10 ms·

Again I can't tell if you've quoted three vaguely regulation-y phrases in an attempt to justify generic contempt for government regulation or if you're backing

Again I can't tell if you've quoted three vaguely regulation-y phrases in an attempt to justify generic contempt for government regulation or if you're backing me up with documentary proof that this is a boring sensible thing. As your document says, it is literally the commercial fishing industry, shipbuilders, shipowners, equipment manufacturers, insurers etc. getting together to swap notes on safety because shipwrecks and deaths are not good for business. "members serve as representatives of their respective interests, associations, or organizations" This is not woke communism.

dgfitz 2y ago
I found a job posting from 2020. I didn't know much about this agency so I looked them up. Turns out I didn't know much about them because this was established in 2018. One of the interesting bits about the job posting is that, not too surprisingly, there are no salaries: > All members will serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, with the exception that members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. Which, to me, can read two ways: altruistic people trying to make the industry better OR You won't even be selected to this committee unless you're already wealthy enough to foot the bill yourself and shape policy in a way that advantages ones self. I don't know which way to read it, but if it wasn't costing anything, cutting it "for cost savings" can't be completely true. Maybe there were other overhead costs, but even saying that those costs are $1M/yr is a rounding error for the national budget. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/13/2020-22571/national-commercial-fishing-safety-advisory-committee-vacancy https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/13/2020-22...
- twic 2y ago
  This sounds to me like industry bodies such as WG21, TC39, JSR expert groups, etc. A way to get people with full-time jobs in relevant industries together to plan their shared future. I doubt the members of this board are wealthy people joining it in their own capacity. As such, i don't think it makes sense to consider them as either altruistic or self-serving; it's just part of their job.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  A very small nitpick but the discretionary budget of the US is far smaller than most realize - in 2024 it was only 1.75 trillion. And notably, most military spending is discretionary, so the remaining funds for basically all the neat dynamic things government can do is less than a trillion. A million is of course still a rounding error at e.g. $900 billion, but it adds up really fast, especially when you consider that these are ongoing costs.
  - 20after4 2y ago
    I'm having a hard time taking this seriously: "only 1.75 trillion" What a ludicrous statement. I mean, I know inflation has been bad but not THAT bad. One or two trillion dollars is an absolutely enormous amount of money.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      It is only what a few thousand per citizen? That is pocket money for FAANG engineers so not a big deal...
      - emchammer 2y ago
        We're not all FAANG engineers.
        pfannkuchen 2y ago
        Seems like sarcasm and possibly a comment on so-called luxury beliefs.
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      Haha, yeah I should have put quotes around "only" but you have to keep in mind that this ~900billion that remains is the entire government budget for everything besides stuff like medicare, social security, and so on. When people think about government spending they tend to handwave away billions and, as per this thread, millions are seen as a rounding error. But I think thats because most people are thinking about the entire budget - which is around was 6.7 trillion on total revenue of 4.9 trillion. But when "only" 900 billion of that is left for all the neat things government could do it really nails home the impact of things like a trillion dollars per year spent in interest on the debt. It really also makes clear why starting to slim things down is essentially becoming necessary. The current system is not sustainable.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kristianbrigman 2y ago
What’s the advantage of having this as a government agency vs. just an industry association?
- oooyay 2y ago
  An advisory counsel may not get paid but they submit findings to the Secretary. There's a long tail where the government becomes more aware of long standing and emergent issues. Industry associations have no such reach unless individual members make it so, and unofficially at that.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Direct line to the head of the agency, who is in a position to help advance the goals of the members? Without the direct line, the association has to rely on lobbying/bribing politicians for access.
floor2 2y ago
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but both your comments in this thread really, really scream that you need to step away from the internet and go interact with real humans in the real world. Nobody except you is talking about woke communism. Nobody except you is talking about "owning the libs". You're making paranoid, nonsensical arguments against people on your side by imagining they're some sort of alt-right strawman. It's obviously the "you're backing me up with documentary proof that this is a boring sensible thing" interpretation. The original comment had similar intent.

dgfitz 2y ago

I found a job posting from 2020. I didn't know much about this agency so I looked them up. Turns out I didn't know much about them because this was established in 2018. One of the interesting bits about the job posting is that, not too surprisingly, there are no salaries: > All members will serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, with the exception that members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. Which, to me, can read two ways: altruistic people trying to make the industry better OR You won't even be selected to this committee unless you're already wealthy enough to foot the bill yourself and shape policy in a way that advantages ones self. I don't know which way to read it, but if it wasn't costing anything, cutting it "for cost savings" can't be completely true. Maybe there were other overhead costs, but even saying that those costs are $1M/yr is a rounding error for the national budget. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/13/2020-22571/national-commercial-fishing-safety-advisory-committee-vacancy https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/13/2020-22...

twic 2y ago
This sounds to me like industry bodies such as WG21, TC39, JSR expert groups, etc. A way to get people with full-time jobs in relevant industries together to plan their shared future. I doubt the members of this board are wealthy people joining it in their own capacity. As such, i don't think it makes sense to consider them as either altruistic or self-serving; it's just part of their job.
ANewFormation 2y ago
A very small nitpick but the discretionary budget of the US is far smaller than most realize - in 2024 it was only 1.75 trillion. And notably, most military spending is discretionary, so the remaining funds for basically all the neat dynamic things government can do is less than a trillion. A million is of course still a rounding error at e.g. $900 billion, but it adds up really fast, especially when you consider that these are ongoing costs.
- 20after4 2y ago
  I'm having a hard time taking this seriously: "only 1.75 trillion" What a ludicrous statement. I mean, I know inflation has been bad but not THAT bad. One or two trillion dollars is an absolutely enormous amount of money.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    It is only what a few thousand per citizen? That is pocket money for FAANG engineers so not a big deal...
    - emchammer 2y ago
      We're not all FAANG engineers.
      - pfannkuchen 2y ago
        Seems like sarcasm and possibly a comment on so-called luxury beliefs.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    Haha, yeah I should have put quotes around "only" but you have to keep in mind that this ~900billion that remains is the entire government budget for everything besides stuff like medicare, social security, and so on. When people think about government spending they tend to handwave away billions and, as per this thread, millions are seen as a rounding error. But I think thats because most people are thinking about the entire budget - which is around was 6.7 trillion on total revenue of 4.9 trillion. But when "only" 900 billion of that is left for all the neat things government could do it really nails home the impact of things like a trillion dollars per year spent in interest on the debt. It really also makes clear why starting to slim things down is essentially becoming necessary. The current system is not sustainable.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kristianbrigman 2y ago

What’s the advantage of having this as a government agency vs. just an industry association?

oooyay 2y ago
An advisory counsel may not get paid but they submit findings to the Secretary. There's a long tail where the government becomes more aware of long standing and emergent issues. Industry associations have no such reach unless individual members make it so, and unofficially at that.
alistairSH 2y ago
Direct line to the head of the agency, who is in a position to help advance the goals of the members? Without the direct line, the association has to rely on lobbying/bribing politicians for access.

floor2 2y ago

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but both your comments in this thread really, really scream that you need to step away from the internet and go interact with real humans in the real world. Nobody except you is talking about woke communism. Nobody except you is talking about "owning the libs". You're making paranoid, nonsensical arguments against people on your side by imagining they're some sort of alt-right strawman. It's obviously the "you're backing me up with documentary proof that this is a boring sensible thing" interpretation. The original comment had similar intent.