
Strengthening Congressional Independence from Corporate Lobbyists - evo_9
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/congressional-independence
======
atonse
Excellent, excellent idea.

What's interesting about all this isn't that this is a new idea by Warren –
it's that the Government had an office like this but it was closed down by
Republican leadership in the mid 90s.

I have a (truly genuine) question for Republican techies here (really, really
not trying to point fingers or start a political argument) – when you see that
Newt Gingrich closed the OTA office, what do you feel? Maybe he did the right
thing, you'd like to learn more why? Or Newt Gingrich was wrong? Or what?

~~~
s3r3nity
Not sure what the reasoning was at the time, but I can provide some personal
thoughts on the idea - so don't take it as representative of everyone who is
center-right like myself.

I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." The
rule of thumb I use is "would I trust this government entity if my respective
political party is only in control ~50% of the time?"

Some other folks in the threads already mentioned this, but as one example:
the Obama campaign was pretty close to the Facebooks / Googles of the world -
meaning that there could be a scenario that this OTA office was staffed fully
with ex-Googlers or the like, almost like a lobbying firm would do. On one
hand, they're fully qualified and (probably) very knowledgeable; on the other
hand, I wouldn't trust that the office would provide a fair assessment into
regulating those tech companies.

EDIT: grammar / more precise vocabulary

~~~
atonse
As a DC Area resident for 25+ years, I have met many federal government
employees, some in professional settings, and many in casual settings.

They remind me of Journalists. Most journalists I've met are not centrists in
their personal lives. But in their professional lives, they try (they're not
perfect, they are human) to stay impartial, but some of your bias will
definitely leak into things.

But most federal agencies are simply too large and bureaucratic for
individuals to push their own political agendas. (Not talking about the
leadership that's appointed by each administration, but career employees). And
it's been my informal experience that their hands are too often (rightly) tied
by the laws and regulations of the day, in exactly what they can do. So this
idea of non-partisan people truly being partisan is often true at an
individual level, but generally false at an agency level.

And they do take the non-partisan side of their jobs very seriously.

~~~
rayiner
As someone who grew up in D.C. I disagree with this. Federal government
employees try not to be overtly political, but they have a world view that is
not necessarily representative of the country as a whole. You're going to find
a lot more anarchists in Texas or Oregon than D.C. You're going to find a lot
more religious people in Iowa than D.C. Folks in D.C.--on both sides of the
aisle--tend to be predisposed to believing in the superiority of the educated
upper middle class, seeing government as the solution to various problems,
etc.

I'd say the same thing about journalists. 90%+ of journalists are democrats.
(Overwhelmingly, white and male democrats.) They try to chart a course of
"objectivity" within an overall left-leaning Overton window. For example, 32%
of Democrats are "extremely proud to be an American" versus 74% of
Republicans: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/236420/record-low-extremely-
pro...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/236420/record-low-extremely-proud-
americans.aspx). It is impossible for such differences in world view not to
affect your article selection and tone when it comes to areas like foreign
policy, terrorism, national security, etc.

I should point out that I'm not talking about blatant partisanship. Judges,
for example, seek to be objective. That doesn't mean that their world views
don't affect their decisions. Justice Kagan has said that American judges--
across the spectrum--are textualists most of the time. How would they approach
deciding a Constitutional case in the U.K., which doesn't have a written
constitution? Policymaking and reporting are no different. Everything you
write that has any substance at all must have an internal logic. It will makes
assumptions, and inferences about cause and effect. It is impossible to be
"objective" with respect to that reasoning process or those assumptions.

For example, what is an "objective" article on AOC's new proposal for
nationwide rent control? Do you think someone who believes deeply in markets
would write the same article on that proposal as someone who believes that
governments can legislate outcomes? I think a market-oriented person
struggling to write an objective article about that proposal would either come
across as partisan, or would have to write something utterly vacuous. It's one
thing not to expressly take sides. It's entirely another to divorce yourself
from your own modes of reasoning and assumptions about how the world works.

~~~
birken
> I'd say the same thing about journalists. 90%+ of journalists are democrats.

I can't believe in all the responses nobody has challenged this statement.
What is your source for this? Based on exit polls, in aggregate white men are
heavily republican, and college educated white men are still republican by
over 20 points. This seems like an _extraordinary_ claim.

And for one tangible data point, in 2012, wikipedia shows 158 newspaper
endorsing the democratic candidate, and 112 newspaper endorsing the republican
candidate [1]. Obviously not a perfect metric, but that is ~58% of newspaper
endorsing the democratic candidate.

Even in 2016, when the Republican candidate was specifically anti-journalists,
only 69% of newspapers endorsed the democratic candidate [2].

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2012_United_States_presidential_election#Daily_newspapers)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Daily_newspapers)

~~~
rayiner
I mis-remembered the statistic a bit. (Sorry too late to edit, but breaking
down the numbers here.)

7% of journalists identify as republican, versus 28% identifying as democrat.
The majority identify as independent:
[https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percen...](https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-
of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053).

So 80% of journalists who disclose a political affiliation identify as
Democrat, and 20% identify as republican.

To put that into perspective: nationally, 27% of people identify as
republican, versus 29% as democrat: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-
affiliation.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx).
Among the general population self-identified republicans and democrats are
roughly evenly represented, but among journalists democrats outnumber
republicans 4:1. I would expect the independents to break along the same
proportions when it comes to voting.

Another way to look at it is to compare journalists to various demographic
groups: [https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-
af...](https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-
among-demographic-groups). Journalists are less likely to self-identify as
republicans than: urban voters, jewish voters, millenials, asian voters, and
hispanic voters.

That is particularly interesting because journalists are more likely to be
white and male than the general population, or democrats as a group.
Therefore, their party identification is particularly unusual when compared to
other white men.

On other metrics: a Texas A&M poll of finance journalists found that 58%
described themselves as very or somewhat liberal, versus 4.4% saying they were
very or somewhat conservative: [https://www.dailywire.com/news/462-financial-
journalists-wer...](https://www.dailywire.com/news/462-financial-journalists-
were-asked-their-ashe-schow).

Nationally, however, 37% of people say they are very or somewhat conservative,
versus 24% who say they are very or somewhat liberal:
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-
ideol...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-
lead-thread.aspx). That makes the polled financial journalists 2.3x more
likely to self-identify as liberal, and 1/8 as likely to self identify as
conservative as the general population. That means the ratio of conservatives
to liberals is 20x higher in that pool of journalists than in the general
population.

~~~
nkurz
While we are picking apart your statistics, I wondered about your claim that
journalists are "Overwhelmingly, white and male democrats".

From what I can tell journalists at major US papers have about a 60:40 male to
female ratio: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/625800/newspaper-
journal...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/625800/newspaper-journalists-
gender-distribution/). I also found this interesting source which seem to say
that most newsrooms are about 80% white:
[https://googletrends.github.io/asne/](https://googletrends.github.io/asne/).

My quick conclusion is that if we thus assume that male, white, and Democrat
are independently distributed, we find that 60% * 80% * 30% = 15% of
journalists are white males that identify as Democrats. While this is probably
the most common combination of these particular characteristics, it doesn't
feel particularly overwhelming.

------
cromwellian
In the 90s, I taught retraining courses to government computer programmers
(e.g former COBOL programmers) Let’s just say “they’re not sending us their
best people” roughly describes my experience. That is, people who had
previously held jobs writing code by the government didn’t even know what
“parenthesis key” meant or where it was located which largely led me to
believe that many of the people in my class were collecting paychecks but
didn’t really know how to use computers.

Unless the government radically raises salaries and benefits for these
positions to attract top talent, I’d be concerned with it being stacked with a
bunch of people who don’t have much developer or engineering experience.

~~~
snagglegaggle
The issue is perhaps not salaries and benefits. Often a lot of effort is taken
to try to fill a position internally. This would explain your anecdote --
after some staff churn people were promoted to a position they had no business
occupying.

I say this as various friends at times worked for government agencies and
sought promotion. They could have filled extant positions due to their
experience, but they were denied before becoming a public servant due to lack
of public service and then denied after for lack of seniority (even when
asking to be considered as an external hire).

Coming from them, jobs often seemed to open up after a person had retired and
were catered towards an individual.

~~~
wysifnwyg
In addition, the restrictions on government agencies for who qualifies can be
restrictive in ways that exclude the top talent.

~~~
frank_nitti
That's very interesting, haven't heard this complaint before. Do you have an
example of such a restriction?

~~~
Ill_ban_myself
not OP but I've seen preference given to candidates familiar with a particular
technology only used by a single government office built exclusively for them.

Must be certified in (X) where certification courses are only available to
government employees of a single government office.

Must hold clearances is by far the most common though and the only reason/way
to get clearance is to already be working for the government.

I'd say by far the number one thing that keeps the cycle of nepotism going in
government though is access to information.

Sure, an agency might be required to publicly post an RFP, but there are like
50 undisclosed qualifications considered and timing and whether you have a
personal relationship with a particular individual within the agency plays a
huge role. Often the only way around this is to bid so ridiculously low on
your proposal that the agency head would be called out for not going with your
proposal. This leads to a race to the bottom where people are climbing over
each other to provide the lowest quality service to the government often
overpromising and under delivering just to get a foot in the door.

~~~
frank_nitti
Very insightful, thanks. I was familiar with the problems you covered
regarding RFPs and vendor contracts, but had not considered the issues
regarding access to information for an individual seeking a programmer role.

~~~
Ill_ban_myself
I’ve worked for campaigns, as a contractor for a small firm exclusively
catering to a single agency, for a larger firm that did incidental government
work, and I’ve got several friends who are high up in tech working directly
for agencies.

My impression is that government tech = All the problems of Enterprise +
Academia, all the recognition and support of a non profit, the culture of
Uber, and the ethics of Facebook.

It’s just a maelstrom of most developers idea of hell.

And if you were born in hell and they hand you a pitchfork, hey, why not have
a go?

But don’t go down there thinking you’re gonna install air conditioning and
escalators.

------
Zenst
Fantastic, though the whole aspect of lobbyists (corporate shrills whose sole
job is to peer-pressure government officials) just irks me, as I'm sure it
does others.

Whilst companies should have a say, the general feeling of myself and again,
I'm sure others - is that they monopolise the perspective of some officials.
Then you have, `donations` and for want of another way of expressing that - it
is just bribery and corruption with legal window-dressing.

This only leads to angst in the populus, who end up rising up and acting in
ways that get heard, but equally demonised. For example - Anonymous raised
many fair issues in their days, valid points. Albeit in a way that was to some
extent - extreme, but when you drive people to the edge and the fall off, you
can't blame them all the time.

Again, this is an excellent initiative and whilst Google may not be the worst
offender, they are no angel.

[EDIT - that grammar and spelling error you just spot after you hit send, even
though you read it thru before hitting send]

------
h2odragon
Oh, yes! Government employment, with all of the overhead that entails, like
drug testing etc? And the job is to explain to ULTRA clueless users things
they need to know and don't want to learn. People complain about supporting
doctors, who assume their focused competence extends to all human knowledge.
Politicians assume often their charm and power can _substitute_ for
understanding.

If i felt the need to do civic duty, I think I'd rather join the Army than
take that job. At least there's the chance of shooting someone who deserves it
there.

(Perhaps I'm still a little PTSD from my time supporting users)

* Edit: Calmer now; I have to say it's a great _idea_ that Congress (and whoever else in government) could have a resource to tap for specialized knowledge in technical fields they currently lack coverage of. I can't imagine they can make the job attractive enough for me

~~~
vonmoltke
When I applied to the USDS a few years ago, the interview process left me with
the impression that "explain[ing] to ULTRA clueless users things they need to
know and don't want to learn" was the core of the job, since the interview
seemed to be testing that in lieu of actual technical skills. Left me wanting
to go anywhere is, 18F, or any similar government program.

Of course, I also have 14 years of dealing with the DOD in technical
capacities, so that didn't help.

------
dvdhnt
Hard pass.

This would be a fragile suture over the gushing wound that is corporate
lobbying. It's literally allowing wolves in the hen house.

If we're going to keep doing this whole Democratic Republic thing, along with
the Constitution, we need to adhere to the spirit of the framework and not
just the letter of it.

The federal government was set (what was at the time) far away from everyday
life so that our representatives would not be swayed by salesmen and their
snake oil.

So, if you want to make a difference Liz, do something about the root problem
and help us defeat corporate lobbying.

~~~
mostlysimilar
Part of her platform is to curb the influence of corporate lobbying. I'm not
an expert and I'm sure there are places to go for more details than this, but
for example: [https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/congressional-
independence](https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/congressional-independence)

~~~
dvdhnt
That example is resourced under "plans" but doesn't offer one. It doesn't list
steps or actions that can be taken to stop corporate lobbying, just a vaguely
worded closing sentence about giving congress the "tools" to combat lobbying.

The business of lobbying has grown to over $3 billion per year according to
OpenSecrets.org [1]. That doesn't include campaign contributions. It's
impossible for so much money to make its way through individuals with their
own self interests and result in a sustainable government beneficial to the
people. Money will always win whenever it makes an appearance. We can't combat
lobbying with tools, we have to prevent it.

So, it's a non-starter until she lays out actual actions to consider or
commits to ending the practice.

1\. [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/)

------
riazrizvi
We have literally been there before, it's not a solution. An army of nerds
hired into a government funded office has the effect of burying the issues out
of the public eye. Over time, with a financially incentivized industry lobby
vs a government office doing a thankless task (because it is out of the public
eye), you create political imbalances (with the nice-for-some side-effect of
employing a few people). The NRA (boo), EFF and Amnesty International have
effective models, because their efforts remain in the public eye.

I think that if you really care about this issue, it's most effective if you
donate to a special interest group like the EFF, and stay informed.

------
bepvte
If you don't think there's a problem with google and our government, I'd read
this: [https://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/the-
curio...](https://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/the-curious-
transformation-of-sen-mike-lee)

------
Excel_Wizard
This feels to me as if the politicians have recognized that they need some
technically competent people to even understand how to legislate in these
matters.

However, if the top-level politicians, who remain technically inept, are the
ones giving the orders, confusion will remain.

~~~
dev_dull
If you think they’re going to end up with “technically competent” engineers I
have some bad news for you: they’re all gainfully employed. What they’ll end
up with is the same thing committees always up with: bureaucrats who wouldn’t
be able to hack in the private sector.

~~~
inimino
So your argument is that there's nobody both technically competent and willing
to work in an important role for the government? I can tell you for a fact
you're wrong, and if you don't believe me, you may want to widen your social
circle.

~~~
dev_dull
I think there’s an abundance of capable and willing people for government
positions, but bureaucrats don’t select for these people. They select for
other bureaucrats.

~~~
inimino
Sure, but establishing this office includes setting out staffing procedures,
so there exists a mechanism for this issue to be addressed. Whether it will be
or not is another question.

------
iamleppert
I went to a recruiting event for the United States Digital Service. It was a
complete joke. It seemed to be a mix of early social media employees who had
made their millions and now wanted “to give back” and government staffers. The
rest of the technical staff was low quality (& low paid). They made a point of
telling me that I’d have to take a huge pay cut and work with out of date
equipment, and deal with extreme amounts of red tape. They tried to sell it as
a “challenge” but all I could see was some people from the government trying
to find gullible people to take advantage.

At the event in SF they had stale sugar cookies & bottles of water for
refreshments. Several people (myself included) got up half way during their
pitch and left.

Not sure I’d ever want to work for the federal government after that
experience.

~~~
dkhenry
I did a tour of duty with the USDS and you are so far from the truth its
painful. There are very few individuals there who made millions in social
media, and the technical staff is so far beyond any other organization I have
ever seen.

Most of the engineers there looked around at the country and felt there was
simple things that would make life so much better for their neighbors and
friends, and they knew they were wasting their time trying to make people
click on advertisements. For my part my father is a veteran who had to deal
with the VA for his doctors appointments and benefits and his experience was
beyond bad ( which is something you can hear from lots of veterans ). When I
got the opportunity to join the USDS and work at the VA with the Secretary of
the VA and the Senior Executives I also felt it was a fools errand, but I
figured if I didn't at least try how could I expect anything to get better for
my dad. I joined a agency that was struggling to get even basic IT systems
working, and with the help of world class engineers and dedicated public
servants we helped millions of veterans and literally saved lives. I have had
veterans break down crying telling us how much better their life is now that
they can actually engage with a agency who was trying to provide them
services.

Quite frankly the people who staff the USDS are not only the most technically
competent, but their dedication to service is so strong, and their ability to
succeed in impossible situations though sheer force of will and dedication so
overwhelming they have radically changed how this country operates, and there
is still individuals there who are continuing on the mission.

What did you do with your life? If your concerned about the pay cut and poor
working conditions then stay at your job and see if you can manipulate people
into clicking on ads better, but just know those people who you just looked
down on are making a difference.

* Also for the record my tour of duty ended two years ago, and I am no longer associated with the USDS, I am just a huge fan who's life was changed by what I saw while I was there.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I did a tour of duty with the USDS

> * Also for the record my tour of duty ended two years ago

Is there some official marketing for the USDS that uses this term "tour of
duty" to refer to a civilian government job? This comment uses that exact
phrase twice, and I've seen other people use it with reference to the USDS as
well.

It's honestly a huge turnoff, more than anything else GP mentioned. There are
some situations under which I'd be willing to work for below-market rates. But
the last thing i would ever want is for my work to be associated with the
culture and goals of the military, or for my coworkers to view our job in that
light.

~~~
ineedasername
If you don't like it, blame the USDS, they're the ones that use this language:
[0] _" Our staff comes from all corners of the technology industry, nonprofit
world, and government to serve ‘tours’ of service, bringing a steady influx of
fresh perspectives into government. Tours typically last between six months
and two years, with a maximum length of four years."_

[0] [https://www.usds.gov/how-we-work](https://www.usds.gov/how-we-work)

~~~
chimeracoder
> If you don't like it, blame the USDS, they're the ones that use this
> language: [0] "Our staff comes from all corners of the technology industry,
> nonprofit world, and government to serve ‘tours’ of service, bringing a
> steady influx of fresh perspectives into government. Tours typically last
> between six months and two years, with a maximum length of four years."

Thanks for answering the question. So it is, in fact, a conscious decision by
the USDS, which doesn't reflect well on their work culture IMO.

~~~
ineedasername
It does seem a choice of words that would rankle on people who do a real tour
of military duty. I get they want to make the work sounds important, the
people that do it as part of an important mission, but I'm not sure that's the
best way.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Well there happens to be this guy in Boston who was recently let go by MIT and
some other organization, and who's not terribly fond of Google. He might be
able to help.

~~~
yuy910616
lol i'd love to see stallman in a government job. it'd be pretty entertaining.

~~~
goatinaboat
MIT is a government contractor with a university on the side, in reality

------
genzoman
If you're corrupt, the safest place to be is looking for the corruption.
Refund the OTA, staff it with people friendly to you, reset the rules in your
favor, now everyone of the opposite party is behind the eight ball. Sounds
like a power grab to me.

------
auiya
Just a thought, but maybe the best way to attract talent is to not refer to
them using pejoratives?

~~~
taborj
Most of the nerds I know - including myself - wear the label with a hint of
pride. I've never thought of it as a pejorative, and I don't know anyone who
has.

Of all the hills to die on, I say let this one pass.

~~~
pb7
First definition:

>a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly
studious

~~~
tututu
That's an eerily accurate description of me.

------
not_a_cop75
It's an interesting idea, but one person's independent council is
unfortunately another person's lobbyists. There is no, as far as I've ever
seen, any scientifically proven middle ground. If there was an established and
rigorously proven way to do politics and political accountability, we
certainly wouldn't be in this mess.

The challenge is that at every level of accountability, anyone with enough
power can find a way to corrupt. There used to be a universal belief in truth,
but that belief has been, in many subject matters, largely eroded away. Today,
mostly there is only right for you or me. Not so much right as a whole.

I find people on talk shows talking about doing "the right thing". What the
hell does that begin to amount to today? Does anyone have a clue?

------
olivermarks
Surely Warren's electioneering proposal would just result in yet more layers
of 'nerd' lobbyists on both sides? Other aspiring presidential candidates are
suing Google and laying out plans to significantly cut back lobbying and the
ability of politicians like Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean to morph into
powerful lobbyists after they leave power. I think less is more in this case
with far greater transparency and visibility needed.

------
oldmanthrowit
In parallel, how about hiring an army of nerds to defeat meddling in the
election both by foreign agents, and by agents hired by domestic politicians.
Social media and hackers have more power than corporations now. It's easier to
manipulate the people with anger than it is to manipulate politicians with
bribes.

------
the_watcher
I definitely agree with the sentiment, as well as the fact that the people
writing (or at least green-lighting) the laws and regulations are often not at
all equipped to do so. That said, what would prevent this "army of nerds" from
operating as lobbyists for the government that hired them?

------
pol-dc684f2b4
Odds are they'd be hiring people from Google to police Google. Brilliant.

~~~
turingbike
This is called regulatory capture. Once you know the term, you can find some
good content on it, like this [https://www.thisamericanlife.org/536/the-
secret-recordings-o...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/536/the-secret-
recordings-of-carmen-segarra)

------
ryanmarsh
Remember that time we staffed the financial regulatory bodies with ex-
employees of the companies they were regulating?

Yah this time is totally different.

~~~
moate
I think your demographic analysis of those two groups would show greater
diversity in the Tech sector than in finance. Look at the variety of opinions
on the matter here for some anecdotal evidence.

~~~
ryanmarsh
"tech people are different"

This trope needs to die. Tech people suck as bad as finance people, maybe
worse. Can someone else who's also worked in tech and finance chime in here?

~~~
tlb
Early tech people were different. Before there was much money in tech, only
sincere nerds went into it.

Since the mid-90s, there've been an increasing number of money-focused
techies. Probably still a minority, though.

In fact, before the 80s, finance was also mostly sincere accounting nerds.
Then someone got the surprising idea that bankers could be Masters of the
Universe.

It happened to doctors too. And lawyers before that.

------
r29vzg2
If you’d like to see how this would go. Reference the FCC. Which is
essentially what she is trying to create here.

------
andrekandre
just a note

i accidentally stopped reading after the “ADD YOUR NAME IF YOU AGREE” banner
because i thought it was the end of the article

seems like every page is like that, and it might be better to either redesign
it or move it to the end of the page (idk just my observation)

------
pysxul
isn't that lobbying too?

~~~
bryanlarsen
The OTA is like a librarian. They don't go to you, you ask them questions. Of
course the answers they give may be filtered through the librarian's bias, but
that's fundamentally different than lobbying.

~~~
rc_kas
Great job of breaking this down and making it simple to understand.

------
ashman5
What will we call the war between Corporate Lobbyist and Citizen Lobbyist?

------
cm2187
As long as there aren't revolving doors with the Sillicon Valley...

~~~
sokoloff
If you do prevent the revolving door, you _virtually guarantee_ yourself to
exclude some of the most qualified and experienced people as you introduce an
adverse selection process.

~~~
cm2187
Yep. But that is the same problem facing financial regulators. But it is the
price of independance.

~~~
sokoloff
Given what a software engineer could make in the Valley/at a FAANG, how much
would a software engineer need to be paid to take a government job that banned
them from working at a FAANG[M] for the next 10 years?

To make that prospect even money for someone qualified to work at a FAANG, the
_signing bonus_ for the government job would need to be in the millions (which
obviously won't happen).

~~~
holy_city
So tax the FAANGs what it costs to regulate them, the government is pretty
good at spending lots of money.

~~~
solidasparagus
I tried to work for the government. It was a 60% pay cut and a demotion - I
did quite well in my career so I didn't have the years of experience required
to come in at my current level because that's how the government evaluates
employees. Plus stunted salary growth. And this was for a government job that
has a special salary exemption 'to be competitive with the market'.

No matter how much money the government has from taxes, there is no way in
hell they are going to pay enough to be competitive with FAANG. It's anathema
to government culture (unless it's for a football coach). You have to let
people go back to FAANG to recoup those losses or the government will never be
able to hire anyone.

------
exabrial
This sounds ripe for abuse.

------
objektif
This overuse of the word “nerd” is really bothering me even if it is used
positively.

~~~
logfromblammo
I feel like we should borrow the Brit-slang terms "boffin", "swot", "spod",
"anorak", and maybe "dux", to supplement "nerd", "geek", "dork", "brainiac",
"neckbeard", "poindexter", "dilbert", and "square".

If it makes you feel better, there are far more mildly derogatory slang terms
for idiots and drunks.

~~~
objektif
Yeah i like to not insult people but if you want I also have a lot harsher
insults from a bunch of other languages.

~~~
logfromblammo
You can't control what news outlets print. They will use the language that
their readers use. If you want them to stop using "nerd", you need to offer a
superior alternative.

In this case, we'd probably all prefer "technology experts".

That said, "nerd" does not appear at the story link now.

------
milesward
Uh, sign me up! @ewarren! I'm right here! Let's geek out!

------
lonelappde
Headline is clickbait garbage. HN can do better.

------
raxxorrax
I would do that for free!

------
outworlder
"Nerds"? Who was the dinosaur that wrote this?

When we need people who have dedicated a significant portion of their life
doing nothing but studying medicine, we don't call them "nerds". We call them
doctors. When we need to build a bridge, we don't call the "bridge nerds".

Why does IT still have this stigma?

~~~
president
In most white-collar professions, people are respected through their
communication skills, their demeanor, and appearance. These are the things
that many programmers vehemently reject, because of course, "elite" coding
skills are the only thing that matters. We have tech figureheads like Mark
Zuckerberg, Richard Stallman, or Linus Stallman who are all smart and
successful people but have trouble getting the general public to relate with
them. In my workplace (large SV tech company), there are people walking around
barefoot and with extremely bad BO because they don't want to take a shower. I
never saw this when I worked in real-estate and mechanical engineering
offices. Obviously this isn't representative of the entire tech industry but
there are enough people like this in this industry to perpetuate this
impression about tech "nerds" to the general public.

------
fffernan
Why Nerds? Let's hire people who are technically capable to do the job.

The future is here. The minimum level of knowledge to be functional in society
has increased. Lazy folks who don't pick up a book or take a course like to
label the capable people as nerds.

~~~
toxican
> technically capable to do the job

Colloquially known as "nerds"

~~~
pb7
It has a negative connotation. No one says "I want to be a nerd!"

The headline could have just as easily said "hire an army of technical
experts".

~~~
kace91
> No one says "I want to be a nerd!"

This might be generational - now that tech is mainstream, and there's a
constant influx of nerd culture into the general public (marvel/scifi/fantasy
movies and shows, videogames, etc) it's pretty popular.

Half the tinder profiles I see have girls claiming to either be nerds or
attracted to them (or both).

~~~
pb7
I see it as an in vs. out group thing. When you identify as something, it
takes any negative connotation out of it because you own it. When others
identify you as that thing, it could be harmless, or it could be malicious and
there is no way to know. I’m sure you can think of a few racial and sexual
orientation terms that have entirely different reactions depending on who’s
saying them.

------
sarcasmatwork
<Insert yo dawg meme here>

So she wants "nerds" to fight lobbyists to fight more lobbyists and Google's
money bags... Can't make this up.. hah

~~~
bryanlarsen
> Can't make this up.. hah

It was made up. Warren doesn't use the word nerd, it's just stupid websites
doing SEO.

"Re-funding the Office of Technology Assessment" as part of "Strengthening
Congressional Independence from Corporate Lobbyists" sounds boring.

