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

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#41

Post by Jtsummers »

rafram wrote: post #26
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.

The Trump administration is doing the opposite of that — they've been aggressively closing regional branch offices and consolidating agencies in the DC area: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/04/trump-a... https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2025/04/trump-administration... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hhs-close-regional-lega... https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-rel... If thi…

They've done both, and the purpose is the same. Moving office locations gets people to quit.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

> closer to farms than DC

Virginia and Maryland have plenty of farms.

A quick look on Google Maps shows one within ~10 miles.

But, ultimately, the USDA isn't there to farm.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#43

Post by firefax »

dogleash wrote: post #18
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.

> I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same. If the central office has any say over the location someone works, you get the phenomenon where the population of less-desirable living locations get to suffer local employees that aren't good enough at their job to be given higher prioritization in choosing their station. And the organization looses good work…

People sometimes want less "desirable" locations because there's lower cost of living -- raising kids in a home with a yard vs a condo or apartment.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#44

Post by mtalantikite »

dogleash wrote: post #18
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.

> I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same. If the central office has any say over the location someone works, you get the phenomenon where the population of less-desirable living locations get to suffer local employees that aren't good enough at their job to be given higher prioritization in choosing their station. And the organization looses good work…

As a remote worker since 2008, I agree, I don't want someone telling me I have to live in a place I wouldn't want to live for a job. But also, they're already dictating that people have to live in the DC area, which probably has a similar effect. I'm sure there are plenty of highly talented bureaucrats living in Chicago, or Nashville, or Boulder, or Houston, etc etc.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#45

Post by bilbo0s »

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.

closer to farms than DC

Exactly why it shouldn't be there.

No adversarial environment. Corruption flourishes where there is no adversarial environment.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#47

Post by micromacrofoot »

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.

So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live.

Forget the point, you don't even have a leg to stand on.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#48

Post by potato3732842 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #47
potato3732842 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live. Forget the point, you don't even have a leg to stand on.

>So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live.

I'm not saying it's not the best. I'm hedging against people like you making low effort comments that contribute nothing to the discussion like that by saying it might not be the best but it's better than DC

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#49

Post by potato3732842 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #16
njarboe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand keeping all of the federal workforce in D.C, instead of the states, reduces the political desire to prop up federal projects just for the local jobs. Much easier to reduce wasteful spending when you don't layoff people you want voting for you.

The political desire to prop up federal projects for the local jobs is exactly the reason they want to do the moves. It's corruption all the way down. The corruption isn't an unintended consequence of the moves. The ability to engage in the corruption is the entire point of the moves.

Giving more states a reason to be invested in the continued existence of the federal bureaucracy is a bad thing?

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#50

Post by micromacrofoot »

potato3732842 wrote: post #48
micromacrofoot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live. Forget the point, you don't even have a leg to stand on.

>So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live. I'm not saying it's not the best. I'm hedging against people like you making low effort comments that contribute nothing to the discussion like that by saying it might not be the best but it's better than DC

Better based on what? How can you call any comment low effort when you provide 0 information to back up your claim that Missouri is better than DC?

The USDA move was so bad that they lost a significant number of employees and were still working with significantly less experience years later. This is outrageously expensive and disruptive to any company or agency.

Not to mention the fact that about 5 years later the administration is making massive additional cuts to the agency after relocating and rehiring for it. It's just churn for nothing.

Post reply on HN