4 ms·

Google is a lot like a federal agency. They get a pile of resources first, then each sub-group figures out how to squander it in ways that make themselves, thei

by SiVal 13y ago

Google is a lot like a federal agency. They get a pile of resources first, then each sub-group figures out how to squander it in ways that make themselves, their work, and their budgets seem necessary and important. The result is they review each other, design processes for process review, monitor compliance, create regulations for other teams, try to find excuses to add more people and budget to their groups, have more and longer meetings, "develop software" by filling in blanks in some proprietary, automated process admin screen spread across three expensive monitors, go to an important Google Tech Talk related to cool technology they won't be allowed to use unless they leave Google, dish political dirt afterwards while noshing on free culinary resources, hurry back to the desk to continue an intense email debate about whether Go really needs exceptions, ride a Segway to the neighboring building for some important dry-cleaning-pick-upping, and, off to face the rush hour traffic on 101 after another brutal day of inventing the future. Unlike government, they don't take their money by force, so it's fine with me. They just won a corporate mega-lottery, that's all, and now they're finding fun ways to spend it, so they hire all the talent they can afford and try to get them to think of things to do (like government) instead of the usual non-lottery-winner approach of hiring only what they already desperately need.

daughart 13y ago
Except from my understanding the government is generally hugely understaffed with a large backlog of tasks that are mandated at the congressional or higher executive levels.
- SiVal 13y ago
  Government is "generally hugely understaffed"? Sure, in the sense that Google is hugely understaffed as long as they still aren't as big and powerful as they want to be. Googlers consistently claim that there isn't enough important work to justify all the talent they already have, yet Google keeps adding headcount. Apparently, they just want to be bigger and more powerful, and the reason they need such power is...well, the reason is they want to be bigger and more powerful. They have the resources to do it, so they will, and finding ways to use that power is secondary. Fine. It's their own money. The percentage of the population whose job is to "govern" us grows relentlessly every decade, yet some people think we are in a permanent, desperate state of not being governed enough. Just because government claims that they need to be much bigger and more powerful in order to be as big and powerful as they want to be doesn't mean that they are "hugely understaffed."
  - daughart 13y ago
    Seems ideological rather than factual. It's well known that the level of employment at the IRS prevents the government from collecting billions of dollars of revenue they are legally owed. In other words, the government is understaffed relative to what is necessary to enforce the law. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Make tax law simple enough to be enforced by the current staff, or properly staff this branch of the government. This is categorically different than Google needing to invent new tasks to hire people for. Your ideological position, that the government is not understaffed because the government does too much, is by definition unrelated to objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to their task of enforcing law.
    - SiVal 13y ago
      You speak of "the law" as if you were discussing laws of nature that government had to "properly staff" to deal with. But these are not objective laws of nature. These laws are demands made by government itself, so "objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to the task of enforcing law" is just saying that it's an objective fact that government doesn't have all the staff they need for the task of fully enforcing their growing list of demands. If that's all you meant, I agree with you. But if your statement that government was "hugely understaffed" meant to imply to any extent that government ought to be expanded, that would be ideology, not fact, and I disagree. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Putting it some other way doesn't change the facts. They add new laws, regulations, policies, and edicts each year to what you position as some sort of objective "task of enforcing law". That would be fine if they also revoked a similar number of laws, regulations, and demands, letting people go back to managing those affairs for themselves. But that's not their way. They don't give power back. When government decides to give itself more power, the only way the people ever get it back is when government lowers its enforcement priority and shifts staff to exercising other powers. The government has grown far faster than the economy for over a century. It has grown far faster than the population it governs. Though good government is valuable (I'm no anarchist), bad government is destructive, and you always have some of both. A government that removed defective policies at the rate healthy tissue removes defective cells could evolve into something wonderful. But ours doesn't work that way, and until it does, any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute. If you weren't implying a need for more government, I don't dispute your statement.
mathattack 13y ago
This may seem like a stupid question, but wouldn't the owners (including current senior management) know this, and be be able to double their wealth by squeezing out the inefficiency? Why does this break down? Is it because outside shareholders don't have voting power? btw - I like this question on HN because I expect the answers to be of higher quality than on Quora.

by SiVal 13y ago

daughart 13y ago

Except from my understanding the government is generally hugely understaffed with a large backlog of tasks that are mandated at the congressional or higher executive levels.

SiVal 13y ago
Government is "generally hugely understaffed"? Sure, in the sense that Google is hugely understaffed as long as they still aren't as big and powerful as they want to be. Googlers consistently claim that there isn't enough important work to justify all the talent they already have, yet Google keeps adding headcount. Apparently, they just want to be bigger and more powerful, and the reason they need such power is...well, the reason is they want to be bigger and more powerful. They have the resources to do it, so they will, and finding ways to use that power is secondary. Fine. It's their own money. The percentage of the population whose job is to "govern" us grows relentlessly every decade, yet some people think we are in a permanent, desperate state of not being governed enough. Just because government claims that they need to be much bigger and more powerful in order to be as big and powerful as they want to be doesn't mean that they are "hugely understaffed."
- daughart 13y ago
  Seems ideological rather than factual. It's well known that the level of employment at the IRS prevents the government from collecting billions of dollars of revenue they are legally owed. In other words, the government is understaffed relative to what is necessary to enforce the law. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Make tax law simple enough to be enforced by the current staff, or properly staff this branch of the government. This is categorically different than Google needing to invent new tasks to hire people for. Your ideological position, that the government is not understaffed because the government does too much, is by definition unrelated to objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to their task of enforcing law.
  - SiVal 13y ago
    You speak of "the law" as if you were discussing laws of nature that government had to "properly staff" to deal with. But these are not objective laws of nature. These laws are demands made by government itself, so "objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to the task of enforcing law" is just saying that it's an objective fact that government doesn't have all the staff they need for the task of fully enforcing their growing list of demands. If that's all you meant, I agree with you. But if your statement that government was "hugely understaffed" meant to imply to any extent that government ought to be expanded, that would be ideology, not fact, and I disagree. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Putting it some other way doesn't change the facts. They add new laws, regulations, policies, and edicts each year to what you position as some sort of objective "task of enforcing law". That would be fine if they also revoked a similar number of laws, regulations, and demands, letting people go back to managing those affairs for themselves. But that's not their way. They don't give power back. When government decides to give itself more power, the only way the people ever get it back is when government lowers its enforcement priority and shifts staff to exercising other powers. The government has grown far faster than the economy for over a century. It has grown far faster than the population it governs. Though good government is valuable (I'm no anarchist), bad government is destructive, and you always have some of both. A government that removed defective policies at the rate healthy tissue removes defective cells could evolve into something wonderful. But ours doesn't work that way, and until it does, any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute. If you weren't implying a need for more government, I don't dispute your statement.

mathattack 13y ago

This may seem like a stupid question, but wouldn't the owners (including current senior management) know this, and be be able to double their wealth by squeezing out the inefficiency? Why does this break down? Is it because outside shareholders don't have voting power? btw - I like this question on HN because I expect the answers to be of higher quality than on Quora.