4 ms·

Let's not forget about how much bullshit government adds to non-bullshit jobs... My Typical 8 hour day 1979 to 2002 (before Sarbanes-Oxley): 7 hours: code

by edw519 12y ago

Let's not forget about how much bullshit government adds to non-bullshit jobs... My Typical 8 hour day 1979 to 2002 (before Sarbanes-Oxley): 7 hours: code 1 hour: overhead 2002 to 2014 (after Sarbanes-Oxley): 1 hour: insure rigorous Requirements documentation 1 hour: insure rigorous Test Plans (whether used or not) 1 hour: peer review (of devs I would have never hired) 1 hour: code review (for what peer review missed) 1 hour: answer auditors' questions 1 hour: status reports 1 hour: status meetings 55 minutes: bitch to boss 5 minutes: code

meapix 12y ago
awesome!!!
mcherm 12y ago
The snarky response is cool and all, but honestly I would be VERY interested in seeing any kind of actual measured statistics on the overhead created by Sarbanes-Oxley, while the snark just kinda leaves me cold.
crdoconnor 12y ago
Sarbanes Oxley was created to prevent executives from looting their own companies (a la Enron) and then feigning ignorance and blaming their underlings when everything blew up. The reason why it seems to be ridiculously onerous is because it gives the government the power to slam execs in jail if they do not have sufficient control over the company. It's executive bullshit that ruined your day, which is caused by executive paranoia about going to jail which was caused by executives who stole from their own companies.
- personZ 12y ago
  Has it worked? I'm not supporting any opposition to SOX, however we all know of many processes that offer no real checks or value, but we have to do it...just because why not, you're getting paid for it. In the case of SOX and the like, the argument can be "well everyone else has to do the same illusion of control work, so the drag is similar". Most businesses are filled with processes that everyone knows are done for absolutely no value to anyone, but we do them anyways and they absolutely sap our soul.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    Unfortunately it's not enforced. Obama could slam half of the CEOs of Wall Street in jail with Sarbanes Oxley violations for wilfully looting their own firms exactly as was done to Enron, but he made an executive decision not to (a quick glance at who pays Clinton's $500,000 post presidential speaking fees might give a hint as to why). Unfortunately the lack of any real enforcement means that it hasn't been all that successful. That doesn't mean it's a bad law.

by edw519 12y ago

meapix 12y ago

awesome!!!

mcherm 12y ago

The snarky response is cool and all, but honestly I would be VERY interested in seeing any kind of actual measured statistics on the overhead created by Sarbanes-Oxley, while the snark just kinda leaves me cold.

crdoconnor 12y ago

Sarbanes Oxley was created to prevent executives from looting their own companies (a la Enron) and then feigning ignorance and blaming their underlings when everything blew up. The reason why it seems to be ridiculously onerous is because it gives the government the power to slam execs in jail if they do not have sufficient control over the company. It's executive bullshit that ruined your day, which is caused by executive paranoia about going to jail which was caused by executives who stole from their own companies.

personZ 12y ago
Has it worked? I'm not supporting any opposition to SOX, however we all know of many processes that offer no real checks or value, but we have to do it...just because why not, you're getting paid for it. In the case of SOX and the like, the argument can be "well everyone else has to do the same illusion of control work, so the drag is similar". Most businesses are filled with processes that everyone knows are done for absolutely no value to anyone, but we do them anyways and they absolutely sap our soul.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Unfortunately it's not enforced. Obama could slam half of the CEOs of Wall Street in jail with Sarbanes Oxley violations for wilfully looting their own firms exactly as was done to Enron, but he made an executive decision not to (a quick glance at who pays Clinton's $500,000 post presidential speaking fees might give a hint as to why). Unfortunately the lack of any real enforcement means that it hasn't been all that successful. That doesn't mean it's a bad law.