3 ms·
Yes, you could use exactly the same rhetoric to justify Carnegie Steel or Stalin's Five Year Plans! "This is the future! We are building a new age for our glor
by pixodaros 5y ago
Yes, you could use exactly the same rhetoric to justify Carnegie Steel or Stalin's Five Year Plans! "This is the future! We are building a new age for our glorious nation! Don't ask what it costs the workers or who is living in a mansion on the money siphoned off the budget! Don't ask if we could achieve the same without crippling and killing workers!"
It wasn't until the 1930s that employers in the USA even provided and mandated hard hats. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/history-hard-hat-180974238/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/history-hard-hat-1...
- nexuist 5y agoThe FAA is not a workers protection agency. That's OSHA and as far as I'm aware SpaceX does not have a (public) problem with them. The FAA is in charge of regulating airspace. SpaceX's fight with them is about determining how fast a rocket company is allowed to iterate and launch. Skyscrapers boomed in the 20s because of lax zoning laws that enabled land developers to build tall and build often. The connection to the picture is that SpaceX wants the same lax "zoning" laws to be adopted by the FAA, allowing them to build many more "skyscrapers" in as short a time as possible.
- pixodaros 5y agoIIRC, the FAA in the United States has a mandate to reduce accidents https://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/ They seem to be good at their job. So regulations which got in SpaceX's way would tend to be ones which reduce the chances of aircraft falling out of the sky or exploding and killing the crew and passengers and possibly airport crew. More importantly, the rhetoric in that opinion piece can be used interchangably to argue against any kind of regulation or worker protection.