4 ms·

I don't understand how someone so young is made responsible for such things. They'll have possibly never even managed 5 people, let alone large organizations. S

I don't understand how someone so young is made responsible for such things. They'll have possibly never even managed 5 people, let alone large organizations. She's a Associate Law prof barely out of school. If they are 'brilliant' - that's great - then the should be senior advisors to the Head of the Commission, not Head of the Commission. We don't want theoretical ideologues in those kinds of positions. We ended up with companies like Facebook partly because we put 'really young people in enormous positions of power'. These kinds of jobs is also as much about politics, people, relationships and 'knowing the system' as they are 'being brilliant'. At my age, I'm keenly aware at how I was not ready for a whole bunch of things 10 years ago. Experience is real, just just 'an age'. Edit: responding to the commentor below, yes thanks I should have added, at age 32 you're not tangled up in a web of politics. Also what's hard to describe is that the wager and risk becomes much great as you go on. At 32, you have your life ahead of you, you can burn political capital. At 50, you have to absolutely be making sure you're either 1) keeping your job a long time or 2) making a major transition, enabled by doing favours, political things etc. - you have your retirement, a spouse and 3 kids all going to Uni to worry about. That mental state is an advantage. But again, the skills you start to gain after age 32 matter a lot and that someone who's brilliant like this is much better able to help as a senior adviser to someone with the organizational political skills.

nabla9 5y ago
Since graduating she has worked as Legal director at the Open Markets Institute, became Columbia Law School academic fellow, a Legal Fellow at the FTC, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law (leading the congressional investigation) and published The Separation of Platforms and Commerce.
keyanp 5y ago
While I think there is some validity in your point. I also think there is value in sometimes bringing in someone young and without the years of baggage/relationships that morph their views and may also leave them with "favors" they need to return once in power. I can't see an industry veteran being willing to make such drastic changes without worrying about who they would offend.
ryandrake 5y ago
I disagree, but I upvoted because it is a perfectly valid point of view and expressed politely. Consider that this is a super outlier when it comes to government leadership, so maybe there is something to it. Government is absolutely packed with old people[1], to the point where the young don't have much of a voice despite being a large US demographic. The average age of the 117th Congress is 59 years old. Only a single Senator is under 40. The house has only one member born in the 90s. The age groups with the biggest gains compared to the last Congress are 80+ and 50-59. Congress is old and getting older. 1: https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-117th-congress https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-117th-congress
kelnos 5y ago
> you have your retirement, a spouse and 3 kids all going to Uni to worry about On the flip side, I'm not sure we really want the "move fast and break things" mentality moving into government, which seems to be a feature of leaders with less to lose. (Certainly government moves too slowly most of the time, but there has to be a middle ground.)

nabla9 5y ago

Since graduating she has worked as Legal director at the Open Markets Institute, became Columbia Law School academic fellow, a Legal Fellow at the FTC, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law (leading the congressional investigation) and published The Separation of Platforms and Commerce.

keyanp 5y ago

While I think there is some validity in your point. I also think there is value in sometimes bringing in someone young and without the years of baggage/relationships that morph their views and may also leave them with "favors" they need to return once in power. I can't see an industry veteran being willing to make such drastic changes without worrying about who they would offend.

ryandrake 5y ago

I disagree, but I upvoted because it is a perfectly valid point of view and expressed politely. Consider that this is a super outlier when it comes to government leadership, so maybe there is something to it. Government is absolutely packed with old people[1], to the point where the young don't have much of a voice despite being a large US demographic. The average age of the 117th Congress is 59 years old. Only a single Senator is under 40. The house has only one member born in the 90s. The age groups with the biggest gains compared to the last Congress are 80+ and 50-59. Congress is old and getting older. 1: https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-117th-congress https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-117th-congress

kelnos 5y ago

> you have your retirement, a spouse and 3 kids all going to Uni to worry about On the flip side, I'm not sure we really want the "move fast and break things" mentality moving into government, which seems to be a feature of leaders with less to lose. (Certainly government moves too slowly most of the time, but there has to be a middle ground.)