US taxpayers feel very sick from learning about all these taxpayer funded cushy jobs for DC lawyers and clerks and aides who just push paper and get fat paycheck without any accountability, while the private industry deals with layoffs, performance improvements, at-will employment, and general uncertainty
Why are you assuming that all countries don't have a CFPB equivalent? Do they also not have parliaments that make laws since they do not have a US Congress?
Because they have more sensible actors, stronger regulators, and less room for corruption that America.
Maybe before you determine, without evidence, that an agency is "useless", you should be honest and dive into the details before making such a foolish statement.
The agencies offered in the parent comment don’t do the work the CFPB does, nor address the same regulatory enforcement.
The only actors “harmed” by the CFPB are the actors attempting to exploit Americans.
But by all means my fellow Americans, let’s see what happens when we remove the vanguard of the consumer protections instituted as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis. That’ll ultimately be so great for the economy.
It seems like a motivation for creating it was to centralize enforcement
> Backers of the idea argued that because several federal agencies were regulating the consumer banking system, there were gaps in oversight that left consumers vulnerable or confused. The new agency would consolidate those regulatory responsibilities in one place.
I assume they have something equivalent. I also know consumer banking at least works differently in Africa and Europe then it does in the US. IIRC bank accounts are protected and accessed differently
Your other posts on this thread seem emotional, angry and aggressive, so I'm just not going to bother engaging anymore
the way US bureacrats envision regulation is wrong imo.
They only increase cost of doing business and add overhead on the consumer (one more document to sign that nobody reads, when closing a loan).
I really dont understand what these 1700 people accomplish productive every day to justify the agency's existence.
If they are doing something manual, this ought to be automated.
If they are manually enforcing something - this ought to be encoded in laws and should not require post-hoc enforcement.
"Supporters highlight its work to penalize large companies, including banks, for allegedly mistreating clients — with the bureau claiming in 2023 that it had restored $17.5 billion to Americans over the previous 12 years “in the form of monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debts, and other consumer relief.”
Last year, the CFPB finalized a rule capping credit card late payment fees at $8 — down from an average of $32 — which it estimated would save consumers $14 billion per year."
Considering the US citizens their shareholders, I would like to see how many private organisations of that size have such an impact in just 12 years.
Assuming that $14 billion figure is accurate (and it may not be!), it looks to me like this group of 1700 people costing the taxpayer about $200k each saved the taxpayer about $8.2 million per year for each employee, or an ROI of 4000%.
I think Trump is just playing the bad cop here. Both sides of the political spectrum see the writing on the wall regarding the projected growth of the interest on the debt.
They will both play their parts. The good cop side will act outraged, but they will ultimately go along with it.
It’s funny, the same folks who complain about seeing political stuff constantly are the same ones saying that in every political thread. Almost like they aren’t being honest, just flagging stuff because they’re neoreactionaries trying to make the conversation disappear. It’s quite chilling.
That is a hasty generalization. There are plenty of sub-reddits that are free of politics. I get more down voting on HN for being honest and not conforming to some group think than I ever do on reddit.
> In 2023 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reported 1,282 employees making more than $100,000 per year; the average salary was $134,723. The highest reported pay for the federal agency was $259,500 for Janis Pappalardo, Miscellaneous Administration and Program. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2023 ranked 32nd in the nation among highest paying federal agencies and 43rd in the nation for overall highest paying employers.
benefits, healthcare, pension - all are part of the labor cost, as in if you fire a person - you no longer carry these costs, and if you hire more people => you will have to carry increased benefits expenses.
I am not interested in detailed paychecks, as I am not evaluating efficiency of individual employees.
Just the department's efficiency in general, thats why it makes sense to divide totals as this is what taxpayer is paying in the end
You are talking specifically about salaries in your comparisons. Apples to apples means you should also only talk about salaries for the CFPB.
> which ~ 250k/head, which is bigger than the salary of the Speaker of the House.
> 250k average pay is unheard of in the federal government
As the data I linked, their salary amounts is on the lower end of federal agencies. I get you don't think they're worth the cost, but you can't claim they're radically overpaid compared to other federal agencies. The data just does not back up that claim.
The average employee salary for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2023 was $134,723. This is 87.8 percent higher than the national average for government employees and 74.7 percent higher than other federal agencies.
top quartile of the pay bracket.
ok maybe they are not all overpaid, but the agency is over bloated for its mission and what could be accomplished with the resources they are using
Hey, no need to paint us all with the same brush. If you look closely at these threads, you'll notice it's the same 2 or 3 people ardently defending Musk's actions-- in some cases commenting more than 50 times on a single post.
Interesting, considering they are not making anywhere near 250. doo de doo... How exactly are you measuring "delivered", "enough", and "justify"? I guess you just feel it like that 250k.
"We did just fine" is debatable, but you made the argument. "Lehman Shock" is an interesting minimization of the total systematic fraud in real estate financialization.
So the younger the effort, the less relevant/useful they are? That's an argument, but not compelling. Pretty much every startup is pointless according to that logic.
Huh. Other countries survive just fine. I thought America was to be great, though.
CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency.
We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
>>We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised.
Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran).
It's terrifying that people really think LLMs are ready for such important tasks, and even moreso that they're willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of others to do so.
they aren't, this person just simply wants them to be.
and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
Civics 101 teaches us that Congress in charge of the purse, not the executive branch. Given than any authority DOGE has was granted solely by the executive, any "cost-cutting" he has done is likely the beginning of a long, expensive, legal battle that DOGE will inevitably lose.
Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
That's patently ridiculous to anyone who has read the constitution lately. It was even a ridiculous idea to Republicans a few months ago when they argued that forgiving student loan debt was outside of the presidents power, despite that money having already been approved by Congress and spent. They can not in good faith now argue that the executive gets final and unlimited authority over spending.
Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed.
Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully.
The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.
Regarding your third point, each of those things comes with tradeoffs, they aren't just simply better. If a smaller government could get all the same work done with less money and bureaucracy, I'd agree.
