8 ms·

Google employees have enjoyed revolving door during Obama administration

241 points by Jerry2 10y ago

justinlardinois 10y ago
> More than 250 people have moved from Google and related firms to the federal government or vice versa since President Barack Obama took office. Google has over 30,000 employees in Mountain View alone, and that's just a portion of its workforce. The term "Obama administration" in the headline is somewhat misleading considering that the above quote says it's surveyed from "the federal government," which is a huge workforce regardless of where you draw the boundaries. Statistically, is it really that anomalous that ~250 people flowed between the two in 8 years?
- jzwinck 10y ago
  Some back of the envelope math: 50% of total staff are at Mountain View. Of 60k staff, maybe 20-25k are engineers. So in the US it's probably 10-15k engineers total. In my experience, software engineer attrition is around 20% per year in firms with good employee satisfaction. That's 2-3k engineers excited to be tackling new opportunities each year. In 8 years: 16-24k employees. Of course Google is a great place to work and they weren't as large 8 years ago, so let's guess 10-15k employees turned over. Of that, 250 is 2%. The government says around 2700 people work for the executive [1]. That is 0.002% of the total workforce in the US. Google could replace the entire executive with castaway engineers every year. [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-docu...
  - argonaut 10y ago
    You're reading the table (egregiously) wrong. It says around 2.7 million people work for the executive branch of government. That is about 1.8% of the employed US workforce. 2700 doesn't pass the smell test, anyways.
  - justinlardinois 10y ago
    Did the linked article ever say that the flow was limited to software engineers?
- gedrap 10y ago
  I got the same impression. It would be worth taking a second look at if the vast majority of those 250 people were top executives: >> Regulation watchdogs may be just as keen about the moves between Google and the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. Those government bodies regulate many of the programs that are at the heart of Google’s business, and there have been at least 15 moves between Google and its lobbying firms and those commissions. >> The 18 people involved in the revolving door listed in this story are just the tip of the 251-plus name iceberg, though in some cases people among that 251 are low-level employees. So they looked at ~20 people in the article who moved from Google to the government. Given the size of Google, that number seems to be barely significant. "Google employees have enjoyed good employability" seems like a better title, unless there's something major that I've missed.
  - rmah 10y ago
    Yes, the impression the article wants you to have is that those people are top (or at least important) execs at both google and the government who are able to make decisions that benefit one or the other or themselves. The reality, if you dig into the data, is that the vast majority are not.
cjrjfufjdvfhz 10y ago
You don't get to be one of the largest corporations in the world without co-opting the government in your favor. This is exactly what ancaps are missing.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  "If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics." - Senator Orin Hatch; Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee https://books.google.com/books?id=WYIlAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=If+you+want+to+get+involved+in+business,+you+should+get+involved+in+politics.+orrin+hatch&source=bl&ots=04U6Kfe1bw&sig=c-O2PXIJg7Nhlf___LfhwmpG21o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGr_X577XOAhXI1xoKHc3bABIQ6AEIJTAB#v=snippet&q=%22get%20involved%20in%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=WYIlAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=P...
- hahla 10y ago
  Ancaps really? I'm sure Google is co-opting with the government in some sense, but you obviously have to at that scale, but what kind of tin foil hat do you need to start believing ancaps are missing.
  - mintplant 10y ago
    I believe cjrjfufjdvfhz is not saying that ancaps are involved in some sort of scheme but rather that anarcho-capitalist ideology is deficient in that it does not take this idea into account ("You don't get to be one of the largest corporations in the world without co-opting the government in your favor").
    - waterhouse 10y ago
      I don't get what that has to do with anarcho-capitalism, though. In a world where governments exist and are powerful, it will be in the interest of a corporation to get the government to do things for it. Fine. What does that have to do with a philosophy that advocates moving towards a world without governments?
    - webXL 10y ago
koluft 10y ago
Is "Google employee leaves Google and gets job in Executive Branch" a "revolving door"? Even when the job is technical not policy?
- hueving 10y ago
  Most of the examples in the article are non-technical. High level advisory roles for policy advise.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    I don't really understand why having people who know about technology advise in the creation of technology policy and strategy is a bad thing.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jokero 10y ago
      maybe because of how they use this 'force' to keep themself at the top or to make life better.
bbarn 10y ago
Is it so hard to believe that one of the biggest tech companies in the country and the government wouldn't both respect success in the other's organizations?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- azakai 10y ago
  Similar arguments are made when the close ties between the government and say Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants are discussed. There is a revolving door there too. Even the most forgiving interpretation of the facts implies that Google and Goldman Sachs and other corporations have massive influence in government. There is no need to posit a conspiracy theory. It's just that the same people flow back and forth between the government and those corporations, and there are friendships as well as shared perspectives and ideals, all creating a close relationship that is highly beneficial to those corporations.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    The most forgiving interpretation doesn't imply massive influence at all. US gov't needs help regulating banks. Employees with experience in finance will likely have an easier time navigating things. Same argument for tech. Is it really that shocking that you hire former finance people to regulate the finance industry? Experience in the domain means knowledge about how things work. It's the same argument as putting a technical person as PM for a technical project. Of course, this doesn't work in the "regulation as punishment" mindset. But gov't regulators aren't looking to kill banks, they're looking to keep the economy healthy. Yes, that means working with banks to improve things (see regulators coordinating the purchase of failed banks by other ones). Inversely, you are Goldman Sachs. You need help navigating regulation... a guy with regulation experience sounds good right? Of course there are potential conflicts of interest to watch out for.
    - adrianratnapala 10y ago
      But regulation is supposed to provide an impartial set of rules that defines how people go about their buisness fairly. One of the great criticisms of regulation is that incumbents with access to government can influence the rules to favour themselves and avoid competition. Having employees of particular large companies work as beaurocrats encourages this, especially if they return to those companies. In it's early phase -- such as with these googlers in the US gov, the revolving door brings dynamism. But over time it brings stagnation because parties have an interest in making current practice the only thing allowed.
CydeWeys 10y ago
I would love to see numbers for other companies. I would be surprised if large defense contractors like Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin didn't have way more than 250. Also ... government has been notoriously bad about grokking software. They just couldn't manage large projects effectively at all, and they were completely getting fleeced by their usual contractors (witness the initial launch of healthcare.gov). So it's good that they're getting competent people to be in charge of things now, which I suppose naturally means they'd be getting people from the top tech companies in the world.
- ivanca 10y ago
  A lot of info at: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Not really - it's just a pie chart by industry. It doesn't say anything about other companies. If you search by organization you can get some numbers but it's not comprehensive. For example, it says that only 28 people (not hundreds) are profiled with "google", 30 with "microsoft" and 1 for "hewlett packard", etc.
- Buge 10y ago
  >I would be surprised if large defense contractors like Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin didn't have way more than 250. Especially since those type of jobs often require security clearance. Once someone has clearance, they are more likely to take more jobs in the future that also require clearance, because the clearance is a valuable part of their resume.
ivanca 10y ago
...just like thousands of people on every industry does: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I If you didn't want this to happen perhaps you should make it illegal?
- enneff 10y ago
  And then there would be a bunch of unqualified and inexperienced people working for the government.
philip1209 10y ago
I met some of the former Googlers working for the USDS. They seemed to be many pre-IPO SREs who decided that improving government was more important than being an LP at a VC fund. They were motivated by getting tens of millions of people healthcare, and along the way they encountered huge challenges - like figuring out how to reconcile VA and Pentagon records. Their passion was inspiring, and the work they do affects millions without much glamor. If you think healthcare.gov was a mess, in the USA there are more branches of federal government, 50 state governments, and countless local governments whose technology is inadequate for serving its constituents. Things like healthcare, visas, and electricity all rely on aging software projects. Yet, some of these systems don't have strong backups, are not automated, and may run on infrastructure like Windows XP. Some parts are ticking timebombs in terms of security and upkeep costs.
- theDoug 10y ago
  I don't feel this gets enough focus. When you're working at a place of high prestige and global impact, you're going to want to keep that up where you skills can continue to benefit many (whether your original employer is one or ther other).
- alexose 10y ago
  Thanks for this. In my experience at USDS over the last year, it's absolutely true.
- TheSageMage 10y ago
  So I'm a software engineer in SF who would love to work on projects like you mentioned. Where do I look and what do I look for?
  - philip1209 10y ago
    I'm not associated with USDS, but email me (see profile) and I'll get you an intro.
  - alexose 10y ago
    USDS is hiring! https://www.usds.gov/join https://www.usds.gov/join If you want to work remote from SF, check out 18F: https://pages.18f.gov/joining-18f/ https://pages.18f.gov/joining-18f/
sxcurry 10y ago
I wonder what the Google Transparency Project "poured" over the data?
doctorpangloss 10y ago
Google has a huge number of interactions with regulations. Whether or not there is a revolving door ought to be orthogonal to your opinion on whether or not Google is in the right on many of its legal positions. Like many other companies, Google uses the Double Irish to minimize its tax bill. Assuming the law were updated to affect all Double Irish users equally (like to e.g. Facebook), do you think we should prevent such tax evasion? The answer seems to me obviously yes, regardless of your political persuasion. Clearly lobbying must have some impact on its favorable tax treatment. In a manner of bundling similar to other tech companies, Google promoted Chrome on www.google.com. It seems reasonable to describe that promotion as using its dominance in the search market to become dominant in the browser market. Likewise, its complex deal with Android manufacturers results in Google Search (among other applications) being the default on their phones. The EU is in the process of sanctioning Google for the later. Supposing the spirit of anti-trust law were applied equally to application bundlers (like to e.g., Apple), do you think we should prevent such bundling from occurring? The answer to me seems to be yes: I think unbundling software makes the software ecosystem healthier and more innovative. Clearly lobbying in the U.S. must have some impact on its favorable anti-trust treatment versus the E.U. Like few other funnels, Google monetizes content in ways that minimize the value to the producer. This could mean monetizing copyrighted material, like searches that lead to movie torrents or whole copies hosted on YouTube. Or its dominant place in search makes previously subscription-only newspapers have to go free on-the-web, because news cannot be copyrighted and anyone can read an NYTimes article and write a free (but plagiarized) destination for search results. How much value should go to producers, and to the extent that it extracts a rent from the transaction, should Google be the entity that transfers the value from the producer to the consumer? The answer to this question isn't obvious. But Google has won a complex set of legal victories, like the Google Books Search settlement lawsuit and lawsuits by newspaper publishers around the world. It's likely, though not as clear, that its extensive relationship with government (and for that matter, consumers) has earned it a favorable view of its rent extraction from producers. The controversy ought not to be the revolving door. You would have to be a real blowhard to believe that Google doesn't receive favorable treatment from the government. Furthermore, you should be allowed to campaign against Google's favorable treatment without simultaneously campaigning against Apple, Facebook, and all of corporate America. Instead, I think the controversy should be whether or not you actually think Google is in the right on these matters.
transfire 10y ago
I remember when Google had basically pledged to stay out of politics. Then the Government sued them. You see, when you've got that kind of money, politicians don't allow you not to bribe them.
nthitz 10y ago
Matt Cutts, who was/is a semipublic Google employee wrote on Quora today about his work at USDS. https://www.quora.com/session/Matt-Cutts/1 https://www.quora.com/session/Matt-Cutts/1 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  It is crazy to me that Googlers no longer even "revolve the door" to shift back and forth to working for the government. Matt Cutts is merely 'on leave'. Similarly, Eric Schmidt is on a panel at the DoD while simultaneously still in his position at Google. It's impossible for someone to make the best decisions for American citizens while they're simultaneously employed by a giant international corporation which is evading billions of dollars in taxes, causing the rest of us to have to pick up all the slack.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Recalling from what I was told when I went through the interview process at 18F (got to the point of the gigantic "dump your whole life in a massive form" bit, right after the OPM hack was news, and decided not to do that), the positions are legally time-limited: it's a two-year contract which can be renewed once. So maximum of four years in the job, and then you're out. Also USDS is a bit more "do this mission" style job: basically you're being dropped into a federal agency to try to turn their tech story around. 18F is there to promote longer-term change in the model of how the federal government does technology.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Check out the 18F website; tours of duty are typically 6 months. The recruiter who contacted me about 18F told me to apply for a leave of absence from my job. Simultaneous employment is the only realistic way for most software developers who don't want to jump into a stressful job search.
oxymoron 10y ago
I think the Google Transparency Project needs some transparency: http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/ http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  This article contains no data. Merely speculates or insinuates that if it's investigating Google, clearly it has to be part of some plot against them. I know it's hard to imagine, but sometimes people may just want to know what a giant evil international conglomerate is doing in backrooms with the most powerful people on the planet.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I think it's a little suspicious that they won't reveal who is funding them. More importantly, I don't see any clear reason to target a specific company. There are lots of organizations like The Center for Responsive Politics which investigate lobbying and corruption without doing targeting a specific company with whatever they can find. This organization clearly seems to have an axe to grind. For example, what is the point of naming and shaming programmers who dared to quit their cushy Google jobs to come work for USDS? [0] This is symptomatic of a hatchet job: > suggests that many former Google employees working for USDS today may return to their Google jobs tomorrow with inside knowledge and relationships that could prove invaluable in securing large IT contracts for Google. The notion that programmers are going to work for Google so they can secure IT contracts is ludicrous. I know people working for USDS—they definitely are not interested in making a career out of government consulting. If this group cares so much about transparency, they should be transparent about who is funding them. I suspect it's several corporations which are even more corrupt than Google. [0] http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/us-digital-service http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/us-digital-ser...
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      It's hard to imagine big IT contracts isn't a part of it. Bear in mind, Google Cloud Platform is Google's big push these days, and they're currently in a distant third place. Now, with all those Google employees who are then also going back to Google after their USDS stint... how many of them do you think will recommend or even consider Azure or AWS when they recommend a cloud platform for the government project they're working on? Google Apps for Government is a thing too. And at the end of the day, basically all Google wants is... all your data. Good way to accomplish that is getting your employees to write the software too.
qaq 10y ago
This is horrible where will all the GS guys go now?
morgante 10y ago
Articles like this are a great example of why the so-called revolving door is a good thing. Government technology has been a disaster for quite some time. I think we can all agree that the best technologists aren't usually looking to accept a low-pay, low-prestige job in government. So the Obama Administration has taken steps to try to improve government technology, primarily through USDS but also with direct White House hires. Of course many of the best technologists are employed at Google, so you'll see a lot of people coming from there. Especially since there are significant network effects in recruiting. Naturally, the best technologists aren't typically interested in a long-term government career. So they shift back out after their "tour of duty." In fact, I believe 18F explicitly requires limited term contracts. Despite good intentions (including willingness to take substantial pay cuts), people inevitably attack these attempts. I wonder how much of the "Google Transparency Project" funding is coming from existing federal contractors. Perhaps they should be transparent about themselves for a start.
traek 10y ago
The "Google Transparency Project" [1] seems like a deliberately misleading name. They're not at all associated with Google yet they're going as far as using Google's logo in their logo. I wonder how legal that is, and if Google's comms team is aware of them. [1] http://googletransparencyproject.org/ http://googletransparencyproject.org/
- gedrap 10y ago
  And a color scheme somewhat similar to Google's. Well, there's "Campaign for Accountability" logo in the header, however, it's probably still a bit too deceiving than it should be.
- malz 10y ago
  And no risk of people confusing it with https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
CPAhem 10y ago
US News did a good report on this a few weeks ago: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-...
known 10y ago
Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> "it’s hard to know for sure how more than 250 people moving between Google and the federal government since 2009 compares to other corporations, but “it sounds like it’s a very significant number.”" Considering we're talking about a time span of 7 years and Google has over 50,000 employees (took a rough average from the crazy range of source I saw) I'm surprised it's not more. The quote above seems to be someone guessing without any type of information to back up their assertions. I'd love to see the numbers for other companies but this article is somewhat lackluster and seems to be trying to point to a possible conflict of interest > Amey said he’s not as concerned about programmers moving over – and quite a few data engineers who worked on Obama’s re-election campaign have ended up in White House jobs – but top level executives changing jobs can raise “red flags.” I can understand this a bit more. Not sure there is any direct evidence of conflicts of interest but like the investigation I could see it easily appearing so regardless of the truth. Hard to avoid though. After working in the government space they need lots of help.
psykpsyk 10y ago
Look, se got a shill, with the top comment...
- dang 10y ago
  We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12259366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12259366 and marked it off-topic. It was already dead, but it deserves to be marked off topic too. You can't cast aspersions like that on users here, especially not in response to such an obviously substantive contribution.

241 points by Jerry2 10y ago

> More than 250 people have moved from Google and related firms to the federal government or vice versa since President Barack Obama took office. Google has over 30,000 employees in Mountain View alone, and that's just a portion of its workforce. The term "Obama administration" in the headline is somewhat misleading considering that the above quote says it's surveyed from "the federal government," which is a huge workforce regardless of where you draw the boundaries. Statistically, is it really that anomalous that ~250 people flowed between the two in 8 years?

jzwinck 10y ago
Some back of the envelope math: 50% of total staff are at Mountain View. Of 60k staff, maybe 20-25k are engineers. So in the US it's probably 10-15k engineers total. In my experience, software engineer attrition is around 20% per year in firms with good employee satisfaction. That's 2-3k engineers excited to be tackling new opportunities each year. In 8 years: 16-24k employees. Of course Google is a great place to work and they weren't as large 8 years ago, so let's guess 10-15k employees turned over. Of that, 250 is 2%. The government says around 2700 people work for the executive [1]. That is 0.002% of the total workforce in the US. Google could replace the entire executive with castaway engineers every year. [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-docu...
- argonaut 10y ago
  You're reading the table (egregiously) wrong. It says around 2.7 million people work for the executive branch of government. That is about 1.8% of the employed US workforce. 2700 doesn't pass the smell test, anyways.
- justinlardinois 10y ago
  Did the linked article ever say that the flow was limited to software engineers?
gedrap 10y ago
I got the same impression. It would be worth taking a second look at if the vast majority of those 250 people were top executives: >> Regulation watchdogs may be just as keen about the moves between Google and the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. Those government bodies regulate many of the programs that are at the heart of Google’s business, and there have been at least 15 moves between Google and its lobbying firms and those commissions. >> The 18 people involved in the revolving door listed in this story are just the tip of the 251-plus name iceberg, though in some cases people among that 251 are low-level employees. So they looked at ~20 people in the article who moved from Google to the government. Given the size of Google, that number seems to be barely significant. "Google employees have enjoyed good employability" seems like a better title, unless there's something major that I've missed.
- rmah 10y ago
  Yes, the impression the article wants you to have is that those people are top (or at least important) execs at both google and the government who are able to make decisions that benefit one or the other or themselves. The reality, if you dig into the data, is that the vast majority are not.

cjrjfufjdvfhz 10y ago

You don't get to be one of the largest corporations in the world without co-opting the government in your favor. This is exactly what ancaps are missing.

forrestthewoods 10y ago
"If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics." - Senator Orin Hatch; Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee https://books.google.com/books?id=WYIlAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=If+you+want+to+get+involved+in+business,+you+should+get+involved+in+politics.+orrin+hatch&source=bl&ots=04U6Kfe1bw&sig=c-O2PXIJg7Nhlf___LfhwmpG21o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGr_X577XOAhXI1xoKHc3bABIQ6AEIJTAB#v=snippet&q=%22get%20involved%20in%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=WYIlAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=P...
hahla 10y ago
Ancaps really? I'm sure Google is co-opting with the government in some sense, but you obviously have to at that scale, but what kind of tin foil hat do you need to start believing ancaps are missing.
- mintplant 10y ago
  I believe cjrjfufjdvfhz is not saying that ancaps are involved in some sort of scheme but rather that anarcho-capitalist ideology is deficient in that it does not take this idea into account ("You don't get to be one of the largest corporations in the world without co-opting the government in your favor").
  - waterhouse 10y ago
    I don't get what that has to do with anarcho-capitalism, though. In a world where governments exist and are powerful, it will be in the interest of a corporation to get the government to do things for it. Fine. What does that have to do with a philosophy that advocates moving towards a world without governments?
  - webXL 10y ago

koluft 10y ago

Is "Google employee leaves Google and gets job in Executive Branch" a "revolving door"? Even when the job is technical not policy?

hueving 10y ago
Most of the examples in the article are non-technical. High level advisory roles for policy advise.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  I don't really understand why having people who know about technology advise in the creation of technology policy and strategy is a bad thing.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jokero 10y ago
    maybe because of how they use this 'force' to keep themself at the top or to make life better.

bbarn 10y ago

Is it so hard to believe that one of the biggest tech companies in the country and the government wouldn't both respect success in the other's organizations?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
azakai 10y ago
Similar arguments are made when the close ties between the government and say Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants are discussed. There is a revolving door there too. Even the most forgiving interpretation of the facts implies that Google and Goldman Sachs and other corporations have massive influence in government. There is no need to posit a conspiracy theory. It's just that the same people flow back and forth between the government and those corporations, and there are friendships as well as shared perspectives and ideals, all creating a close relationship that is highly beneficial to those corporations.
- rtpg 10y ago
  The most forgiving interpretation doesn't imply massive influence at all. US gov't needs help regulating banks. Employees with experience in finance will likely have an easier time navigating things. Same argument for tech. Is it really that shocking that you hire former finance people to regulate the finance industry? Experience in the domain means knowledge about how things work. It's the same argument as putting a technical person as PM for a technical project. Of course, this doesn't work in the "regulation as punishment" mindset. But gov't regulators aren't looking to kill banks, they're looking to keep the economy healthy. Yes, that means working with banks to improve things (see regulators coordinating the purchase of failed banks by other ones). Inversely, you are Goldman Sachs. You need help navigating regulation... a guy with regulation experience sounds good right? Of course there are potential conflicts of interest to watch out for.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    But regulation is supposed to provide an impartial set of rules that defines how people go about their buisness fairly. One of the great criticisms of regulation is that incumbents with access to government can influence the rules to favour themselves and avoid competition. Having employees of particular large companies work as beaurocrats encourages this, especially if they return to those companies. In it's early phase -- such as with these googlers in the US gov, the revolving door brings dynamism. But over time it brings stagnation because parties have an interest in making current practice the only thing allowed.

CydeWeys 10y ago

I would love to see numbers for other companies. I would be surprised if large defense contractors like Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin didn't have way more than 250. Also ... government has been notoriously bad about grokking software. They just couldn't manage large projects effectively at all, and they were completely getting fleeced by their usual contractors (witness the initial launch of healthcare.gov). So it's good that they're getting competent people to be in charge of things now, which I suppose naturally means they'd be getting people from the top tech companies in the world.

ivanca 10y ago
A lot of info at: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I
- bduerst 10y ago
  Not really - it's just a pie chart by industry. It doesn't say anything about other companies. If you search by organization you can get some numbers but it's not comprehensive. For example, it says that only 28 people (not hundreds) are profiled with "google", 30 with "microsoft" and 1 for "hewlett packard", etc.
Buge 10y ago
>I would be surprised if large defense contractors like Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin didn't have way more than 250. Especially since those type of jobs often require security clearance. Once someone has clearance, they are more likely to take more jobs in the future that also require clearance, because the clearance is a valuable part of their resume.

ivanca 10y ago

...just like thousands of people on every industry does: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I If you didn't want this to happen perhaps you should make it illegal?

enneff 10y ago
And then there would be a bunch of unqualified and inexperienced people working for the government.

philip1209 10y ago

I met some of the former Googlers working for the USDS. They seemed to be many pre-IPO SREs who decided that improving government was more important than being an LP at a VC fund. They were motivated by getting tens of millions of people healthcare, and along the way they encountered huge challenges - like figuring out how to reconcile VA and Pentagon records. Their passion was inspiring, and the work they do affects millions without much glamor. If you think healthcare.gov was a mess, in the USA there are more branches of federal government, 50 state governments, and countless local governments whose technology is inadequate for serving its constituents. Things like healthcare, visas, and electricity all rely on aging software projects. Yet, some of these systems don't have strong backups, are not automated, and may run on infrastructure like Windows XP. Some parts are ticking timebombs in terms of security and upkeep costs.

theDoug 10y ago
I don't feel this gets enough focus. When you're working at a place of high prestige and global impact, you're going to want to keep that up where you skills can continue to benefit many (whether your original employer is one or ther other).
alexose 10y ago
Thanks for this. In my experience at USDS over the last year, it's absolutely true.
TheSageMage 10y ago
So I'm a software engineer in SF who would love to work on projects like you mentioned. Where do I look and what do I look for?
- philip1209 10y ago
  I'm not associated with USDS, but email me (see profile) and I'll get you an intro.
- alexose 10y ago
  USDS is hiring! https://www.usds.gov/join https://www.usds.gov/join If you want to work remote from SF, check out 18F: https://pages.18f.gov/joining-18f/ https://pages.18f.gov/joining-18f/

sxcurry 10y ago

I wonder what the Google Transparency Project "poured" over the data?

doctorpangloss 10y ago

Google has a huge number of interactions with regulations. Whether or not there is a revolving door ought to be orthogonal to your opinion on whether or not Google is in the right on many of its legal positions. Like many other companies, Google uses the Double Irish to minimize its tax bill. Assuming the law were updated to affect all Double Irish users equally (like to e.g. Facebook), do you think we should prevent such tax evasion? The answer seems to me obviously yes, regardless of your political persuasion. Clearly lobbying must have some impact on its favorable tax treatment. In a manner of bundling similar to other tech companies, Google promoted Chrome on www.google.com. It seems reasonable to describe that promotion as using its dominance in the search market to become dominant in the browser market. Likewise, its complex deal with Android manufacturers results in Google Search (among other applications) being the default on their phones. The EU is in the process of sanctioning Google for the later. Supposing the spirit of anti-trust law were applied equally to application bundlers (like to e.g., Apple), do you think we should prevent such bundling from occurring? The answer to me seems to be yes: I think unbundling software makes the software ecosystem healthier and more innovative. Clearly lobbying in the U.S. must have some impact on its favorable anti-trust treatment versus the E.U. Like few other funnels, Google monetizes content in ways that minimize the value to the producer. This could mean monetizing copyrighted material, like searches that lead to movie torrents or whole copies hosted on YouTube. Or its dominant place in search makes previously subscription-only newspapers have to go free on-the-web, because news cannot be copyrighted and anyone can read an NYTimes article and write a free (but plagiarized) destination for search results. How much value should go to producers, and to the extent that it extracts a rent from the transaction, should Google be the entity that transfers the value from the producer to the consumer? The answer to this question isn't obvious. But Google has won a complex set of legal victories, like the Google Books Search settlement lawsuit and lawsuits by newspaper publishers around the world. It's likely, though not as clear, that its extensive relationship with government (and for that matter, consumers) has earned it a favorable view of its rent extraction from producers. The controversy ought not to be the revolving door. You would have to be a real blowhard to believe that Google doesn't receive favorable treatment from the government. Furthermore, you should be allowed to campaign against Google's favorable treatment without simultaneously campaigning against Apple, Facebook, and all of corporate America. Instead, I think the controversy should be whether or not you actually think Google is in the right on these matters.

transfire 10y ago

I remember when Google had basically pledged to stay out of politics. Then the Government sued them. You see, when you've got that kind of money, politicians don't allow you not to bribe them.

nthitz 10y ago

Matt Cutts, who was/is a semipublic Google employee wrote on Quora today about his work at USDS. https://www.quora.com/session/Matt-Cutts/1 https://www.quora.com/session/Matt-Cutts/1 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
It is crazy to me that Googlers no longer even "revolve the door" to shift back and forth to working for the government. Matt Cutts is merely 'on leave'. Similarly, Eric Schmidt is on a panel at the DoD while simultaneously still in his position at Google. It's impossible for someone to make the best decisions for American citizens while they're simultaneously employed by a giant international corporation which is evading billions of dollars in taxes, causing the rest of us to have to pick up all the slack.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Recalling from what I was told when I went through the interview process at 18F (got to the point of the gigantic "dump your whole life in a massive form" bit, right after the OPM hack was news, and decided not to do that), the positions are legally time-limited: it's a two-year contract which can be renewed once. So maximum of four years in the job, and then you're out. Also USDS is a bit more "do this mission" style job: basically you're being dropped into a federal agency to try to turn their tech story around. 18F is there to promote longer-term change in the model of how the federal government does technology.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Check out the 18F website; tours of duty are typically 6 months. The recruiter who contacted me about 18F told me to apply for a leave of absence from my job. Simultaneous employment is the only realistic way for most software developers who don't want to jump into a stressful job search.

oxymoron 10y ago

I think the Google Transparency Project needs some transparency: http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/ http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
This article contains no data. Merely speculates or insinuates that if it's investigating Google, clearly it has to be part of some plot against them. I know it's hard to imagine, but sometimes people may just want to know what a giant evil international conglomerate is doing in backrooms with the most powerful people on the planet.
- morgante 10y ago
  I think it's a little suspicious that they won't reveal who is funding them. More importantly, I don't see any clear reason to target a specific company. There are lots of organizations like The Center for Responsive Politics which investigate lobbying and corruption without doing targeting a specific company with whatever they can find. This organization clearly seems to have an axe to grind. For example, what is the point of naming and shaming programmers who dared to quit their cushy Google jobs to come work for USDS? [0] This is symptomatic of a hatchet job: > suggests that many former Google employees working for USDS today may return to their Google jobs tomorrow with inside knowledge and relationships that could prove invaluable in securing large IT contracts for Google. The notion that programmers are going to work for Google so they can secure IT contracts is ludicrous. I know people working for USDS—they definitely are not interested in making a career out of government consulting. If this group cares so much about transparency, they should be transparent about who is funding them. I suspect it's several corporations which are even more corrupt than Google. [0] http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/us-digital-service http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/us-digital-ser...
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    It's hard to imagine big IT contracts isn't a part of it. Bear in mind, Google Cloud Platform is Google's big push these days, and they're currently in a distant third place. Now, with all those Google employees who are then also going back to Google after their USDS stint... how many of them do you think will recommend or even consider Azure or AWS when they recommend a cloud platform for the government project they're working on? Google Apps for Government is a thing too. And at the end of the day, basically all Google wants is... all your data. Good way to accomplish that is getting your employees to write the software too.

qaq 10y ago

This is horrible where will all the GS guys go now?

morgante 10y ago

Articles like this are a great example of why the so-called revolving door is a good thing. Government technology has been a disaster for quite some time. I think we can all agree that the best technologists aren't usually looking to accept a low-pay, low-prestige job in government. So the Obama Administration has taken steps to try to improve government technology, primarily through USDS but also with direct White House hires. Of course many of the best technologists are employed at Google, so you'll see a lot of people coming from there. Especially since there are significant network effects in recruiting. Naturally, the best technologists aren't typically interested in a long-term government career. So they shift back out after their "tour of duty." In fact, I believe 18F explicitly requires limited term contracts. Despite good intentions (including willingness to take substantial pay cuts), people inevitably attack these attempts. I wonder how much of the "Google Transparency Project" funding is coming from existing federal contractors. Perhaps they should be transparent about themselves for a start.

traek 10y ago

The "Google Transparency Project" [1] seems like a deliberately misleading name. They're not at all associated with Google yet they're going as far as using Google's logo in their logo. I wonder how legal that is, and if Google's comms team is aware of them. [1] http://googletransparencyproject.org/ http://googletransparencyproject.org/

gedrap 10y ago
And a color scheme somewhat similar to Google's. Well, there's "Campaign for Accountability" logo in the header, however, it's probably still a bit too deceiving than it should be.
malz 10y ago
And no risk of people confusing it with https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

CPAhem 10y ago

US News did a good report on this a few weeks ago: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-...

known 10y ago

Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> "it’s hard to know for sure how more than 250 people moving between Google and the federal government since 2009 compares to other corporations, but “it sounds like it’s a very significant number.”" Considering we're talking about a time span of 7 years and Google has over 50,000 employees (took a rough average from the crazy range of source I saw) I'm surprised it's not more. The quote above seems to be someone guessing without any type of information to back up their assertions. I'd love to see the numbers for other companies but this article is somewhat lackluster and seems to be trying to point to a possible conflict of interest > Amey said he’s not as concerned about programmers moving over – and quite a few data engineers who worked on Obama’s re-election campaign have ended up in White House jobs – but top level executives changing jobs can raise “red flags.” I can understand this a bit more. Not sure there is any direct evidence of conflicts of interest but like the investigation I could see it easily appearing so regardless of the truth. Hard to avoid though. After working in the government space they need lots of help.

psykpsyk 10y ago

Look, se got a shill, with the top comment...

dang 10y ago
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12259366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12259366 and marked it off-topic. It was already dead, but it deserves to be marked off topic too. You can't cast aspersions like that on users here, especially not in response to such an obviously substantive contribution.