Opinion | The Problem With Everything-Bagel Liberalism - The New York Times
By: Ezra Klein (nytimes)
The challenge of the everything-bagel approach to governing is that sometimes, it's exactly the right thing to do. On-shoring the supply chain for renewable energy makes real sense. Making sure jobs in semiconductor factories are good jobs is worthwhile. But there is a cost to accumulation. How many goals and standards are too many? And why is subtraction so rare? It is impossible to read these bills and guidelines and not notice that the additions are rarely matched by deletions. Process is enthusiastically added but seldom lifted.
The result is that public projects — from affordable housing to semiconductor fabs — aren't cost competitive, and that makes them vulnerable when a bad economy hits or a new administration takes over and the government cuts its spending. Liberalism is much better at seeing where the government could spend more than at determining how it could make that spending go farther and faster.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tahanan Supportive Housing in San Francisco
By Ezra Klein
Photographs by Janet Delaney
Opinion Columnist
In February, I visited Tahanan, a building that might be the answer to San Francisco's homelessness crisis. I left wishing that the answer had been other than what it was.
Tahanan, at 833 Bryant Street in the SoMa neighborhood of San Francisco, is 145 studio units of permanent, supportive housing for the chronically homeless. It's a cheerful, efficient building that bears the hopes and scars of the population it serves. The carefully curated murals and architectural flourishes give way to extensive water damage inflicted when a resident on an upper floor reportedly slept with the faucets running. Social workers walk purposefully through the halls, greeting residents, and well-loved dogs are being walked everywhere you turn.
But what makes Tahanan notable isn't its aesthetic. It's the way it was built. Tahanan went up in three years, for less than $400,000 per unit. Affordable housing projects in the Bay Area routinely take twice as long and cost almost twice as much. "Development timelines for affordable projects in San Francisco have typically stretched to six years or longer, and development costs have reached $600,000 to $700,000 per unit," observes the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley. San Francisco cannot dent its housing crisis at the speed and cost at which it is building affordable units now. But if the pace and price of Tahanan were the norm, the outlook would brighten.
So how did Tahanan do it? The answer, for liberals, is a bit depressing: It got around the government. But the word "government" is misleading here. Government is rarely a singular entity that wants one thing. Different factions and officials and regulations and processes push in different directions. Tahanan succeeded because it had the support of city and state officials who streamlined zoning and cut deals to make it possible. But it needed gobs of private money to avoid triggering an avalanche of well-meaning rules and standards that slow public projects in San Francisco — and nationally.
You might assume that when faced with a problem of overriding public importance, government would use its awesome might to sweep away the obstacles that stand in its way. But too often, it does the opposite. It adds goals — many of them laudable — and in doing so, adds obstacles, expenses and delays. If it can get it all done, then it has done much more. But sometimes it tries to accomplish so much within a single project or policy that it ends up failing to accomplish anything at all.
I've come to think of this as the problem of everything-bagel liberalism. Everything bagels are, of course, the best bagels. But that is because they add just enough to the bagel and no more. Add too much — as memorably imagined in the Oscar-winning "Everything Everywhere All at Once" — and it becomes a black hole from which nothing, least of all government's ability to solve hard problems, can escape. And one problem liberals are facing at every level where they govern is that they often add too much. They do so with good intentions and then lament their poor results. (Conservatives, I should say, are not immune from piling on procedure and stricture, but they often do so in a purposeful attempt to make government work poorly, and so failure and inefficiency become a kind of success.)
Tahanan was built on the former site of a parking lot and temporary bail bond office. Sounds easy enough to build on. But it wasn't initially zoned for affordable housing. Tahanan could get off the ground only because of legislation passed by State Senator Scott Wiener in 2017 that fast-tracked certain kinds of affordable housing projects in California past the local entitlements process. "This project didn't have to go before the planning department for discretionary review or the Board of Supervisors," Rebecca Foster, the chief executive of the Housing Accelerator Fund, which led the development of Tahanan, told me. "We got our entitlements in four months, which is unheard-of."
ImageAn outdoor common space at Tahanan.ImageDemetrix Wilson, who works at the reception desk at Tahanan, carries a resident's wheelchair upstairs because the building's elevator was broken.
But entitlements like these simply mean you can begin the process of building. When you're building affordable housing, you're typically using public money. When you're using public money, you have to abide by public requirements. Take the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance, also known as 14b. These requirements began life in 1984 as a preference for minority- and female-owned contractors. But in 1996, California passed Proposition 209, which held that "the state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
So the contracting requirements were rewritten to focus on small businesses. "The public has an interest in fostering a strong and vibrant network of small and very small micro businesses in San Francisco," the ordinance says. To qualify under 14b, a contractor must have less than $7 million in average annual revenue. This creates a few problems. One is that it means public housing efforts in San Francisco are, by definition, discouraged from working with large contractors that are successful precisely because they are good at delivering projects on time and under budget. Another is that San Francisco has a tight labor market and an even tighter construction market. There aren't a lot of capable small contractors sitting around with nothing to do.
In practice, Foster said, a few small contractors end up attached to a large number of affordable housing jobs, causing delays and cost overruns. Then, of course, there's the cost of compliance — of proving to the city you're following the 14b rules. Foster's team estimates that requirements like 14b could add six to nine months and millions of dollars to building an affordable housing project the size of Tahanan.
But it's not just 14b. There are local hiring requirements. There's the requirement to get your power from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission rather than PG&E. (PG&E is no great shakes, but the S.F.P.U.C. is considered even harder to work with.) The Arts Commission does a separate review of your design. You need an additional review from the Mayor's Office of Disability. That's a good one to examine because, well, who could oppose that? But these projects are already in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the additional review takes time and comes at a cost. "They come in when you're done," Foster said. "And they'll say, 'That threshold is two centimeters off, and it is in all of your doors.' And so that delays people moving in for another couple of months. And it might mean that you miss a financing deadline and have an adjuster on your tax credit fees that are another $2 million. So it just has a big ripple impact."
Tahanan is the first affordable housing project in San Francisco built using modular housing. All of the units above the ground floor were fabricated at a factory in Vallejo, Calif. "That definitely helped with meeting the time- and cost-saving goals," Foster said. But some local unions were furious, even though the factory in Vallejo is unionized. That might have been enough to kill Tahanan in a normal planning process. For that reason, Foster's group isn't planning to use modular construction on its next affordable housing project. "It just was too big a political lift," she said.
Here, then, is another place where progressive goals conflict. Local union jobs are a good thing. Modular housing can make construction cheaper and faster in a state facing a severe housing shortage. Which do you choose?
ImageThe view from Tahanan.
What made Tahanan possible was a $50 million grant from the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. The grant's conditions were that the housing had to be built in under three years and for under $400,000 a unit. By using private financing, the project sidestepped the standards and rules triggered by using public money. Again, that isn't to say the political system in San Francisco was against the project. The Board of Supervisors approved a crucial lease to keep the development operating into the future. But private money was the secret sauce.
I found that realization dispiriting. There isn't enough private money floating around to solve the housing crisis. But more profoundly, it is damning that you can build affordable housing so much more cheaply and swiftly by forgoing public money. Government needs to be able to solve big problems. But the inability or the unwillingness to choose among competing priorities — to pile too much on the bagel — is itself a choice, and it's one that California keeps making. When I looked into the problems of building affordable housing in Los Angeles, the same pathologies popped up, and they're present in the disaster that is the state's high-speed rail system, too. But it's not just California.
Tahanan was on my mind when, at the end of February, the Biden administration released its notice of funding opportunity for the CHIPS and Science Act. The centerpiece of the bipartisan CHIPS Act is $39 billion to subsidize semiconductor firms to build factories — fabs, if you're a semiconductor nerd — in America. The notice of funding opportunity was the administration's statement of the criteria it would use when awarding this money.
It's worth taking a moment here to describe the problem the Biden administration is trying to solve and why it's trying to solve it. "It's often said that data is the new oil," Chris Miller writes in "Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology." "Yet the real limitation we face isn't the availability of data but of processing power."
Processing power comes from semiconductors. And semiconductors are everywhere. They run cars and dishwashers, iPhones and guided missiles, children's toys and artificial intelligence systems. They are the most complex technology human beings create. A cutting-edge chip can have over 11 billion transistors on it, each a hundredth the size of a mitochondrion.
Very few firms can make these chips. "Unlike oil, which can be bought from many countries," Miller writes, "our production of computing power depends fundamentally on a series of choke points: tools, chemicals and software that often are produced by a handful of companies — and sometimes only by one." Factories in Taiwan alone provide more than a third of the new computing power added each year, and they are particularly dominant in the most advanced chips. Were those factories destroyed by an earthquake or captured in a Chinese invasion, the consequences would be cataclysmic.
We are used to thinking about the geopolitics of energy, but the geopolitics of semiconductors may well define the next era. China now spends more money importing semiconductors than oil, and the Biden administration is targeting this vulnerability. It has banned the sale of the most advanced kinds of semiconductors (chips largely used for A.I. systems and cloud-based data processing) to Chinese customers, and the administration is trying, through the CHIPS Act, to make America a leader again in manufacturing advanced semiconductors. If the administration succeeds — if it truly can make America a manufacturing leader again in what is one of the world's most important and complex industries — that will be a remarkable achievement.
The semiconductor industry was invented in America — the "silicon" in Silicon Valley refers to the material that semiconductors are made from — but we long ago lost our dominant position in making what we invented. A report by the Semiconductor Industry Association says that the U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity dropped from 37 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2020. Part of the reason is cost. The association estimates that building and operating a fab in the United States costs about 30 percent more over 10 years than it does in Taiwan, South Korea or Singapore.
The association is an industry group lobbying for subsidies, so it's reasonable to be skeptical of its statistics. But turn your attention to construction costs, and the situation looks, if anything, worse. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation is trying to build an advanced fab in Arizona. Costs have exploded past the early estimates, and it now looks as though "construction could be at least four times the cost in Taiwan, driven by labor expenses, permits, regulatory compliance and inflation," as John Liu and Paul Mozur reported in The Times.
Semiconductors are a national security priority. The high cost of building them here has become a national security liability. This reasoning was persuasive enough that the CHIPS Act passed with bipartisan support; 17 Republican senators backed the final bill. And there is a lot to like in the legislation. But it is very hard to read the guidelines the administration just released and see a serious effort to lower costs. The government is adding subsidies with one hand and layering on requirements with the other.
Page 11, for instance, encourages a pre-application that includes an environmental questionnaire "to assess the likely level of review under the National Environmental Policy Act." Page 20 mandates that applicants prepare "an equity strategy, in concert with their partners, to create equitable work force pathways for economically disadvantaged individuals in their region," which should include "building new pipelines for workers, including specific efforts to attract economically disadvantaged individuals and promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility." Page 21 asks for a plan "to include women and other economically disadvantaged individuals in the construction industry," "strongly encourages" the use of project labor agreements and sets out requirements for "access to child care for facility and construction workers."
Pages 23 and 24 ask applicants to detail how they will include minority-, veteran- and female-owned businesses, as well as small businesses, in their supply chain and offer seven bullet points detailing how this might be done, including dividing supply chain requirements "into smaller tasks or quantities to expand access" and "establishing delivery schedules for subcontractors that encourage participation by small, minority-owned, veteran-owned and women-owned businesses." Then there are requirements for "a climate and environment responsibility plan," as well as community investments in areas like transit, affordable housing and schools.
Many of these are good goals. But are they good goals to include in this project?
"What they're trying to do with industrial policy is incredibly difficult," Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at the Economic Innovation Group, told me. "If you try to build a highway and your costs are too high, you just throw more money at the problem. The highway still gets built. But when you're trying to catalyze the expansion of a globally competitive industry, there's something pass/fail about it. That's not the kind of environment where you want to be trying to accomplish seven or eight other goals, especially when people from that industry say the reason they don't invest as much in the United States as they used to is the red tape and the costs."
That's not how Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, sees it. "Every one of the requirements — or they're not really requirements — nudges are for criteria or factors we think relate directly to the effectiveness of the project," she told me. "You want to build a new fab that will require between 7,000 and 9,000 workers. The unemployment rate in the building trades is basically zero. If you don't find a way to attract women to become builders and pipe fitters and welders, you will not be successful. So you have to be thinking about child care."
When I spoke to members of the administration, this was a core argument I heard: A huge problem for building a domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry is work force development. We don't have enough skilled semiconductor technicians. We don't have enough skilled fab builders. All these companies complain about work force shortages. And so the administration is trying to push them to take a broader view of work force development. They need to build and staff their factories now, and they need a pipeline of talent for later.
Some of what's in the notice of funding opportunity fits that argument. When it says that "applicants must secure commitments from strategic partners, including partnerships with regional educational and training entities and institutions of higher education to provide work force training," I see how the administration is trying to use its money and muscle to create the kinds of coalitions that might not otherwise form. But does that really explain the push for diversity in supply chain contracts? The call for community investments? Do Taiwanese semiconductor firms really know how to expand the role of women in the construction industry?
When I posed this to Raimondo, she suggested I was thinking too narrowly. "I consider it a fact that a more diverse work force is a more productive work force," she said.
I don't disagree with her. But cost, not just productivity, is a core problem for the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry, and many of these rules seem likely to raise costs. There, too, Raimondo thought I was missing the forest for the trees. "Here's the reality," she said. "We do need to fundamentally make it cheaper to produce chips in America. That won't come from paying people less. It'll come from innovation. We need to bring cost down by an order of magnitude, not by 10 percent. That comes from innovating, which is why we're investing $11 billion in research and development."
I'm not sure that argument really works. America has been and remains a leader in semiconductor design and research. But the lesson of the history Miller tells in "Chip War" is that when you stop being cost competitive as a manufacturer, you begin to lose the know-how and process innovations that keep you ahead of rivals. We didn't fall behind on chips because Taiwan and South Korea and Japan made breakthroughs in the fundamental science that we missed. We lost it because they undercut us on manufacturing and then, over time, learned lessons inside their factories that we weren't learning because our fabs closed after customers flocked to cheaper suppliers.
We're not, of course, going to undercut Taiwan or South Korea on labor costs; G.D.P. per capita is almost twice as high in America. But costs matter, and what I don't see in the notice of funding opportunity is a sustained effort to lower them beyond the subsidies. What about giving these fabs expedited environmental review — permitting is a major source of delay — or making it easier for skilled semiconductor workers to immigrate to the United States?
"I think both those are worthwhile endeavors," Raimondo said, "but both require congressional action. If Congress wants to work with us on a streamlined visa and immigration path for workers in the semiconductor industry, I think that would be excellent, and the same thing with permitting." Members of Congress, like Senators Mark Kelly and John Cornyn, she added, "have reached out on these issues, and my answer is an unqualified yes, but I have to execute this plan as it exists now in the meantime."
Raimondo's point there is an important one. Congress sets the limits on this legislation. She can administer it, but she is no czar. And the projects that get greenlit will also have to work through state and local governments in order to be built. "In Taiwan, TSMC is the island's most prestigious employer," Miller told me. "It's the country's largest exporter. If it has a request, its request is quickly granted. Whereas in the U.S., semiconductors are one important industry among many. And so they just get less political priority. When they face problems, they're solved less quickly."
But I think that undersells the problem in America, at least a bit. The CHIPS and Science Act is one of the Biden administration's marquee bills. It is a priority. That's even truer for the Inflation Reduction Act. If the administration has a single signature goal, it is to rapidly decarbonize the American economy. But there, too, if you read through the text of the I.R.A., you will find quite a few goals in competition. The climate side of the I.R.A. pairs investments in decarbonization with buy-American rules and labor standards and much else.
The case for buy-American provisions is clear: They create jobs and raise wages and build supply chains in America. But the case against them, particularly when speed is of the essence, is real. "By excluding foreign contractors — even technically qualified firms based in allied countries such as Canada and Korea — competition is quashed at the outset," Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Megan Hogan of the Peterson Institute write. "Then, by denying U.S. contractors from acquiring scarce components from foreign sources, delay is guaranteed." Is risking these delays worth it? It depends, I guess, on how fast you think decarbonization has to happen and how much room you think there is for error.
The challenge of the everything-bagel approach to governing is that sometimes, it's exactly the right thing to do. On-shoring the supply chain for renewable energy makes real sense. Making sure jobs in semiconductor factories are good jobs is worthwhile. But there is a cost to accumulation. How many goals and standards are too many? And why is subtraction so rare? It is impossible to read these bills and guidelines and not notice that the additions are rarely matched by deletions. Process is enthusiastically added but seldom lifted.
The result is that public projects — from affordable housing to semiconductor fabs — aren't cost competitive, and that makes them vulnerable when a bad economy hits or a new administration takes over and the government cuts its spending. Liberalism is much better at seeing where the government could spend more than at determining how it could make that spending go farther and faster.
I don't write this as a critic of the Biden administration's goals. I'm thrilled to see industrial policy revived. I believe semiconductors are to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. "In the case of CHIPS, this is first and foremost and primarily a national security initiative," Raimondo told me. "We have national security goals we must achieve. Period. Full stop. No compromise." Later, she circled back to that point. "Failure is not an option," she said. But I worry that statements like that deny the obvious. Failure is always an option. The reason industrial policy had to be revived is that it often fails.
I'm not predicting failure for CHIPS because it includes a child care mandate. These are expensive factories that can figure out child care. But even if no single standard or mandate is decisive on its own, the accumulation of them, in an industry in which we've already fallen ruinously behind on cost, can do real damage.
That's the lesson of "affordable" housing in California. If something as easy to build as a studio apartment complex can become intolerably expensive and slow, then it's folly to think that far worse can't befall a fab that ultimately has to compete for customers globally. And if you think failure really is an option — that it's maybe even the likeliest outcome — then that demands an intensity of focus that liberalism often lacks.
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
How much do you want on that building? Or Fab?
How much regulation is too much?
Just taking a look at some of the California requirements listed in the article, I would say California may have gone way overboard.
says the guy that lives in a state where you can put a single wide on a lot next to a $500K home...
I have Texan on ignore because I found him to add nothing to conversations but strife and argumentation
yeah, maybe out in the country--like in many states.
I bet you can not show me even one city in Texas with more than 100k population that has no restrictions.
I already know you can't, you just can't resist bashing Texas even when you have to make shit up to do so.
So very weak and expected.
[Deleted]
I have several members on ignore - does wonders for my high blood pressure.
Thoughtful, well-reasoned dialogue, I am sure
I am sure you are enamored with the witty repartee located in post 1.1.1..
What do you find thoughtful or well-reasoned in THAT post?
LOL!
Perhaps next time you can actually address something in my post.
Since you failed, I will assume my post is correct and you could find nothing in it to dispute.
careful, don't hurt your shoulders patting yourself on the back...
So once again, you don't have squat to say about what I wrote, you are just continuing your incessant trolling.
Not interested unless you can actually prove ANY of the wild shit you 'claim' as 'true'.
I didn't pat myself on the back, I pointed out your comment was devoid of truth, common sense, logic, and reason, and challenged you to support your claim, which you declined to do, so safe to assume you just made the crap up.
Ah yes! The liberal way. Don't like someone's comments because they disagree with yours or you can't disprove their point or enhance your own (or several other reasons), put them on ignore. Don't like a speaker coming to your community? Riot in the streets until city or college cancels it. If that doesn't work, go to the event and try to make enough noise and keep those who want to hear them from doing so (then theywill whine and cry when one of those in attendence decks their ass)
Am I on that list (I hope)
[Deleted]
I gave reason, though I did not have to. Texan's comments were, and most likely still are, on the level of "neener- neener" and "Did-not! Did so!" He continually derailed conversations with no other apparent motive. I find his lack of ability to debate on any serious level a distraction with no redeeming features. This site affords me the ability to ignore members. I take advantage of that feature at my pleasure. This is meta, and no further meta will be allowed on this article. It will be deleted.
Now, do you have anything pertinent to the article to add, or are you just here to piss and moan about the site and its features?
[Deleted]
Same.
But you think that 1.1.1 is perfectly fine and full of intellect.
Weird reasoning
No, I think it is funny trying to interpret what manner of nonsense he is spouting from the comments to it.
What did you think of the article?
I'll be sure to let you know if/when he makes any comments on topic.
show me where I mentioned the population or a specific city? is it or is it not possible to put a single wide on a lot next to a $500K home in texas? a simple question, a yes or no answer...
Here we are 4 of your posts so far and zero are on topic.
I'll use your guidance in 1.1.20 the same as you claim you will with me.
maybe you should read 1.1.19 again...
Intelligent people realize that zoning laws are handled locally in Texas and not ask such a dumbfuck question wholly unrelated to my original comment here.
5 posts
I'll even bet it is possible in whatever state YOU live in.
I am willing to bet a month off of here for me if I am wrong and a month off of here for you if I am right.
Asked and answered already, so why troll and repeat yourself?
That comment is false. My very first comment here was totally on topic until you decided to troll and deflect.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Definitely a huge problem. At times, it seems the more the government gets involved, the higher the hurdles become and the less likely a real solution will be found.
To err is human. To really screw things up requires government involvement.
The inevitable problem with a central planning approach is attempting to push the string. And as the seeded article outlines, the overarching goal is not to build affordable housing or microchip manufacturing plants.
Poverty is certainly diverse, equitable, inclusive and accessible. Poverty does not discriminate; anyone can be poor. So, a governmental goal of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility can most easily succeed by pushing more people into poverty. We've already observed what the governmental push-the-string approach is achieving.
Really, Nerm, anytime you involve a professional with a piece of paper you are adding to bottom line of the project. How do you suggest that we proceed with this "Poverty for All" campaign?
Electing and reelecting Democrats seems to be working.
Isn't the purpose of that paper to push the string? The paper pushers are there to keep the string headed in the desired direction. The project they are overseeing only becomes a means to achieve a completely different and unrelated objective.
How does the medical sector deal with diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility? Do we hear very much about discrimination in hiring for the medical sector? The need for a large workforce naturally evolves toward diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The constant need for more workers creates motivation to innovate. The consumer demand for medical care pulls the string in the desired direction.
So the constant demand for more housing pushes the string how? I am going to posit that it is not the need for more workers that drives the innovation motivation, but the dollar signs on the bills that get sent out. People do not see the waste of the insurance companies, they only see that they don't have to pay some great amount of money at the time of service.
We are speaking of regulation and use of public funds. The overarching sentiment of the article was that private enterprise can accomplish more in less time and for less money than government because the control of the resources (public funds) is so much greater.
The consumer demand is for more affordable housing. The objective of central planning is for housing to incorporate more features into design, construction, and ultimate occupation of the housing. The governmental goals are about the features and not about the housing. The governmental approach is to push the string to achieve the desired goal of incorporating features into housing.
The push the string approach sacrifices needs for perfection.
Yes, the money is coming from the government so the medical sector has been distorted to attract passive investors. But that doesn't have anything to do with actual delivery of medical care. Again the governmental involvement has been to pursue features rather than the actual delivery of medical care.
Delivery of medical care depends upon medical workers. If medical care cannot be delivered then the medical sector collapses. The need for workers naturally motivates innovation in delivery of medical care.
By and large that is true. Private enterprise is focused on delivery of whatever is to be made available rather than focusing on unrelated features. Private enterprise sacrifices perfection for needs.
Keep building more and more "affordable" housing, and the homeless will just keep coming...particularly if they don't have to have to contribute anything toward the goal of reducing homelessness. Just show up and the Dems will hopefully take care of you....or not. Liberals most often have lofty goals and good intentions, but lack the skills and resources to get the job done...which was the gist of this very good article.
Just how is the regulation, say for instance that a door has to be at least 32", pushing a string? The rules are there at the beginning of the project. It seems that the reason for these rules (in this instance to accommodate wheelchairs) is in line with everybody's intentions and that the following of them should be fairly rote. How do rules translate into cost overruns?
So where do you plan to put them? Debtors prisons? Psyche wards? Take them out behind the shed, shoot them and feed them to the hogs? Or is it just ignore them and they will go away?
Well, really, that it cost nearly half-a-million dollars to build one apartment and the project was kept going by a $50 million dollar grant is a pretty sad statement on construction costs in America. The corollary to the articles' theme is how do we decrease the costs of public projects while maintaining some control over the process?
I don't find that to be the gist of the article. I found the article to be cutting back against the layering of regulations and enforcement and wondering how to achieve better results with less money, in public and private entities.
What does a 32 inch door have to do with diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility? A 32 inch door is an industry standard and installing anything else would cost more.
The problem arises when regulations are used to add qualifiers. The requirement to use doors manufactured in the US is a qualifier that doesn't have anything to do with safety or functionality of a 32 inch door. Free traders gripe about imposing the regulatory qualifier of made in America.
The everything-bagel approach is to add qualifiers intended to achieve a goal that has nothing to do with 32 inch doors. A requirement to use doors manufactured by minority owned businesses located in disadvantaged areas and with labor programs that promotes diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility has nothing to do with the safety and functionality of the doors. Obtaining doors becomes an exercise in locating a supplier that meets the regulatory qualifications that has nothing to do with the doors themselves. In fact, it may be necessary to accept inferior doors at a higher cost to meet the regulatory qualifications.
I can see and agree with the concept of what you are saying. I run into this type of thing at my workplace.
Three years ago, I wanted to replace a Fuel Storage tank at my facility with a newer, safer, and easier to maintain tank. I wrote a requisition, did the research, got the bids, got the approval from management. I thought that I was all good to go and I would have a new tank in a couple of months. Long story short, I had passed an arbitrary dollar amount that triggered a whole slew of regulatory hell. The Office of General Services then stepped in, changed the scope of the project, raised the dollar amount on the project, and to this day I have the same old tank that I started with.
That said, I think that you are painting this in the worst possible light. I think that a lot of the time and money lost is because of a lack of communication between all interested parties and could be streamlined to achieve compliance before the build by letting everyone know of the requirements beforehand. Achieving this would, in the case of the building in the article, be cumbersome for people to do but sounds like an excellent task for an AI bot to be created for.
An all too common occurrence. Often the planning for a project cannot really begin until the regulatory limit has been triggered. And, as you point out, the regulatory limit is determined by dollar amounts and not by the needs and objectives for the project itself. Regulators stepping in and essentially taking control of the project happens quite often, too. But those regulators assume no responsibility for the project.
As your example illustrates, the interested parties extend far beyond the needs and objectives for the project. Using your example, a regulator isn't affected by the need for a tank and has no responsibility for problems caused by not replacing the tank. The regulator's needs and objectives have nothing to do with the project. And the regulator steps in to manage the project to fulfill their needs and objectives without regard for the purpose of the project. The regulator has no responsibility toward the actual project and successful completion of the project is not a regulator's objective. That is a push the string approach. The project only becomes a means to push the string.
The everything-bagel regulator will justify themselves by pointing out that it's important to support minority owned businesses (as an example). And that does sound like a laudable goal. But the regulatory environment takes the easy path and only forces dollars into existing minority owned business. The regulators aren't fostering new business startups that expand the base of minority owned businesses. The regulators aren't interested in creating a competitive (and resilient) business base. The everything-bagel regulator has basically created a business environment that is similar to a monopoly that ultimately stunts growth and expansion of the business base. That shouldn't be surprising since existing minority owned businesses want to retain their advantage.
Government regulations are a double edge sword. They are certainly needed since if there weren't rules/law/regulations the various industries would run wild and for example, you'd have buildings in earthquake areas built to only withstand someone leaning against them. This can be applied to numerous other areas as well. But, as we all know the government does have a tendency to put rules on rules on rules making the process not only time-consuming but very costly and many businesses have a tendency to put the least amount of money/safety into a project.
Whoever can find that middle ground will become a national hero.
In Houston, Texas there are no zoning laws which is very unusual in any major city in the US. There is no mandate as to single-use areas either. Actually, it has been voted on by the public 2 or 3 times and each time zoning laws were turned down. I don't live in Houston although before I retired we have fairly large operations there and it was always a topic of conversation with our national management team.
anyone with a cordless drill, cell phone, and a pickup truck can call themselves a general contractor in texas.
How about a Chevy Van?
So, in your opinion, does this lack of zoning regulation help or hinder the creation of housing in general? With different types of housing such as low rent, multi-unit, multi-family Housing?
it seems to be very lucrative to local building depts/inspectors to overlook some things that were done before building codes had to be followed. as far as MDU's (multiple dwelling units) are concerned, a little stricter, but cash is always king.
case in point, a new subdivision of houses goes up near my mom's condo in texas. to squeeze in several more homes the houses are less than 6 feet apart on average, sometimes less. the local fire truck can't complete any turns on the looped and narrow street within the complex and there is no place for it to turn around if it could. these are all 3 and 4 story beach homes, wood construction. the city had to buy a much smaller fire pickup truck to address the problem they created. it's an accepted fact by locals that if one catches fire, they're all going to burn, but the insurance industry is part owner of the republican party in texas, so they probably won't get hurt at all. it'll be an act of gawd...
FYI - many states have legislation governing condominium and HOA laws because of and based on the rampant abuse in texas decades ago. I witnessed the local inspectors blow off federal regulations concerning asbestos and lead based paint remediation during the hurricane harvey rebuild in my mom's complex, along with a few other scams.
Did you have a relative who took pay-offs, or did you base that on any facts?
“…or did you base that on any facts?”
….funny that…
Really more of a rhetorical question, thanks for providing me an opportunity to point that out for those unable to discern it!
unyielding blind loyalty to persons, places, and things, above all else even in the wrong...
“Really more of a rhetorical question, thanks…”
When you are left to the rhetorical, you are left with the questionable.
I certainly saw that in Port A and Rockport after the last big hurricane.
no, I used that info to extort additional services from goober contractors that realized I knew who to contact at the federal level. they could flap their goober jaws all they wanted about how it's always been done in texas before the feds started regulating, but not a one had the stomach for facing down the EPA or OSHA, that pay bounties for law breakers. I used to turn in my competitors taking shortcuts all the time in denver.
bingo. the texas legislature let the insurance companies off the hook by letting them not rebuild previously rated hurricane shelters, like schools and public buildings, back to hurricane standards.
Awww, shucks, that's gonna cost too much
... and all religious schools have basements... >wink, wink<
[Deleted]
and that is why I have to spend time explaining the mundane yet again.
funny, that's what the crooked contractors said too. I called it leveling the playing field after the fact. the EPA fined one contractor $300K. he went bankrupt. bummer.
oh they agreed with me?
sane folk often do
[Deleted]
Yea.....
right
[Deleted]
a matter of public record in colorado. home depot threw him under the bus to save themselves. all I did was supply the address and estimated installation dates of the project, ...free of charge.
[Deleted]
How has this lack of zoning affected the business end of things?
Before I retired we built a facility that probably would not be allowed in a city with zoning laws. There are many oddities in Houston where businesses are in the same neighborhood as homes. The urban sprawl in Houston has reached huge proportions.
This is an interesting article on urban sprawl and zoning.
This is another area that has been and will be a problem for homes in Houston. Building homes below an earthen dam and in flood-prone areas and reservoirs
My,God. Are these people sane?
both developers and insurance companies know who will end up bailing out the homeowners when their houses are underwater.
Damn fools and in the last big hurricane there they were evacuating the homes below one of the dams as it was ready to let go. The homeowners were damn lucky.
The same folks that are bailing out depositors that exceeded the standard deposit insurance coverage limit of $250,000 per depositor in failed banks?
I cannot believe that the insurance companies insure buildings in what is designed to be a holding basin for water.
Amazing isn't it?
I liked it, Klien is a good writer and a thoughtful, knowledgeable journalist.
It's a good analogy, the challenge is finding the sweet spot between competing priorities or values.
I don't think that it only is a symptom of liberal government, it is a symptom of government.
All governments, local, state, federal, red or blue, has to manage resources, maintain security, regulate the economy, build some of the infrastructure, and provide public services. The tremendous growth of government and human nature tends to grow the bureaucracy. Grow not just in size, but also in budget, regulations until some represent a self-licking ice cream cone. The horizontal integration of competing agencies all trying to have a say in both decisions and execution, becomes very hard. And the more we ask of government, the harder it has become.
Thank you for responding.
In what ways do you think this "self-licking ice cream cone" can be made more efficient? Is there a way?
Not heavily.
Texas is very business-friendly at the state level, and Houston benefits from that immensely. If you're a person who likes the benefits strict zoning laws can bring, there are plenty of suburbs offering that.
The situation describes dozens of cities, from New Orleans to London.
Homeowners insurance doesn't cover flood damage, so they have no risk there.
Flood damage is covered by flood insurance, which is underwritten through a federal program.
So they have no skin in the game and can blithely ignore the fact that the houses are in peril?
Like the local and regional government seems to be doing?
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the quest for the almighty dollar! /s
Did these other cities build in these areas in the present time or was the development there and was simply updated? The houses referred to in the article are recently and presently being built.
Houston is in a way unique along with New Orleans. It's at sea level, prone to hurricanes, the infrastructure is not up to par and the sprawling suburbs have taken away the existing wetlands that were somewhat of a buffer when the flooding and hurricanes came.
Yes, flood insurance is covered by the feds at a rate that is far below what any insurance company would charge. Much of Florida is in the same situation and more and more insurance companies have left the state because of massive claim history from weather-related incidents which by the way include tornadoes we are now in a state of panic with the state trying to pass legislative bandaids to help homeowners. The cost of hurricane insurance is becoming out of reach for many people.
The program that covers flood insurance by the feds is in a huge financial hole and it's not getting any better with the constant stream of claims.
Large bureaucracies are culturally resistant to change, the get very comfortable with status quo, and protecting or better yet, growing their budget of course. I'm in a large federal bureaucracy, with significant Congressional oversight. We and they are a very risk adverse culture, both of us have large, expensive efforts to document everything and have numerous decision points requiring more and more analysis. That takes time and money. Many of us in government contracting aren't seriously interested in changing the funding mechanisms to take advantage of newer, smaller industry partners because it might put our budget at risk. Also, we build long enduring relationships with our most established business partners. Congressmen with those jobs in there districts don't really want change if it reduces or relocates jobs out of their district.
There is also the revolving door process were as individuals advance within their bureaucracy, they have established relations with their counterparts in industry and maybe looking for a good position there after leaving government.
Decisions here are often made too late, decisions can be motivated by survival and fear, or made in a vacuum.
Some of this isn't unique to government, large corporations can get trapped by the same behaviors. Think IBM, Sony our auto companies from the 60's until recently, etc.
Innovation requires risks and powering down decision making. Some efforts will fail. We must accept that and try to identify failure early and support adjusting based on lessons learned. We have to actually think outside of the box, not just claim that we do.
There are tens of billions of dollars at stake. Nobody is doing anything "blithely". These are heavily regulated contracts that describe in great detail the covered perils and what the insurer will do if one of those happens.
Almost nowhere in America does your homeowners insurance cover flooding. News flash, it doesn't cover your trees, either. Or the boat in the garage. There is either a list of things the policy covers or a list of things it doesn't cover, or both, in the policy itself.
So no, they're not worried about things that are not in the contract, just like your car insurance company doesn't care about how often you change your oil.
I think you may be overestimating what any government agency is doing about any of this.
I'm not sure you understand the insurance situation here.
If you bought a house in Kingwood, Texas, would you want to be able to insure it? Would you want to be able to cover it against fire? Tornado? A tree falling on it? Hail damage? Burglary? What about liability if someone injures themself in your home?
For most people, that answer is "yes". And they pay premiums based on the things the policy covers.
If those policies covered flooding, they would cost prohibitive. That's why we have a federal program (since 1968) to help address that.
Now, if you buy a house in Kingwood and you choose not to buy flood insurance, you're an idiot and you deserve whatever happens.
I missed the reference to floodplains in the article. I was responding to a comment questioning the sanity of millions of people in one of America's largest cities.
But the use of levees to reclaim buildable land has been going on for centuries.
Usually, they build on the dry side of the levee, not the wet side.
Houston grew almost 10% between the 2010 and 2020 census, so I doubt that a lack of zoning laws has had much affect.
Another case of damn if you do and damned if you don't, in my opinion. Long article. Reads like a dry treatise. I am looking for an 'in' into this discussion.
The article was about trying to assure social justice by creating regulations at various governmental levels and the costs of doing so. In short, it was observing that though such regulations can be seen as beneficial by themselves, the piling on of multiple layers of regulatory oversight tended to slow and make more cumbersome and expensive these projects that were on the public bank account. Or shorter yet, cut the red tape and you do things more efficiently and for less money.
I asked ChatGPT to synopsize the article and here is what it said:
But that ain't the book report that I would have written.
ChatGPT doesn't seem to like everything bagel liberalism
Not sure what ChatGPT is splitting hairs over, but. . . the issue I see is (some) conservatives are 'heavy-handed' with the poison pills they add-on to try to "catch" stereotypical individuals getting through the 'net.' It is the reason why "the projects" turned into such unpopular dwelling places. Because as much as "the projects" were designed to help poor people "the projects" equally quenched the spirit (through redundant policies, reportings, and public housing was simply 'warehousing' and not meant to lift people up! Or something like that, in my opinion.
What conservatives were in positions of power to do that the projects in San Francisco, Chicago, LA, etc.?
It's pretty spot on, though.
But it is not a synopsis of the article.
It may be the your view, but the article thrust is given in the section that I quoted when I posted the article.
It's a two-party system. Did you just now mention you work in the federal system and yet you don't follow politics of how bills get passage?
Yes, California has conservatives which help persuade a bill or several across passage. As to which one indepth-do your own analysis. I am not going to spin time on your "regressive" questioning. Read, learn, teach others to do the same!
You wrote “. the issue I see is (some) conservatives are 'heavy-handed' with the poison pills they add-on to try to "catch" stereotypical individuals getting through the 'net.'”
But can’t identify who did what or what the poison pills are. Your biases are talking, not your knowledge.
That's full of it. If you were as aware of conservative politics and republican policies as your would have us to take for granted, then you would know and not belabor the point that conservatives generally and routinely 'stack and tack' on to liberal propositions their worldview which is counter-productive to what liberals hope to gain as a poison pill or 'smothering' effect. This occurs when liberals, for whatever reasons in the "immediate" need republican/conservative votes for a significant bill passage.
I don't owe you a silliness of detailing every minute political tactic and strategic developed and executed across decades and single digit years, just to get your 'approval' which will not be forthcoming anyway.
Go get you some sense about what conservatives 'do' in today's politics. . . and then come discuss. Just uttering insults and poorly conceived questions "ain't" going to get you far around here!
I am reminded that popular conservative/republican or vice-versa, Ronald Reagan, called out someone he dubbed, "Welfare queen" in order to draft legislation or effectively alter the trajectory of the 'system' in helping needy (in this case Black) women. The effect being though the program to aid needy women/people may have continued it was handicapped by a change in policy and such to limit who/what/how/where/when in its execution. That is what I mean. You would know this meaning, if you know 'enough' about those games conservatives play with not letting anything liberals create continue to benefit the whole of society. While conservatives' worldview only seek to benefit individuals.
BTW, the 'solution' to the mythical 'welfare queen' would be to put her in jail and make an example out of her for abusing the system and not altering the help given to the needy class of the citizenry. However, the need came into being!
“Every minute political tactic…”
You haven’t described any major ones let alone every minute one.
You pretend to want informed conversation here but you really provide neither.
Easy peasy. Just move on and don't stop to discuss. I am not a personal 'encyclopedia' and I have expectation that when someone wants to chide the room about a great many things, they should know some things internally and not just be 'a-buzzing' the discussion 'pit.' It's pathetic actually, that for all this interacting together-I never know when to take some conservatives seriously or not! Because plenty/all of this is public information spread across decades and multiple years. It is "accumulated knowledge" and I don't choose to 'stall' trying to wrestle the finer points of conservatism. I assume, or like to take for granted, that conservatives know what they are doing in the policy-making pit. I don't have time or inclination to drench it all up or recite it on "demand."
Did you really read the seed? Don't you live in California?
The primary cost driver of housing costs is property zoning regulations. California like most municipalities and counties create zoning policies and regulations at the local level. Since the 60's, San Francisco and the Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Restrictions forbid most new construction at more than 40 feet high, strictly control multi-family housing and created laws making it much easy for established residents to block future developments.
The US Congress has nothing to do with SF zoning rules.
More from the unread or misunderstood seed:
None of these are due to conservatives in the US Congress.
You apparently don't have the inclination for informed discussion.
There are elected conservatives in state and local governments.
1. So there are "factions/officials/regulations/processes that push in different directions" - AKA: Government. (Government is made up of political parties and people.)
2. The article talks about a local and state (San Francisco building project) "success story" done on-time and within cost bounds; and a national semi-conductor policy nationally which make encounter government issues based on specific needs/dynamics expressed by the country (as a whole).
This is not just about a success story in San Francisco. The article is not just about liberals and their social equity demands across the board. It is about trying to find a right BALANCE of people equity to building projects that are time efficient and cost effective (limiting overruns).
However, changing the system while it is "live" and running underfoot is difficult. And critics abound galore. Always ready to criticize, opine, and undermine any transition which they disagree with or have no desire to see continue.
By the way, I am not politically 'blind.' I do realize that not everything liberals do are justified or cost effective. This is the 'trying' issue of politics when it gets mired or trapped in the 'dead zone' between parties or they go to loggerheads and then start speaking pass each other and 'everything' turns into political mincemeat.
Sometime it is helpful to see a project or several through to completion with one 'chief' rather than many voices speaking into what will make for a better sausage that turns out to be too costly, inefficient, and not really what anybody had in mind in the first place!
Glad Tahanan Supportive Housing in San Francisco turned out with a SATISFACTORY grade and as a model of success!
Just hoping that the private funds accomplished their (heart's) goal for the giving effort. And, goodness help them, let's hope there is not a future reporting of a 'shipment' or several in some storage area of gold-plated toilets, plural-somehow taken off its audit/list.
I’m glad that you finally read the seed.
I read the article before I 'ever' commented on it. A misplaced thanks is not needed or helpful in that regard! Typical to ignore the points and remark on the 'fringes' of a comment.
Ignore the points?
I made similar ones all day.
phttt Misplaced Comment
I think the most damning thing in the entire article is that this actually came out of the mouth of the Secretary of Commerce and she doesn't realize how ridiculous it is.
She makes Klein's point for him. There is a point at which ideology must surrender to fact and pragmatism.
Not to put you on the spot, but what is that point? Does it exist absolutely or generically, or would the determination be better made on a case-by-case basis?
In my thinking, it's from the time the primary goal is first established.
So for example, if the primary goal is to improve conditions for vagrants in San Fransisco, then we need to do that as efficiently as possible. If we can keep building costs below $400k/unit, we can build that many more units and help that many more people. If we add every other lost cause we can think of (small contractors, minority businesses, the arts council, the Society for the Preservation of Mosquitos, or whoever else), you load so much cargo onto one ship that you sink it and nobody gets anywhere.
There are rare circumstances where ideology must prevail at all costs. But they're incredibly rare. (I'm speaking from a societal and governing view, here, not necessarily a personal moral conduct view.)
But all too often we make "perfect" the enemy of "really pretty good". We can solve a lot of problems, improve a lot of lives, and do a lot of things better. But we can't do anything if we're trying to do everything all at the same time.
I want to address the ridiculous idea that "a more diverse workforce is a more productive work force".
This is exactly the kind of thing Ezra is talking about, where an ideology is being imposed by a set of (in this case liberal) people who are so far removed from any actual members of the "workforce" that they've just lost all grip on reality.
If an all Mexican construction crew has ever done work at your house, you understand intuitively that they will absolutely NOT be more productive if they just add a white guy. The very idea is both nonsense and racist.
I am not sure why you did in response to my comment, but I agree that diverse does not necessarily equal better.
Can it? Yes.
Might it also not? Yes, also.
It would depend on the qualifications of the participants and the type of task that they are given. You wouldn't want a roofing team designing a Nuclear plant any more than you would a neurosurgeon on a football team.
However, when comparing apples to apples, there are objective criteria which can be used. In your example of Mexican workers with a white guy, if you just pulled some random shmoe from the streets, I would agree that the results might be sub-par. If,however this white guy was conversant at the task, the results are not guaranteed to be worse. The statement that they are I find to be racially loaded.
Hi Thomas, can you review what is written above? It is not clear to me what/how you mean it to come across.
You aren't as bashful about asking questions as you are in answering them.
Since you are addressing me personally let me answer that. I ask questions about things I want to know. However, trying to cramp specific cases (old and new) to someone I view as a "faithless listener" drains my will to participate. I know what I do with the answers to the questions I ask, but over the years I have been "lucy-fied" by many who 'devour' my heartfelt responses and wander off into silence, spit it out publicly, or twist it into some opportunity to parse every word, and troll me— I am tired of it. So you can color me: Cautious. That cautious nature now leads to me not doing a 'pull of excess data' because it won't be positively received in the vein it was rendered anyway. Understand?
I made a conscious choice to come here and largely be upfront and open about my beliefs and say what I mean. I can honestly say that what I get back is not always the same. It's more like a virtual 'spit' in the face. . .and so I expect the people who have something to say to know what they 'are' too. If they know conservative politics and what the republicans are 'about' then why should I have to over-explain conservatism to them only to hear them come back with something like: 'I don't watch the news.' 'I don't watch mass media.' ' I don't this and I don't that.' It's a big disappointment that points to a need for them to choose to do something in order to know what is going on.
Finally, right now this very instance, I am listening to an audiobook by Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative." Why? Not because I am a conservative, but I want to know what makes conservatives' tick (before MAGA arrived).
Not really.
I have never "spit in your face" based on your religious beliefs or sexuality.
I've never used that in any comments, just the opposite.
Yeah.
But that's not what she said, is it?
They're also not guaranteed to be better, which is what she claims.
And he wouldn't only need to be conversant in the task. There will be a language issue.
There is one big assumption baked into the statement that I was referring to, that being that they do not speak the same language enough to communicate effectively to get the task done in an efficient manner. This assumption may or may not be true, but as you can see from 7.1.8 , this assumption is there in the mind of the commenter. When I said " racially loaded " this assumption process is what I was referring.
The reason that I used that term was to give the commenter a chance to clarify his thought processes rather than just accuse him of being a racist because we all know that will end the conversation and start the confrontation. (Everyone is racist, by the way, no matter how well-intentioned.) I am here to discuss ideas, not start fights or get "mic drop moments". I do not agree with some of the posters on this site and some of them are blatant trolls. I enjoy debate because it helps me to know more about myself and others and ideas at large.
Let us return to the article for some context:
It seems that the Secretary of Commerce is looking at this as a much wider issue than just who fixes your porch. Indeed, there are studies that indicate just what she said:
Or... she's pandering to the idealistic and impractical political base, which is exactly what Klein is describing.
While you can say and think that she is pandering , because it is what the political base wants to hear, it is not necessarily pandering to a political base to say the words. Besides, I gave you a link that implies that having a more diverse workforce is better.
Here is an article in the Harvard Business Review that says just having a diverse workforce is not enough to increase profits.
An older one from MIT that agrees with the Harvard one.
Here is an article from Perdue Online that suggests diversity is a driver of increased productivity.
And finally here is one from McKinsey that purports to demonstrate better results in companies with a more diverse workforce.
All of these papers do say that it is not enough to just have a diverse workforce but steps must be taken in addition. From the Perdue article:
When mixed in a martini this means the Secretary of Commerce was not totally correct in her statement, " I consider it a fact that a more diverse work force is a more productive work force ," but neither was she totally incorrect. I dislike statements that are not entirely accurate, but I think diversity in the workplace is a good thing and should be fostered. I don't think the statement was ridiculous at all, maybe just incomplete.
So really, a competent, well-managed workforce is a better workforce. Which is, of course, obvious to everybody who runs a business.
That competent, well-managed workforce is not necessarily antithetical to the concepts of diversity and inclusion, but neither is it necessarily dependent upon them.
So we come 'round to the question, what have you against diversity? Or was it merely the fact that she said it as the Secretary of Commerce? It is a laudable goal to include all in the workforce, and statements like that promote that goal.
I know there was a time when I could not let such utterances go by without displaying my vexation at them. In time, I gained ...mmm perspective and find it easier to let go. I have found other things to spend my time on.
Nothing at all, until it is mandated and deemed to be of greater importance than whatever the primary goals of the actual objective at hand.
Organic diversity is the inevitable result of competition. Artificial diversity... or diversity for its own sake... simply causes animosity while simultaneously interfering with the primary objectives of an organization.
I coached for 30 years. There are no racists in the huddle on 4th and 1 with the game in the balance or when the team needs a basket in the next 8 seconds to win. The stopwatch does not care what color the sprinter is. No receiver who ever played with Tom Brady looks at his Super Bowl ring and thinks "we needed a black, transgender quarterback".
All competitive endeavors are decided by competence, both in management and execution, and American business is extremely competitive. Apple doesn't need engineers based on skin color, nation of origin, or who they prefer to sleep with any more than they need them based on height or hair color. They need engineers based on competence. Disney employs a large number of gay people.... not because they're gay... but because they're good at what Disney needs them to do.
I run a company. We hire solely based on the competence and character of the applicant, as best we can judge it. We pay absolutely zero attention to "DEI". Over the course of the last 25 years, that policy has almost always produced a substantially diverse team, which I regard as a matter of supreme indifference. Your race and gender have zero to do with your contribution to our work, and I expect (demand) to be kept ignorant of what you get up to in your bedroom and with whom. Not only do I not want to know, I actively want to not know, which is different. We don't do any sort of sensitivity training. If we have to teach you not to be a racist, we hired the wrong person and we correct that.
When we lose sight of the primary goals of an organization or project and try to shoehorn in extraneous tertiary goals, we run into problems. That's certainly not limited to discussions on diversity, BTW.
This is the same concept that the article describes. Rather than support a project that addresses the needs a government agency was specifically assigned to address, the programs are actually in the way because they are mired between 1000 different ingredients of the everything bagel.
Well, good for you. If you have achieved diversity organically, then you should be proud.
The studies that I linked show that companies with a diverse and engaged workforce do better than homogeneous companies or companies that are only paying lip service to diversity and not utilizing their diversity. Most of the latter are not going to organically "grow up" because of social inertia. They need to be shown the business model works better and the way to achieve it.
The problem for the government is it is its proper character to serve all the people. Something, you say, and I have no reason to doubt it, you say your organization with you as "run" as its "head," you serve up to the point of need to acquire. Your point takes no notice and makes no mention (maybe why you are narrowly focused on the "I" as anecdote?) of a country with a sorry history of inclusion, equality, and diversity—a nation known factually to USE people for the betterment of the White majority (which I take for granted you are a member) and minorities "catch as catch can."
You can take for yourself a "right" to hold to a narrow view of reality happening through and all around you; but, some minorities can not. Your idea of a color-blind society can come from a good place inside of you and for that I applaud your insistence to share the 'thought' as often as you can. In the overall scheme of life I would love to take a color-blind view of this land I love and have served. However, just as this is 'a republic as long as we can keep it.' Paraphrased.*
And as anybody black, minority, and homosexual can tell you. "The struggle continues!"
* Benjamin Franklin quote.
The fact is diversity and inclusion brings varying and multiple differences of attitudes, opinions, and even facts to the foreground of society. As any 'fool' can imagine, if you have people of all kinds, types, and cultures, merely sidelined as a course of 'doing business' - then the good that is being done is not 'whole' in itself or positive for the whole 'gang' of the country. That is, it is selective and is not only finding, hiring, and selecting winners, but creating who wins- all under the guise of "we don't see color/diversity here" - just make "ME" capital!
An example of this lack of diversity will materialize at some point in the "immediate" future, when a collective of the citizenry is 'permanently' displaced from jobs, careers, and upward achievement by the further evolution of AI and other types of technology designed to simulate thinking. Medical science is even threatening to displace girls and women's roles in being the only child-bearers (using artificial wombs and new means of human-egg production and insemination). Thus, upending 'traditional' arguments of what a human offspring is.
As another 'fool' can surely explain: Life is about a "h" of a lot more than wealth-if one considers s/he has a soul.
I appreciate that, but I am not really proud because it's just something that happens by itself if you're doing the important things right. I'm proud of the work my staff does and the excellent experiences they create for our clients. That's our goal, that's what we work toward, so that's where we measure success or failure.
TBF, those are studies of large companies. If you grow to be a large company and you're still homogenous, there are almost surely underlying problems of which homogeneity is merely a symptom. You don't fix those issues with artificial diversity. You concentrate on excellence, and you'll find it arrives in all shapes and colors.
You don't say "the league champions wear red, so if we change to red jerseys we'll be as good as they are". It's foolishness'
Of course. They'll simply be overtaken by competitors with better management and better execution. But they're not going to "grow up" on artificial diversity, either.
The point of the article is that it doesn't need to serve all of them with every initiative.
You are correct. We don't have people with a victim mentality here.
They have the same rights I do. And I would argue that yours is the narrow view.
The minorities who work for me currently disagree with that sentiment very strongly.
"You" and your experiences are nice, but a community and a nation y'all do not make! And as far as victim-mentality goes I don't know why you should have one since you have such a high-quality and envious position in society. Begs the question that some conservatives who are privy to social distinction should deign to mix with liberals who labor "in trade."
Well duh, good informed argument.
I assume you INSIST on this "disagreement" because you harp on merit as a singular outcome. I am curious, what you would do to those who work for you when they disagree with your worldview about themselves and their opportunities in life? Wait! You wouldn't summarily or stealthily dismiss them under a 'trumped-up' charge-ignoring all that MERIT to the company's bottom life - or would you?
I feel that I need state this plain, since some conservatives are continuing to imply diversity, inclusion, are separate from merit. Diversity, inclusion, can clasp hands with merit without shaming the other!
But, all this requires a set of dynamics to occur that can collect and position themselves for 'incoming' into any organization.
I make as much of a "nation" as you do.
I don't know why you should have one since you are always incapable of naming even a single oppressor.
I wonder if your worldview may need an update. Most tradesmen in the south are extremely far from "liberal".
Well, I appears this one has gone about as far as it needs to go. All that 7.1.24 gives us is "I know I am and what are you.'
That may be argued that 'proves' the need for DEI mandates.
I like your approach--hire the best candidates for the position and let the chips fall where they may. Of course you will end up with a diverse workforce that way. Who doesn't want to hire the best available? Hard to imagine a successful business not doing so.
Don't assume. And don't ignore the importance of mentality.
Ah. We've come to the part of the program where you guess incorrectly what other people are thinking and then cast outlandish and ridiculous accusations.
Did you not read my post? Maybe try reading it again. Concentrate on the parts talking about "organic diversity". Do you understand the concept behind "there are no racists in the huddle on 4th and 1 when the game is on the line"?
Well Jack, yet again you with your narrow 'dictates' in a vain attempt to control/redirect the narrative—the fact is we could take a long look at all the politics and happening which occurred to get the players on the field in the first place. You have achieved something 'great' (if you say so because I, we, can NOT disprove it being so) if you have organic diversity and yes that is AMAZING.
That said, some conservatives don't approve of your 'organic' diversity, and so they put up pretexts for decrying and mock the meaning of "Woke" and mock and demean "social justice" when they deign to speak or write about either at all! And, while denying diversity which denies "white-ness" as the standard to be lived by all. That is conservatives wish to orient society in this manner/way: "Do as we say and not as we do" and conservatism as (the?) moral standard (even though conservatives don't stand for a damn thing except liberal regression to a time period when conservatism was dominant. It's all very Michavellian in its approach too! And still we all know that in the history of this country. . . there has been some really horrible "f-ked up" attitudes and activities (won't go into there - don't want to trigger "white grievance" in anyone in particular) for most of this countries existence.
National organic diversity? It's all around us, but some conservatives "fight like 'h'" to not delve into it!
What do you think this means in plain English?
What does that look like for San Francisco players on the field?
What are you trying to say?
How does this relate to the seed?
Thank you. I have corrected my mistake in writing to state this: You have achieved something 'great' (if you say so because I, we, can NOT disprove it being so) if you have organic diversity and yes that is AMAZING.
Name them. Who are these people who don't want to hire the best candidates?
Why should it be their responsibility to write about and agree with your idea of social justice?
Again... name them. What are you talking about specifically?
Wow, what a correction!
This clearly cleans up previous attempts to clarify. Organic diversity is so amazingly superior to inorganic diversity that it’s not even funny.
Well Jack, the thing is I don't have to provide you with anything and so I won't. Buy a newspaper or get you some news about republican politics and cultural conservatism.
It strikes me you are highly probably an economic conservative, thus cultural conservatism is not your "thing" or your "wing" of the republican party. Well, I am writing about the cultural conservatives, but you should know this when you "chime" in with your economic worldview. Obviously, we are talking pass each other.
Yeah, well, the republican party is about as politically organic as a plastic lawn ornament. /s.
That is your mistake and a failed attempt at controlling the narrative. Organic diversity is good thing. The problem is the conservative party is not the "home" for it. As your party is regressive and liberals can find the best candidates who are open and honest without losing their soul in the offing.
Does that include ideological diversity?
Shocking. I mean.... nobody saw that coming... *eyeroll*
Yeah, that. *Eyeroll*
Diversity happens when the most qualified candidates are hired.
Quotas are so '80's.
Very last century.
Really? What policies are you referring to?
Well, I voted for my current Democratic president, my current Democratic congressman, my current Republican governor and my current Republican senator. So which one is "my party", exactly?
Your party? Don't be coy tell us. Because HERE in this place we encounter a VOTING conservative and not a liberal. In my opinion, there is no confusion HERE as to your point of view: Republican/Conservative. Try being open, honest, and consistent at both and the confusion (on the part of others) would iron itself out. Being secretive, combative, and 'calculating' is a typical republican/conservative tactic and it makes for double-dealing!
BTW, can we return to the larger topic of this article? These sidebars are not meant to be over-consuming and over-long. (It's a side-bar after all.) As I stated in the first paragraph - stop wasting time attempting to be coy (secretive).
We don't join parties in Texas. The primaries are open.
As far left as you are, I'm sure from your perspective, it seems that way.
Then maybe you should try it. Why can't you ever seem to answer a direct question in an "open, honest and consistent" manner?
Nobody is being secretive, CB. We are challenging your assumptions, because many of them are complete fantasies, and you sidetrack the conversation when you realize you can't actually support any of them.
My assumptions can be challenged and that is fair and proper. I won't strive with you over it. My experiences here tell me that one conservative is this type of conservative and another is that type of conservative, or libertarian/republican/conservative type and it is damn near impossible to keep up with who is 'talking' without a comment disclaimer.
Think of me as a far-left liberal. Don't bother me. I won't even try to change your mind. My comments stake out my positions. It will have to do. It is what it is.
I will do the same with you.
Reading the article and problems with too many government agencies all working their own agendas reminds me of the Reagan quote "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
The bureaucrats get bogged down and actually accomplish little.
This article is a good thing done for affordable housing in San Francisco. The conservatives who always like to take stock of the bottom-line (so they can gripe against liberal policies), will take this time to praise it for coming in under cost and on time, but do not be fooled, in their next' breath' or act on this matter conservatives will be watching "this space" for signs that the project is failing because some poor people who will qualify for affordable housing will be underserved for good reason: Some of the poor and indigent can not be trusted to live indoors or pay their bills. Thus, the reason why they were 'outdoors' already. Count on conservatives, the perpetual critiques of liberals, to be there with cameras and a barrel of ink to catch every negative connotation/denotation.
You seem to have completely missed the points of Klein’s well written article.
Some conservatives seem to have missed the point too. Seeing you do not supply any point/s to consider. Begs the question that I have already put into the 'record' - how vapid some conservatives are on social media and "jump to it" to criticize. As for me, I am content in my 'deliverable,' even if it is being considered a larger point.
He provided an argument that we need a liberalism that builds. Klein identifies a frequent problem that layers of well meaning regulations by liberal governments has 2nd and 3rd order effects that creates significant obstacles to good projects. These obstacles drive costs up, delays projects or are supported by powerful single interest groups.
His argument is supported by two case studies presented. One example was a rule to benefit business contractors in San Francisco when their are too few as other city regulations makes running a small business exceptionally difficult there.
Too many goals creates a prioritization problem, if everything is a priority then nothing is.
Okay, now that is a discussion point. However, San Francisco is not the only point in the article. He make a point about national politics and regulations getting in the way of efficiency and cost too in any soon arriving semiconductor factories.
The point is there will always be problems to iron out in business. There will always be "people needs" to be considered. Because people who can't find suitable work because they can't afford proper training/certifications, can't get around the "good old boy networks"—excluding those who don't fit a particular mode was/is/and can return to being a bigger issue than keeping regulated industries. Project 'shortcuts' and relaxing certain 'regs' can be highly dangerous to projects, workers, and citizens. Speed and costs is important, but safety is paramount.
Therefore, while the solution to cost overruns and efficiency appears to be cut regulations which can create additional time and cost savings, such a lack of regulations create personnel discontentment leading to strikes, project sabatoge/s, and lawsuits - other forms of delay and costs.
Indeed, what point did you conclude on this from Klein's article?
No doubt.
I don't under how this relates to Klein's article?
So just live with it.
People matter. And, it is because people matter and due to private industry's unwillingness or inability to being open to train people or hire more people in crucial situations that government have to take up the slack. That is, pay for training facilities, programs, and in some cases salaries and paychecks. Footing the bills. Of course, when this happens, government getting involved in non-governmental business practices - the public (interest groups) demands certain standards and regulations, and certain excluded people groups be given a chance to apply/get involved/make capital for self-sufficiency and/or personal and group advancements.
The private sector generally does not bear this 'yoke.' But what can government do about it other than what they are doing? Segue to why I wrote, when liberals try to work through these 'rough patches ' to getting projects better managed, it is not helpful and in fact is a hindrance, for conservatives to 'dot' programs and work packages with poison pill legislation which by definition can strain or burden the entire set of project/enterprises such policies are dropped.
Do you mean in comparison to, say, concrete?
Where in the article did you conclude this?
Which conservatives provided a poison pill to these two examples?
Phrases like poison pill legislation are meaningless unless substantiated.
Why do you bother to project what you think conservatives will do?