3 ms·

By regulations I assume you mean lowering the minimum wage or removing environmental and OSHA protections, correct? Just want to be clear.

tastyfreeze 2y ago
I would be fine with all of those. The environmental regulations are the top of my list though. I have seen too many instances of EPA or NEPA completely blocking or slowing development to an untenable pace to support them. Workplace safety is important but I prefer it as recommendations not requirements. US labor is not competitive internationally. We expect more compensation for the same job people halfway around the world are doing to produce things for us. If you want domestic production you have to remove the chains that made us uncompetitive in the first place. Minimum wage and environmental protections are the top of the list. The Hoover dam was built in 5 years, 2 years after the idea was approved. Skyscrapers of the same era were built by men walking on I-beams, untethered, hundreds of feet in the air. We have become too risk averse to compete internationally. Just the NEPA paperwork for a new project can take 5 years. For NEPA in particular, we pay employees at the state level to file the paperwork and employees at the federal level to review it. There is no way that is an efficient use of public funds. All it does is slow down our development and put the power of controlling development in each state in the hands of the feds. We are essentially paying twice to ask for permission to build the things we want to build.
- jaybrendansmith 2y ago
  I wouldn't want one of my kids working in an unsafe environment. I don't think you would either. Just as I do not want the poor air quality of the 70s to come back. I don't want lead in my water. I blame government if they do not enforce restrictions, and I blame industry for not following them. We are not going to be competitive as long as China is willing to flush their environment down the toilet, and treat their workers like chattel slaves. And why would we want that for the American people?? Having said all that, I agree the paperwork is a nightmare. That needs changed ... instead of the attitude of 'you must have permission to do this', the approach should be 'go ahead and do what you want, but if something goes wrong and we find you did not verify environmental impacts or OSHA regs we will sue you for real $$$. That approach fits better with how we do things in this country. It's what we've been following for all things software, which is why we are quite able to develop and build great things quickly in this part of the market. It should be up to each company to be willing to take risks if they choose.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    You contradicted yourself and offered a solution that works in all cases. "Do what you want but you will be sued if something goes wrong". The problem with almost all of our regulations is that you have to prove you are compliant by satisfying inspectors before you can even start.
    - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
      I'm gonna have to agree with that. It should always be based on 'Ask for forgiveness, but not for permission'.

tastyfreeze 2y ago

I would be fine with all of those. The environmental regulations are the top of my list though. I have seen too many instances of EPA or NEPA completely blocking or slowing development to an untenable pace to support them. Workplace safety is important but I prefer it as recommendations not requirements. US labor is not competitive internationally. We expect more compensation for the same job people halfway around the world are doing to produce things for us. If you want domestic production you have to remove the chains that made us uncompetitive in the first place. Minimum wage and environmental protections are the top of the list. The Hoover dam was built in 5 years, 2 years after the idea was approved. Skyscrapers of the same era were built by men walking on I-beams, untethered, hundreds of feet in the air. We have become too risk averse to compete internationally. Just the NEPA paperwork for a new project can take 5 years. For NEPA in particular, we pay employees at the state level to file the paperwork and employees at the federal level to review it. There is no way that is an efficient use of public funds. All it does is slow down our development and put the power of controlling development in each state in the hands of the feds. We are essentially paying twice to ask for permission to build the things we want to build.

jaybrendansmith 2y ago
I wouldn't want one of my kids working in an unsafe environment. I don't think you would either. Just as I do not want the poor air quality of the 70s to come back. I don't want lead in my water. I blame government if they do not enforce restrictions, and I blame industry for not following them. We are not going to be competitive as long as China is willing to flush their environment down the toilet, and treat their workers like chattel slaves. And why would we want that for the American people?? Having said all that, I agree the paperwork is a nightmare. That needs changed ... instead of the attitude of 'you must have permission to do this', the approach should be 'go ahead and do what you want, but if something goes wrong and we find you did not verify environmental impacts or OSHA regs we will sue you for real $$$. That approach fits better with how we do things in this country. It's what we've been following for all things software, which is why we are quite able to develop and build great things quickly in this part of the market. It should be up to each company to be willing to take risks if they choose.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  You contradicted yourself and offered a solution that works in all cases. "Do what you want but you will be sued if something goes wrong". The problem with almost all of our regulations is that you have to prove you are compliant by satisfying inspectors before you can even start.
  - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
    I'm gonna have to agree with that. It should always be based on 'Ask for forgiveness, but not for permission'.