Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#31

Post by nickff »

bilbo0s wrote: post #19
xeromal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem like a bad place to move it to!

It's a horrible place to move it to. If we make moves, Ok. How about this.. We move these agencies to get adversarial impulses going in service of cost control. We move the USDA to the middle of New York City. Urban Development to Tomah Wisconsin. (I'll settle for Nacogdoches Texas just to make sure the South gets some of these HQ's). Department of the Interior should be moved to Miami Fl. Department of Defense to Be…

Why is Kansas City such a bad choice? I understand that you think it’s awful, I just don’t know why. From my very naive perspective, KC seems lower cost, and closer to farms than DC.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#33

Post by Tepix »

alphager wrote: post #23
mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

Germany has been doing it since 1949. It leads to stronger regional centers and dishes the capital effect. Germany has many larger cities all over the country. France has been doing the opposite, leading to a concentration in and around Paris and few major cities outside of Ile de France.

Most german agencies are in Berlin, there are a few that are (still) in Bonn, the former capital.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#34

Post by potato3732842 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #25
xeromal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem like a bad place to move it to!

except that no one wants to move from DC to Kansas City, it's essentially designed to get all your best employees to quit

The best employees are probably exactly the ones who'd be ecstatic do the same job but in KC.

The people who would rather be within the beltway than do the job are exactly the ones I'd be suspect of.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#35

Post by ceejayoz »

potato3732842 wrote: post #34
micromacrofoot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except that no one wants to move from DC to Kansas City, it's essentially designed to get all your best employees to quit

The best employees are probably exactly the ones who'd be ecstatic do the same job but in KC. The people who would rather be within the beltway than do the job are exactly the ones I'd be suspect of.

The best employees can probably jump ship to get a job that doesn't require relocation halfway across the country.

The ones that grudgingly move are the ones who can't.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#36

Post by potato3732842 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #35
potato3732842 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best employees are probably exactly the ones who'd be ecstatic do the same job but in KC. The people who would rather be within the beltway than do the job are exactly the ones I'd be suspect of.

The best employees can probably jump ship to get a job that doesn't require relocation halfway across the country. The ones that grudgingly move are the ones who can't.

The people who see the rest of their career being in agriculture will be very happy with the move. It's much easier to parlay your job studying agriculture into a job for someone who makes equipment for or an academic institution or trade group dealing in agriculture when you're in the same economic region. Moving isn't the end of the world to most of them because most of them knew it was in their future at some point.

The people who will get the shaft here are the career bureaucrats who see themselves jumping to another agency as they can either make that way harder for themselves by moving or quit because they are already located in the best place for their intended career track.

Given the choice I know exactly who I'd rather have staffing the agency.

Replace USDA with 18F or (pre Doge) USDS and the insanity of your agreement is laid bare for even the most uncritical reader to identify. Of course such agencies would be better off (from a hiring perspective) in SF or some other tech city than they would in DC (of course their customers are in DC so that kind of complicates things).

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#37

Post by 98codes »

nickff wrote: post #31
bilbo0s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a horrible place to move it to. If we make moves, Ok. How about this.. We move these agencies to get adversarial impulses going in service of cost control. We move the USDA to the middle of New York City. Urban Development to Tomah Wisconsin. (I'll settle for Nacogdoches Texas just to make sure the South gets some of these HQ's). Department of the Interior should be moved to Miami Fl. Department of Defense to Be…

Why is Kansas City such a bad choice? I understand that you think it’s awful, I just don’t know why. From my very naive perspective, KC seems lower cost, and closer to farms than DC.

Too far from the beach.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#38

Post by ceejayoz »

potato3732842 wrote: post #36
ceejayoz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best employees can probably jump ship to get a job that doesn't require relocation halfway across the country. The ones that grudgingly move are the ones who can't.

The people who see the rest of their career being in agriculture will be very happy with the move. It's much easier to parlay your job studying agriculture into a job for someone who makes equipment for or an academic institution or trade group dealing in agriculture when you're in the same economic region. Moving isn't the end of the world to most of them because most of them knew it was in their future at some poin…

> Replace USDA with 18F or (pre Doge) USDS and the insanity of your agreement is laid bare for even the most uncritical reader to identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F

"In 2024, 18F consisted of approximately 91 distributed employees working remotely across the United States."

They wouldn't have wanted to all relocate to KC either.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#39

Post by potato3732842 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #38
potato3732842 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who see the rest of their career being in agriculture will be very happy with the move. It's much easier to parlay your job studying agriculture into a job for someone who makes equipment for or an academic institution or trade group dealing in agriculture when you're in the same economic region. Moving isn't the end of the world to most of them because most of them knew it was in their future at some poin…

> Replace USDA with 18F or (pre Doge) USDS and the insanity of your agreement is laid bare for even the most uncritical reader to identify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F "In 2024, 18F consisted of approximately 91 distributed employees working remotely across the United States." They wouldn't have wanted to all relocate to KC either.

Nitpick all you want. My point stands. USDA draws heavily on the ag sector talent pool so it should be where that talent pool is. Maybe that's not KC, maybe some other city in middle america is better. But KC is still way better than DC.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#40

Post by ceejayoz »

potato3732842 wrote: post #39
ceejayoz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replace USDA with 18F or (pre Doge) USDS and the insanity of your agreement is laid bare for even the most uncritical reader to identify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F "In 2024, 18F consisted of approximately 91 distributed employees working remotely across the United States." They wouldn't have wanted to all relocate to KC either.

Nitpick all you want. My point stands. USDA draws heavily on the ag sector talent pool so it should be where that talent pool is. Maybe that's not KC, maybe some other city in middle america is better. But KC is still way better than DC.

> USDA draws on the ag sector talent pool...

71% of their budget goes to stuff like the food stamp program, interacting with tens of thousands of schools and state/local governments and whatnot.

The talent pool for bureaucrats (and researchers, and statisticians, etc.) is fundamentally more important.

(And let's not pretend there's no agriculture on the East Coast.)

Post reply on HN