6 ms·

I experienced this in my first job... A regulatory decision around approval of a new power line in California... where the consulting and regulatory costs of si

I experienced this in my first job... A regulatory decision around approval of a new power line in California... where the consulting and regulatory costs of simply discussing whether the line should be built literally ran over $100 million. Paid for by all California power users in their rates. The sad thing is the state of affairs can be used by any party that for any reason wants to fight anything it want (with money): just leverage environmental protection laws even when it's intellectually dishonest to do so, and win by miring the process in hundreds of millions of dollars of total waste. Of course that's just the abuse of law/process side of things. Separately we've seen the loss of expertise in house within governments and the rise of consulting firms required to do everything. There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten. If anyone hasn't read The Power Broker about the rise of Robert Moses, it's a great read: You can disagree with much of his methodology/power hunger/abuse of people, and you can certainly disagree with what he built, but what he did demonstrate is that the people with the plans who can execute while everyone else is talking about grand dreams can GET STUFF DONE. We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms. Let's be honest, consulting firms never feel ownership. Their deliverable is that beautiful PDF. No PDF ever built any grand infrastructure. And the Golden Gate Bridge, and the New York subway, never even had the glorious joy of benefiting from either PDF or PowerPoint. Let's admit it, when it comes to building infrastructure we've completely failed and we need to have a serious wake-up call. Sadly most people have no idea how bad it has gotten because when they spend a hundred million dollars collectively deciding whether to build a power line in the San Diego desert, they barely notice that they're paying an incremental portion of a penny more for every kilowatt-hour of power.

ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
I have read the Power Broker, and I don't think it really has anything to do with getting things build in spite of regulations. Sure he got things built, but the modern regulatory state wasn't really an issue in the 1950s. Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.
- redwood 8y ago
  People tried to use all kinds of methods to stop all kinds of Robert Moses projects, but he was always there faster than them or literally breaking through ignoring them. Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Thankfully though, he didn't have the wherewithal to power through everything he wanted to do. I get your point. But the balance is going to vary a lot depending upon your priorities.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Robert Moses is a prime example of how a misguided despot can ruin everything for generations to come. Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
- MrTonyD 8y ago
  And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  If the prime example is also to learn about budgeting from Moses, The Power Broker also describes how he would deliberately lowball costs to get them approved, and then force politicians to cover the overruns because the projects were a sunk cost.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> There was a time when cities built their own transit! I think working for a government used to be an attractive option. No it'd be extremely hard to justify accepting a government salary for the same job you could be doing for the contractor for literally 3x the money and far better working conditions.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  To be honest, I'd have to be paid more to work within a government system than for a private employer to put up with governmental BS and lower job mobility.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    If you're at a point where the money isn't as important as stability it could be worth it. As a close relative of mine who was a lifelong state bureaucrat put it "you have to rape a kid to be fired but you'll keep your pension unless you video tape it" which based on other things that happened in his department over the years is an exaggeration but not a big one. I'd definitely consider working for the government after my house is paid off.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Funny you mention that. Once money is no longer an issue, I'd consider going to work for a university. Many of the same benefits (and drawbacks). A few years ago, I seriously considered working for EdX as I believe in the mission, but all the EdX positions that were open were MIT employees (amazing benefits, fixed [and uncompetitive] salary structure) and we had two young kids at home so it wasn't the right time to consider that.
    - saiya-jin 8y ago
      Darn that's sad. Once money is not a primary issue, I would much prefer working 80%, or 60%, whatever compared to just gaining more stability. Pushing papers, playing politics, losing touch with progress in real world (affecting employability), that's a bad direction in any age.
gsnedders 8y ago
> There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten. At the same time, you probably don't want your engineers making mistakes and not knowing about lessons learnt elsewhere; having some external expertise is likely good, even if most of the work is done by your own engineers.
maehwasu 8y ago
> We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms. I share your frustration, but there are evolutionary pressures at work here. The people most likely to be in government are those most likely to survive in it. Seeing hard projects through does not increase your "fitness" much. Knowing how to manipulate bureaucracies, build up little fiefdoms, acquire the pull to bring in expensive consultants, manage the reciprocal relationships with those consultants, etc. -- all this stuff does increase your fitness in a bureaucracy. The only two proven ways to cut this Gordian Knot are smaller sovereign jurisdictions (suddenly those bureaucrats have to answer to people who are many fewer degrees removed) or executives with more unilateral power (authoritarianism/CEO-style governance). For better or worse, the American system has evolved in the opposite direction on both those poles.
- protonfish 8y ago
  That's not "evolutionary pressure", it's corruption.
  - SkyBelow 8y ago
    Those are not contradictory. It is possible for corruption to thrive because of evolutionary pressure. It is even possible for it to do so despite the result not being obvious for the pressure applied and only a result of second, third, etc. order effects of the pressure.
  - maehwasu 8y ago
    If you're going to comment, make it substantiative. Arguing over the definitions of words, and not the underlying phenomenon, is the opposite of that. If "corruption", as you prefer to call it, leads to selection pressures and selects for those most "fit" in the arts of corruption, then "evolutionary pressure" is a perfectly adequate metaphor, and likely helpful for analyzing the situation. On a related note, the knee-jerk application of moral terminology rather than clear analysis to government issues is one of the principal hacks that corrupt bureaucracies use to perpetuate themselves.
arsy214 8y ago
If you have worked for Caltrans or any other public agency you would have experienced first hand why it take 10 State engineers to replace a light bulb......better yet google the Caltrans Director Sex Scandal case or Jay Shah the District 7 Contract manager Pay for plays or yet the Caltrans engineer serving a Colorado federal prison for smuggling restricted military material to China.......

ZanyProgrammer 8y ago

I have read the Power Broker, and I don't think it really has anything to do with getting things build in spite of regulations. Sure he got things built, but the modern regulatory state wasn't really an issue in the 1950s. Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.

redwood 8y ago
People tried to use all kinds of methods to stop all kinds of Robert Moses projects, but he was always there faster than them or literally breaking through ignoring them. Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Thankfully though, he didn't have the wherewithal to power through everything he wanted to do. I get your point. But the balance is going to vary a lot depending upon your priorities.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Robert Moses is a prime example of how a misguided despot can ruin everything for generations to come. Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
MrTonyD 8y ago
And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.
bobthepanda 8y ago
If the prime example is also to learn about budgeting from Moses, The Power Broker also describes how he would deliberately lowball costs to get them approved, and then force politicians to cover the overruns because the projects were a sunk cost.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> There was a time when cities built their own transit! I think working for a government used to be an attractive option. No it'd be extremely hard to justify accepting a government salary for the same job you could be doing for the contractor for literally 3x the money and far better working conditions.

sokoloff 8y ago
To be honest, I'd have to be paid more to work within a government system than for a private employer to put up with governmental BS and lower job mobility.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  If you're at a point where the money isn't as important as stability it could be worth it. As a close relative of mine who was a lifelong state bureaucrat put it "you have to rape a kid to be fired but you'll keep your pension unless you video tape it" which based on other things that happened in his department over the years is an exaggeration but not a big one. I'd definitely consider working for the government after my house is paid off.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Funny you mention that. Once money is no longer an issue, I'd consider going to work for a university. Many of the same benefits (and drawbacks). A few years ago, I seriously considered working for EdX as I believe in the mission, but all the EdX positions that were open were MIT employees (amazing benefits, fixed [and uncompetitive] salary structure) and we had two young kids at home so it wasn't the right time to consider that.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    Darn that's sad. Once money is not a primary issue, I would much prefer working 80%, or 60%, whatever compared to just gaining more stability. Pushing papers, playing politics, losing touch with progress in real world (affecting employability), that's a bad direction in any age.

gsnedders 8y ago

> There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten. At the same time, you probably don't want your engineers making mistakes and not knowing about lessons learnt elsewhere; having some external expertise is likely good, even if most of the work is done by your own engineers.

maehwasu 8y ago

> We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms. I share your frustration, but there are evolutionary pressures at work here. The people most likely to be in government are those most likely to survive in it. Seeing hard projects through does not increase your "fitness" much. Knowing how to manipulate bureaucracies, build up little fiefdoms, acquire the pull to bring in expensive consultants, manage the reciprocal relationships with those consultants, etc. -- all this stuff does increase your fitness in a bureaucracy. The only two proven ways to cut this Gordian Knot are smaller sovereign jurisdictions (suddenly those bureaucrats have to answer to people who are many fewer degrees removed) or executives with more unilateral power (authoritarianism/CEO-style governance). For better or worse, the American system has evolved in the opposite direction on both those poles.

protonfish 8y ago
That's not "evolutionary pressure", it's corruption.
- SkyBelow 8y ago
  Those are not contradictory. It is possible for corruption to thrive because of evolutionary pressure. It is even possible for it to do so despite the result not being obvious for the pressure applied and only a result of second, third, etc. order effects of the pressure.
- maehwasu 8y ago
  If you're going to comment, make it substantiative. Arguing over the definitions of words, and not the underlying phenomenon, is the opposite of that. If "corruption", as you prefer to call it, leads to selection pressures and selects for those most "fit" in the arts of corruption, then "evolutionary pressure" is a perfectly adequate metaphor, and likely helpful for analyzing the situation. On a related note, the knee-jerk application of moral terminology rather than clear analysis to government issues is one of the principal hacks that corrupt bureaucracies use to perpetuate themselves.

arsy214 8y ago

If you have worked for Caltrans or any other public agency you would have experienced first hand why it take 10 State engineers to replace a light bulb......better yet google the Caltrans Director Sex Scandal case or Jay Shah the District 7 Contract manager Pay for plays or yet the Caltrans engineer serving a Colorado federal prison for smuggling restricted military material to China.......