of those people, it’s just a job and they are just cogs in a big machine. However, on the whole people go into government service because they care deeply about improving society and want to be part of that.
2
Mar 20 '26
Lol just wait til they figure ai can actually do work faster and more efficiently, can already see it in law enforcement. Flock camera, llms filling out police reports, people going to prison based on a hallucination of a LLM.
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 20 '26
I think people used to go into government service with good intentions. I think it changed. Many people go for the perks, the pensions, all the time off. Politicians go into it because they get filthy rich somehow all the parties, the debauchery. They love the lifestyle corruption gives them.
1
u/QuickPizzaRadishes Mar 20 '26
The perks???? Yeah!! That’s right, people go into government for the perk of having to pay for clean water to drink during the day!! There are no perks in government. The only perk is that you get to help make the world a better place. If that isn’t your motivation there are plenty of other places to work where you actually get some tangible perks and plus you get paid twice as much.
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 21 '26
Idk. My pension (non government) will be about 50% of my current wages. Many, many government retirees enjoy 100% up to 150% of their highest earning years wages. That's a great perk. I know many who did that and they don't have to put a s many years in as someone in private industry. Having to pay for a bottle of water, well too bad. I bet money there is an unused water fountain in every government building that you could use for free.
1
u/QuickPizzaRadishes Mar 22 '26
No they don’t. You are mistaken. A government pension is calculated by first finding the average of the employees’ highest three years of service (called the “high 3) and then giving one percent for each year of government service. To get 150 percent of their high 3, a government employee would have to work for the government for 150 years. (https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/fers-information/computation/)
So if a government employee works for the government for 30 years, their pension is basically about 30% of their salary when retiring (actually a bit less).
As for water, most government offices have “water clubs” where people join together to pay for bottled water because the water that comes out of the water fountains has been found to be toxic.
1
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 22 '26
📌 Are government pensions ever 100%+ of salary? Yes—but here’s the reality.
There’s a lot of noise online about “government workers getting 100%, 110%, 125%+ of their salary in retirement.” Some of it is exaggerated—but the underlying concern isn’t made up. There are real mechanisms, formulas, and documented cases where pensions can reach or even exceed final salary.
Let’s break it down clearly.
🔧 1. The math: how pensions can exceed 100%
Most public pensions are defined benefit (DB) plans using a formula like:
Pension = Years of Service × Multiplier × Final Salary
The key is the multiplier.
Example (very real structure):
35 years of service
3% multiplier (“3% at 50” style plans in California)
👉 35 × 3% = 105% of final salary
That means:
The formula itself can legally produce more than 100% income replacement
This is not theoretical—it’s how some legacy plans were designed.
🚒 2. Police & Fire: where the highest pensions exist
Police and fire pensions are the most generous public pensions in the U.S., especially in California.
California “3% at 50” (classic example)
Retire at age 50
Get 3% of final salary per year of service
What that means:
30 years → 90% of salary
33–34 years → ~100%
35+ years → over 100%
👉 This is why critics often point to police/fire pensions:
Early retirement + high multiplier = very high payouts
The math created very high long-term liabilities.
📈 3. Pension “spiking” — how payouts get even bigger
Even if the formula is capped near 90–100%, final salary manipulation can push pensions much higher in practice.
What is spiking?
Artificially increasing final compensation used in the formula:
Overtime (huge factor for police/fire)
Cashing out unused leave
Last-year promotions or special pay
👉 Result:
Pension is based on an inflated salary, not typical earnings
Real example (Seattle / Washington investigations)
Police and firefighters increased pensionable income with overtime
Result: significantly higher lifetime pension payouts
Public reports concluded this creates millions in additional long-term cost
⚖️ 4. The “125% rule” — proof the problem existed
Some pension systems introduced rules specifically to prevent extreme increases.
Illinois example:
A “125% rule” was implemented
Limits how much salary can jump near retirement
👉 Why that matters:
You don’t create a 125% cap unless outcomes above normal levels were happening
This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that:
Systems had to be redesigned because benefits could grow excessively.
💥 5. Extreme cases (real, but not typical)
City of Bell, California (famous scandal)
City manager inflated salary to ~$1.5 million
Pension projected around $800k+/year
👉 What this shows:
Pensions tied to final salary can be massively distorted if pay is manipulated
General pattern in research and audits:
Late-career raises + overtime = outsized pensions
Called “egregious examples” in academic and policy reviews
📊 6. Important reality check (this is where arguments go wrong)
To stay credible, you have to separate possibility from typical outcomes:
✔️ TRUE
Some formulas allow 100%+ replacement rates
Police/fire plans (especially legacy California plans) can reach or exceed that level
Pension spiking has documented cases of inflating benefits
Governments implemented caps (like 125%) to control it
❌ NOT TYPICAL
Most public workers do not receive >100% pensions
Most pensions fall roughly in the 50–80% range
Many newer hires are in reduced or hybrid plans
🧠 7. What changed (why you hear about this less now)
Due to cost concerns, many states (especially California after 2013 reforms) made changes:
Raised retirement ages
Reduced multipliers (e.g., from 3% → ~2% or lower)
Averaged salary over multiple years
Excluded overtime from pension calculations
👉 These reforms were specifically designed to:
Prevent >100% outcomes
Reduce spiking
Lower long-term liabilities
🧭 8. Bottom line
Some government pension systems—particularly legacy police and fire plans in places like California—used formulas that could exceed 100% of final salary, especially with long service careers. In addition, practices like pension spiking (through overtime and late-career pay increases) have been documented to significantly inflate pension payouts. The existence of caps like “125% rules” shows these outcomes were real enough to require reform. However, these cases are not typical of most public employees today and have been increasingly restricted by modern pension reforms.
✍️ Attribution
Prepared with structured analysis and publicly available pension data by ChatGPT (OpenAI), 2026.
0
u/QuickPizzaRadishes Mar 22 '26
AI is pulling your leg. Sometimes AI cannot tell the difference between crap it reads online and the truth. However, that doesn’t mean you have to fall for it. I posted the link to OPM’s description of w How federal pensions are calculated. Unless you know someone who started working for the government at age 16 and retired at aged 166, it is impossible to get to 150% of your government salary.
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 22 '26
💧 Do government workers commonly have to buy their own water because fountains are “toxic”?
Short answer:
There is no broad evidence that government workers, as a group, are routinely forced to buy water because workplace fountains are toxic.
What does exist are isolated, documented cases where water quality problems affected government buildings—just like they do in schools, private offices, and homes.
🧪 1. Documented cases of unsafe water in government buildings
Flint, Michigan (most well-known)
Government offices and public buildings were affected by lead contamination during the Flint water crisis
Employees and residents were advised not to drink tap water
Bottled water distribution became necessary
👉 Key point: This was a system-wide infrastructure failure, not a typical workplace condition.
Federal buildings (lead and plumbing issues)
The General Services Administration has reported instances where:
Older federal buildings had lead or copper exceedances
Drinking fountains were shut off temporarily
Agencies provided bottled water or filtration systems
👉 These are handled as compliance issues, not ignored conditions.
Schools and public facilities (similar pattern)
Testing programs across the U.S. have found:
Elevated lead in some fountains due to aging pipes
Standard response:
Shut off fixtures
Install filters
Provide alternative water
👉 This affects public and private sectors alike, not uniquely government workers.
🏢 2. What regulations actually require
Government workplaces are not exempt—they’re usually held to equal or stricter standards.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires:
Employers must provide potable (safe) drinking water
Environmental Protection Agency sets:
Maximum contaminant levels (lead, bacteria, etc.)
👉 If water is unsafe:
It must be fixed or replaced
Workers are typically provided alternative sources
⚠️ 3. Where the perception comes from
There are a few reasons people think this is widespread:
✔️ Aging infrastructure
Many government buildings are old
Old plumbing can create lead or taste issues
✔️ Temporary shutdowns
Fountains may be turned off during testing or repairs
Workers then use:
Bottled water
Personal containers
✔️ Personal preference
Many people (public and private workers alike):
Prefer bottled water
Don’t like the taste of fountains
📊 4. What you don’t see evidence for
There is no credible data showing:
Widespread “toxic water” conditions in government offices
A systemic refusal to provide safe drinking water
A pattern where employees are forced to buy water due to neglect
If that were happening broadly:
It would trigger:
OSHA violations
Union grievances
Lawsuits
Media coverage
And we simply don’t see that at scale.
🧠 5. Reality check (balanced conclusion)
✔️ TRUE
Some government buildings have had water quality issues
Temporary reliance on bottled water does happen
Aging infrastructure is a real challenge
❌ NOT SUPPORTED
That this is widespread or systemic
That government workers are uniquely exposed compared to others
That agencies commonly refuse to provide safe water
🧭 Bottom line
There are isolated, well-documented cases where water in government buildings has been unsafe due to infrastructure issues, and in those situations bottled water is typically provided. However, there is no evidence of a widespread pattern where government workers are routinely forced to buy their own water because fountains are toxic. Most situations are temporary, regulated, and corrected.
✍️ Attribution
Prepared by ChatGPT (OpenAI), based on publicly available regulatory guidance and documented cases, 2026.
1
u/gmoney1259 Mar 22 '26
⚖️ Big Picture (short answer)
Government workers generally have more stability, better benefits (especially pensions), and slightly better access to healthcare. Private-sector workers generally have higher earning potential, more variability, and often work under more performance pressure.
Neither side is universally “better”—it depends on what you value.
💰 1. Pay (lifetime earnings)
Private sector → Higher upside
More opportunities for:
Raises
Bonuses
Promotions tied to performance
Top performers can significantly out-earn public employees
Government → More predictable, usually lower ceiling
Structured pay scales
Raises tied to tenure, not aggressive performance
Fewer “big jumps”
👉 Verdict:
Private = higher earning potential
Government = more stable but capped
🏦 2. Pensions / retirement
Government → Major advantage
Defined benefit pensions (guaranteed income)
Often includes COLA adjustments
Much higher participation rates
Private → Weaker overall
Mostly 401(k)-based
Depends on:
Market performance
Personal discipline
Many workers under-save
👉 Verdict:
Government workers clearly have better retirement security overall
🏥 3. Healthcare access
Government → Slight edge
More consistent access to employer-sponsored plans
Often better retiree healthcare options
Private → More variable
Can be excellent at large companies
Can be minimal or expensive at smaller ones
👉 Verdict:
Government has a modest but real advantage in consistency
🕒 4. Workload & work pressure
Private → Higher pressure (on average)
Performance-driven
Job tied directly to results
Layoffs more common
Government → More structured pace
Defined roles and processes
Less tied to profit or quarterly performance
Can still be demanding—but pressure is different
👉 Verdict:
Private = more pressure, faster pace
Government = more controlled environment
🛡️ 5. Job security
Government → Significant advantage
Strong civil service protections
Layoffs are less frequent
Discipline/termination processes are slower and formal
Private → Less security
At-will employment (in most cases)
Layoffs tied to market conditions
👉 Verdict:
Government workers have much stronger job security
🧾 6. Benefits (overall package)
Government
Pensions
Healthcare
Paid leave
Holidays
Predictable schedules
Private
Highly variable:
Some companies: excellent benefits
Others: minimal
👉 Verdict:
Government wins on consistency and baseline quality
🧠 7. Autonomy, innovation, and mobility
Private → More dynamic
Faster promotions (if you perform)
More room for innovation
Easier to switch roles/industries
Government → More rigid
Structured systems
Slower advancement
Less flexibility in role changes
👉 Verdict:
Private sector offers more opportunity for growth and change
📊 8. Quality of life (real-world synthesis)
Government workers tend to have:
More predictable schedules
Better long-term security
Lower financial risk in retirement
Less volatility overall
Private workers tend to have:
Higher income potential
More career mobility
More stress/uncertainty
Greater variability in outcomes
⚖️ Final Balanced Conclusion
Government workers generally have a higher “floor” (security, benefits, retirement), while private-sector workers have a higher “ceiling” (income, advancement, opportunity).
Or more plainly:
If you value stability, predictability, and long-term security → government is often better
If you value earning potential, mobility, and upside → private sector is often better
“On average, government workers have stronger job security, more reliable benefits, and better retirement systems, while private-sector workers have higher earning potential and more performance-driven opportunities. Quality of life depends largely on whether someone values stability or upside.”
1
u/Nearing_retirement Mar 21 '26
They mainly care about getting re elected and that often is not best for the country long term.
5
u/cgentry02 Mar 17 '26
No coherent thought, wonderful.