5 ms·

The problem is the only suggestions for reform that I have heard from Musk and others are firing people and eliminating programs. If there is a push for other k

The problem is the only suggestions for reform that I have heard from Musk and others are firing people and eliminating programs. If there is a push for other kinds of reform that makes things clearer and simpler then I would support them. However, since SpaceX and Amazon have argued the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional, I have little hope that the reforms they propose will be the kind I would like to see. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/18/nx-s1-5192918/spacex-amazon-nlrb-labor-board-elon-musk https://www.npr.org/2024/11/18/nx-s1-5192918/spacex-amazon-n...

baranul 2y ago
It looks like the kind of "reform" and deregulation that these Billionaires want, is whatever will put more money into their pocket, their businesses, and those of their rich friends. Unfortunately, lots of poor voters erroneously think they will get something out of it, but that's unlikely to be the intent or the result.
karmonhardan 2y ago
It's certainly funny how popular "Defund the" is when it ends with, "[agency with a track record of actually providing service and value to both individual Americans and the country as a whole]" instead of "police". Turns out, conservatism is selective when it comes to preservation of institutions. One guess what the qualifier is.
- gruez 2y ago
  [flagged]
- dragontamer 2y ago
  They are apparently pro police but anti-FBI, which is basically the Federal Level police force in charge of finding corruption in politicians. The problem here is it feels like Police for thee but not for me.
  - adamrezich 2y ago
    > FBI, which is basically the Federal Level police force in charge of finding corruption in politicians. This is false.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      FBI seems highly involved in prosecuting by corruption to me. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      You are false. It's certainly not ATF, ICE or Secret Service who police corruption. It is and always has been FBI.
mst 2y ago
Yes, although - My bull case is not that I particularly like their reforms, but that they demonstrate that substantive rather than incremental changes are possible at all. Also perhaps that they rip out things that are supposedly doing something useful but sufficiently terrible at it they're not meaningfully helping, such that somebody not-them can later at least attempt to introduce a replacement that does. Or: The vetocracy problem is very much real and reducing that could, in the medium to long term, be a huge win on net even if the things they do having reduced it in the short term are absolutely not the kind I would like to see either.
- digging 2y ago
  > they demonstrate that substantive rather than incremental changes are possible at all. Substantive-not-incremental change has always been possible, but it's mostly avoided for being a bad idea. Only when we identify an opportunity to make substantive improvement, clear and well understood, should it be used; the default is substantive destruction which is rarely more helpful than harmful. In software terms, they're looking to rip out entire modules, because they don't understand the business logic that demands those modules. Such substantive change would be pretty idiotic in almost all cases. Refactoring is virtually always the better choice, even if it's hard and takes a long time. Ripping out a module entirely, only to find it was necessary after all, tends to lead to the same module being rebuilt piecemeal as the missing logic is identified and being as bad or worse than before. In the end, you still need to refactor it if you want it to be good. If you can't afford to refactor, (and you don't have well understood problems,) you're better off not changing anything.
  - mst 2y ago
    I think that generally refactoring attempts have either failed or simply ended up bolting a bypass on the side that only helps somewhat, and most of the rest of the articles on the same site as the submission we're discussing contain at least one example thereof. Nonetheless, I largely agree with your metaphor(s) as a projection of how a bunch of things are depressingly likely to go wrong in the short term.
greentxt 2y ago
Can we make a strategic vs tectical distinction when it comes to reforms?
marbro 2y ago
SpaceX and Amazon, among other businesses, have challenged the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Their primary argument centers on the separation of powers principle. They contend that the NLRB's structure, with its independent agency status and limited presidential control over member removal, violates this principle. Specifically, these companies argue that the NLRB's structure grants excessive power to the agency, allowing it to make decisions without sufficient presidential oversight. This, they believe, undermines the checks and balances system and infringes on their rights as employers. They contend that the board's ability to create rules and regulations that have the force of law, encroaches on the legislative branch's power. Additionally, they raise concerns about the NLRB's adjudicative role, which combines executive and judicial functions, blurring the lines between the two branches. By challenging the NLRB's constitutionality, these companies aim to limit the board's authority and influence over labor relations. They argue that the current structure of the NLRB is outdated and no longer serves the best interests of workers or employers. Ultimately, these challenges raise important questions about the balance of power between the federal government and private businesses, and the role of independent agencies in regulating labor relations.

baranul 2y ago

It looks like the kind of "reform" and deregulation that these Billionaires want, is whatever will put more money into their pocket, their businesses, and those of their rich friends. Unfortunately, lots of poor voters erroneously think they will get something out of it, but that's unlikely to be the intent or the result.

karmonhardan 2y ago

It's certainly funny how popular "Defund the" is when it ends with, "[agency with a track record of actually providing service and value to both individual Americans and the country as a whole]" instead of "police". Turns out, conservatism is selective when it comes to preservation of institutions. One guess what the qualifier is.

gruez 2y ago
[flagged]
dragontamer 2y ago
They are apparently pro police but anti-FBI, which is basically the Federal Level police force in charge of finding corruption in politicians. The problem here is it feels like Police for thee but not for me.
- adamrezich 2y ago
  > FBI, which is basically the Federal Level police force in charge of finding corruption in politicians. This is false.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    FBI seems highly involved in prosecuting by corruption to me. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    You are false. It's certainly not ATF, ICE or Secret Service who police corruption. It is and always has been FBI.

mst 2y ago

Yes, although - My bull case is not that I particularly like their reforms, but that they demonstrate that substantive rather than incremental changes are possible at all. Also perhaps that they rip out things that are supposedly doing something useful but sufficiently terrible at it they're not meaningfully helping, such that somebody not-them can later at least attempt to introduce a replacement that does. Or: The vetocracy problem is very much real and reducing that could, in the medium to long term, be a huge win on net even if the things they do having reduced it in the short term are absolutely not the kind I would like to see either.

digging 2y ago
> they demonstrate that substantive rather than incremental changes are possible at all. Substantive-not-incremental change has always been possible, but it's mostly avoided for being a bad idea. Only when we identify an opportunity to make substantive improvement, clear and well understood, should it be used; the default is substantive destruction which is rarely more helpful than harmful. In software terms, they're looking to rip out entire modules, because they don't understand the business logic that demands those modules. Such substantive change would be pretty idiotic in almost all cases. Refactoring is virtually always the better choice, even if it's hard and takes a long time. Ripping out a module entirely, only to find it was necessary after all, tends to lead to the same module being rebuilt piecemeal as the missing logic is identified and being as bad or worse than before. In the end, you still need to refactor it if you want it to be good. If you can't afford to refactor, (and you don't have well understood problems,) you're better off not changing anything.
- mst 2y ago
  I think that generally refactoring attempts have either failed or simply ended up bolting a bypass on the side that only helps somewhat, and most of the rest of the articles on the same site as the submission we're discussing contain at least one example thereof. Nonetheless, I largely agree with your metaphor(s) as a projection of how a bunch of things are depressingly likely to go wrong in the short term.

greentxt 2y ago

Can we make a strategic vs tectical distinction when it comes to reforms?

marbro 2y ago

SpaceX and Amazon, among other businesses, have challenged the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Their primary argument centers on the separation of powers principle. They contend that the NLRB's structure, with its independent agency status and limited presidential control over member removal, violates this principle. Specifically, these companies argue that the NLRB's structure grants excessive power to the agency, allowing it to make decisions without sufficient presidential oversight. This, they believe, undermines the checks and balances system and infringes on their rights as employers. They contend that the board's ability to create rules and regulations that have the force of law, encroaches on the legislative branch's power. Additionally, they raise concerns about the NLRB's adjudicative role, which combines executive and judicial functions, blurring the lines between the two branches. By challenging the NLRB's constitutionality, these companies aim to limit the board's authority and influence over labor relations. They argue that the current structure of the NLRB is outdated and no longer serves the best interests of workers or employers. Ultimately, these challenges raise important questions about the balance of power between the federal government and private businesses, and the role of independent agencies in regulating labor relations.