6 ms·

While I'm sure many will argue about government control vs entrepreneurial freedom, what fascinates me most is the inefficiency. Reading that it takes '77 steps

While I'm sure many will argue about government control vs entrepreneurial freedom, what fascinates me most is the inefficiency. Reading that it takes '77 steps' or '63 steps' or whatever doesn't bother me. My programs have thousands of steps, but the wall-clock step time makes them disappear. No it's the inefficient parts, in-person visits, lack of consolidation, processing delays. All the things that computers are supposed to have solved by now. I'd reframe this movement not as 'business vs government' but 'everyone vs inefficiency.'

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
If you can't afford (in terms of time as well as money) to put up with it you can screw right off. The city doesn't need or want your low buck development. Making the process inefficient raises the floor of the minimum viable business. And, more importantly, it raises the floor for who can start one so that you don't get people closing up shop and being bankrupt when something bad happens. The institutions designing these processes are chock f-ing full of people of questionable intentions. You hear "affordable prices" they hear "trashy clientele". You hear "thin margins" and they hear "can't afford to be taxed more than they currently are". You hear "small family owned business" and they hear "people who have no other assets we can threaten to lien in the case of a dispute". And just to be clear, these people aren't evil (well their actions are, but they're done with good intentions). It's just that the regulatory agencies they work for are set up in such a way that the 2nd and 3rd order "nice to push for but not technically within the scope of what we do here" opinions of all the people involved seep through. At its root this is a diversity problem. There aren't enough Ron Swansons and people who've been f-ed by government bureaucracies working for government bureaucracies so you get bureaucracies doing things that are completely and totally tone deaf. Edit: And before anyone puts any more words in my mouth, they have no intention of making the process onerous and exclusionary. They have just settled into that equilibrium over the centuries because that is the local maximum their crude "did our last round of changes do what we wanted or not" hill climbing algorithm has found.
- iandanforth 4y ago
  I agree it's entirely possible that some bureaucracy is intended as a trial by fire. That said I think that is a tiny minority of the time. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The people implementing these regulations don't have the time, resources, or expertise to create holistically efficient systems. Instead they can have meetings, write rules, have more meetings, vote on the rules, and then add another step to a process that assumes you go to an office and fill out a form because that's how it was done the first time someone had to come up with the permitting process. If I approach a rule maker and say "you're trying to over regulate!" then I'm challenging their raison d'etre without demonstrating understanding of their limited toolset. If, on the other hand, I say, "let me reduce your costs, save you time, and help you collect money faster" then (I believe) I'm going to have a better time. It's for that reason that I feel the "everyone vs inefficiency" argument is more likely to succeed.
- brtkdotse 4y ago
  > ”can't afford to be taxes (sic) more than they currently are” This is such a weird take. You get taxed on profits. If you don’t turn a profit you pay zero tax. Oh, and payroll is not profit.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Licensing fees, requirements for X or Y be implemented, etc, etc, that kind of stuff. At the small business level that's the stuff that's really onerous. If it were just taxes on profits far fewer people would be complaining. It's all the shit that kicks you when you're down that really hurts.
    - brtkdotse 4y ago
      In that case the business idea wasn’t good enough. If you can’t afford the cost of doing business it’s not a viable business idea. In the same category: “I can’t afford to pay more than minimum wage”
      - 4y ago
Spooky23 4y ago
Most of those steps exist because of some asshole who did asshole shit. You need to have an inspection by the water board to size the grease trap because some asshole dumped his cooking waste down the drain and created a fat berg that clogged the sewer. You need fire inspections because assholes block emergency egress, disable smoke alarms, etc. We have health permitting and inspection because people will do things like not fix freezers or leave a tray of raw chicken in 90 degree heat on a tray perched in the grease trap. Entrepeneurs are great, but many will cut corners to make it work. I’d rather not get poisoned to advance their dream.
- skywal_l 4y ago
  +1. I agree with your point and I think you are absolutely right but your answer seems to fall into the trap the parent was warning about. Having controls does not mean that they must be inefficient. In fact, bureaucracy and inefficiencies are the enemies of the end goal because they tend to devalue the work of government agencies (or whoever enforce those controls). And then you end up with a libertarian outlet like Institute for Justice telling you that you need half a century to open a donut store.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Nah, the assholes are the exception, not the rule. This level of bureaucracy is never for the good of the people. You could have a process that approves things optimistically and have inspections coming later. You could have some form of certification program that let's you say "It's not my first rodeo. I know what I am doing, please let me do it and I take full responsibility for any shit that might happen if I deviate from the best practices."
  - Spivak 4y ago
    All laws cater to the exceptions because if a behavior was the cultural norm there wouldn’t be a law against it. Your solution has the same level of bureaucracy but delays it and even adds, essentially, an addition licensure so it’s not really the bureaucracy but the timing.
dfxm12 4y ago
Yeah, there may be some shock at the 92 number, but really what is a step? I can probably come up with a shocking number of steps to make coffee in the morning... I think it's more important to understand if the process is well defined/laid out and if the overall time from the first to last step is reasonable. Plus, depending on the situation, I'd rather the work be in my hands because I know I would be efficient, at least.
- blitzar 4y ago
  28 steps to make my cup of coffee in the morning in you were wondering. (plus a few more to clean up afterwards)
- simplicio 4y ago
  Yea, the article would've been more interesting (and probably more convincing?) if it had detailed what some of the steps actually are. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that inefficient regulation is an issue, but just quoting an opaque number of "steps" seems, if anything, to make the case less convincing by making it feel like they're obfuscating.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

If you can't afford (in terms of time as well as money) to put up with it you can screw right off. The city doesn't need or want your low buck development. Making the process inefficient raises the floor of the minimum viable business. And, more importantly, it raises the floor for who can start one so that you don't get people closing up shop and being bankrupt when something bad happens. The institutions designing these processes are chock f-ing full of people of questionable intentions. You hear "affordable prices" they hear "trashy clientele". You hear "thin margins" and they hear "can't afford to be taxed more than they currently are". You hear "small family owned business" and they hear "people who have no other assets we can threaten to lien in the case of a dispute". And just to be clear, these people aren't evil (well their actions are, but they're done with good intentions). It's just that the regulatory agencies they work for are set up in such a way that the 2nd and 3rd order "nice to push for but not technically within the scope of what we do here" opinions of all the people involved seep through. At its root this is a diversity problem. There aren't enough Ron Swansons and people who've been f-ed by government bureaucracies working for government bureaucracies so you get bureaucracies doing things that are completely and totally tone deaf. Edit: And before anyone puts any more words in my mouth, they have no intention of making the process onerous and exclusionary. They have just settled into that equilibrium over the centuries because that is the local maximum their crude "did our last round of changes do what we wanted or not" hill climbing algorithm has found.

iandanforth 4y ago
I agree it's entirely possible that some bureaucracy is intended as a trial by fire. That said I think that is a tiny minority of the time. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The people implementing these regulations don't have the time, resources, or expertise to create holistically efficient systems. Instead they can have meetings, write rules, have more meetings, vote on the rules, and then add another step to a process that assumes you go to an office and fill out a form because that's how it was done the first time someone had to come up with the permitting process. If I approach a rule maker and say "you're trying to over regulate!" then I'm challenging their raison d'etre without demonstrating understanding of their limited toolset. If, on the other hand, I say, "let me reduce your costs, save you time, and help you collect money faster" then (I believe) I'm going to have a better time. It's for that reason that I feel the "everyone vs inefficiency" argument is more likely to succeed.
brtkdotse 4y ago
> ”can't afford to be taxes (sic) more than they currently are” This is such a weird take. You get taxed on profits. If you don’t turn a profit you pay zero tax. Oh, and payroll is not profit.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Licensing fees, requirements for X or Y be implemented, etc, etc, that kind of stuff. At the small business level that's the stuff that's really onerous. If it were just taxes on profits far fewer people would be complaining. It's all the shit that kicks you when you're down that really hurts.
  - brtkdotse 4y ago
    In that case the business idea wasn’t good enough. If you can’t afford the cost of doing business it’s not a viable business idea. In the same category: “I can’t afford to pay more than minimum wage”
    - 4y ago

Spooky23 4y ago

Most of those steps exist because of some asshole who did asshole shit. You need to have an inspection by the water board to size the grease trap because some asshole dumped his cooking waste down the drain and created a fat berg that clogged the sewer. You need fire inspections because assholes block emergency egress, disable smoke alarms, etc. We have health permitting and inspection because people will do things like not fix freezers or leave a tray of raw chicken in 90 degree heat on a tray perched in the grease trap. Entrepeneurs are great, but many will cut corners to make it work. I’d rather not get poisoned to advance their dream.

skywal_l 4y ago
+1. I agree with your point and I think you are absolutely right but your answer seems to fall into the trap the parent was warning about. Having controls does not mean that they must be inefficient. In fact, bureaucracy and inefficiencies are the enemies of the end goal because they tend to devalue the work of government agencies (or whoever enforce those controls). And then you end up with a libertarian outlet like Institute for Justice telling you that you need half a century to open a donut store.
rglullis 4y ago
Nah, the assholes are the exception, not the rule. This level of bureaucracy is never for the good of the people. You could have a process that approves things optimistically and have inspections coming later. You could have some form of certification program that let's you say "It's not my first rodeo. I know what I am doing, please let me do it and I take full responsibility for any shit that might happen if I deviate from the best practices."
- Spivak 4y ago
  All laws cater to the exceptions because if a behavior was the cultural norm there wouldn’t be a law against it. Your solution has the same level of bureaucracy but delays it and even adds, essentially, an addition licensure so it’s not really the bureaucracy but the timing.

dfxm12 4y ago

Yeah, there may be some shock at the 92 number, but really what is a step? I can probably come up with a shocking number of steps to make coffee in the morning... I think it's more important to understand if the process is well defined/laid out and if the overall time from the first to last step is reasonable. Plus, depending on the situation, I'd rather the work be in my hands because I know I would be efficient, at least.

blitzar 4y ago
28 steps to make my cup of coffee in the morning in you were wondering. (plus a few more to clean up afterwards)
simplicio 4y ago
Yea, the article would've been more interesting (and probably more convincing?) if it had detailed what some of the steps actually are. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that inefficient regulation is an issue, but just quoting an opaque number of "steps" seems, if anything, to make the case less convincing by making it feel like they're obfuscating.