Possible for Trump to move federal agencies to "flyover country"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, if the government moved their offices out to other states, they wouldn't be moving them to a cornfield. They'd be moving them near a city with shopping and transportation infrastructure and in many cases near major research institutions- so Columbus, Ann Arbor, Madison, Boulder, etc. those areas are already blue. I'd be fine moving to any of those areas and while there are highly educated folks there, NASA is unlikely to find someone else with the same experience and education.

But these places still aren't the talent hubs you think they are. My sister owns a tech company in Ann Arbor, and for a lot of their specialized tech talent they hire remote employees because even in Ann Arbor they can't find the talent they need. The UofM grads who want to work in tech move to SV.

You pay enough, and the talent will come. Fed workforce is mobile.

Maybe for Fed jobs where people are looking for long term employment. That doesn't hold in the tech sector.

But what's the point of moving the agencies if you are just trying to attract people moving from the coasts? Frankly, as a Michigander, I would love for there to be more opportunities to live in places like Ann Arbor, but I can already find a job there...it's DH who can't.

I don't profess expertise, but it's not an unprecedented move. My agency was open 15 years ago in the boonies. (I wish the boonies stayed that way, but alas, the never-ending stream of transplants transferred these back waters beyond recognition.) The agency next door was moved about 5 years ago or so. This saves money and helps local economies. What's a measly position in DC provides solid middle-class living elsewhere. It is really a win-win.

About talent... Come on. What kind of special talent do you need to do HR? The same goes for most pencil-pushers. Actually, when the agency was moved, the majority of folks didn't move from DC. (Understandable, because it's not always possible to uproot like that.) Most came from Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, you name it.

At my agency we have already moved all of our HR, back office IT, and accounting functions to West Virginia. They are part of the 86% of federal employees outside of DC already.

It's easier to outsource the back office support work outside of D.C. Even to overseas. At the higher levels of professional and technical jobs much harder to make work.

[Anonymous]

I think this would be great. It made sense to have all government here but with Webex, phone, internet it's just not needed. I for one wouldn't mind moving to an area with lower cost of living.

[Anonymous]

Exxon Mobil moved nearly its entire workforce to Houston. Life goes on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exxon Mobil moved nearly its entire workforce to Houston. Life goes on

Hey silly - not sure if you went to business school - but that is where the OIL is.

It makes sense to keep government agencies in DC because that is where the GOVERNMENT is lead from. DC. Three of the branches of government are based here. $5 if you can guess all three and $1 for each reason why it might make sense for government agency headquarters to be in the same town as the three branches of government...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exxon Mobil moved nearly its entire workforce to Houston. Life goes on

Hey silly - not sure if you went to business school - but that is where the OIL is.

It makes sense to keep government agencies in DC because that is where the GOVERNMENT is lead from. DC. Three of the branches of government are based here. $5 if you can guess all three and $1 for each reason why it might make sense for government agency headquarters to be in the same town as the three branches of government...

Is going to business school a prerequisite for being Secretary of State?

[Anonymous]

Can most of us just agree that it makes perfect sense for any large organization to have its headquarters located in one highly educated hub city and to have field offices in other locations where its customers may be or where they can do back office operations more cheaply? Because this is what we do in the federal government, 14% of employees in DC doing mostly headquarters or highly technical functions, with 86% in field offices around the world. Problem solved already, America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can most of us just agree that it makes perfect sense for any large organization to have its headquarters located in one highly educated hub city and to have field offices in other locations where its customers may be or where they can do back office operations more cheaply? Because this is what we do in the federal government, 14% of employees in DC doing mostly headquarters or highly technical functions, with 86% in field offices around the world. Problem solved already, America.

So why all the negativity directed towards the people of fly over country if so many hard-working, intelligent, and well-educated federal employees (and their families) are working in cities located in fly-over areas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can most of us just agree that it makes perfect sense for any large organization to have its headquarters located in one highly educated hub city and to have field offices in other locations where its customers may be or where they can do back office operations more cheaply? Because this is what we do in the federal government, 14% of employees in DC doing mostly headquarters or highly technical functions, with 86% in field offices around the world. Problem solved already, America.

Exactly. This thread jumped the shark on the first page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this would be great. It made sense to have all government here but with Webex, phone, internet it's just not needed. I for one wouldn't mind moving to an area with lower cost of living.

Please. I moved home to flyover country to get AWAY from you people.

I'd love to see how you'd handle midwestern winters. Hopefully that would persuade you to run back to the city that shuts down over 1 inch of snow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't profess expertise, but it's not an unprecedented move. My agency was open 15 years ago in the boonies. (I wish the boonies stayed that way, but alas, the never-ending stream of transplants transferred these back waters beyond recognition.) The agency next door was moved about 5 years ago or so. This saves money and helps local economies. What's a measly position in DC provides solid middle-class living elsewhere. It is really a win-win.

About talent... Come on. What kind of special talent do you need to do HR? The same goes for most pencil-pushers. Actually, when the agency was moved, the majority of folks didn't move from DC. (Understandable, because it's not always possible to uproot like that.) Most came from Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, you name it.

Some of us have much more specialized skills and education than HR.

Former Fed (who has been posting about Ann Arbor), and I agree that it's weird that most people assume Feds are all pencil or paper pushers with generic skill sets like HR. Though I will say that HR for Feds is different than HR for private employers. I think it's part-and-parcel of people not thinking critically about the functions the Federal government provides before spouting off about Federal employees. No, the skillset needed to manage nuclear clean up and toxic waste is not easy to just find wherever.

The thing is you don't need to find skill wherever. You attract skill by offering competitive pay and benefits. Which the federal government does already. As the U.S. economy weakens, jobs in government and enforcement will become more coveted, as they are in most poorer countries. Therefore, attracting talent will not be a problem.

Having said that, the majority of the workforce still get by on transferable skills and can be found anywhere in the country. As I mentioned, the concept of moving HR, accountants, and all sorts of supporting tasks to the field is not new and has been done with great success. I have no issue with keeping very specialized offices confined to certain areas for whatever reason, but they are and will always be in the minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this would be great. It made sense to have all government here but with Webex, phone, internet it's just not needed. I for one wouldn't mind moving to an area with lower cost of living.

Please. I moved home to flyover country to get AWAY from you people.

I'd love to see how you'd handle midwestern winters. Hopefully that would persuade you to run back to the city that shuts down over 1 inch of snow.

I moved AWAY from flyover country to get away from YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can most of us just agree that it makes perfect sense for any large organization to have its headquarters located in one highly educated hub city and to have field offices in other locations where its customers may be or where they can do back office operations more cheaply? Because this is what we do in the federal government, 14% of employees in DC doing mostly headquarters or highly technical functions, with 86% in field offices around the world. Problem solved already, America.

So why all the negativity directed towards the people of fly over country if so many hard-working, intelligent, and well-educated federal employees (and their families) are working in cities located in fly-over areas?

There was some negativity on both sides, and many DC bureaucrats who also said the midwest was home and they had no negative associations. I'm a native Ohioan working in DC, I don't use the term "flyover country", I call it home. I'd suggest you ignore the smug DC bureaucrats who use that term as much as I ignore posters who rail on "libtards" or whatever other childish name calling they come up with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can most of us just agree that it makes perfect sense for any large organization to have its headquarters located in one highly educated hub city and to have field offices in other locations where its customers may be or where they can do back office operations more cheaply? Because this is what we do in the federal government, 14% of employees in DC doing mostly headquarters or highly technical functions, with 86% in field offices around the world. Problem solved already, America.

Exactly. This thread jumped the shark on the first page.

+1 In my office, we are already spread extremely thin, with many major national programs being run by just one or two feds, remainder has already been outsourced. Most of us have to wear many hats, of program manager, project manager, COTR, and SME. To try and water that down even more is untenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With 7 of the 12 richest counties in the US surrounding DC, Trump should work on decentralizing this vulgar concentration of bureaucrat wealth by moving federal agencies to the middle of the country. Example: Dept. of Education to Betsy Devos's hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich. That alone would lock up Michigan as a red state in 2020.

The agencies can slash bloat and wages in the process (lower cost of living in flyover country), it would be a boom for non-coastal economies, and policies would likely better reflect real America versus insulated coastal elite outlook.

Brilliant! haha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With 7 of the 12 richest counties in the US surrounding DC, Trump should work on decentralizing this vulgar concentration of bureaucrat wealth by moving federal agencies to the middle of the country. Example: Dept. of Education to Betsy Devos's hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich. That alone would lock up Michigan as a red state in 2020.

The agencies can slash bloat and wages in the process (lower cost of living in flyover country), it would be a boom for non-coastal economies, and policies would likely better reflect real America versus insulated coastal elite outlook.

Brilliant! haha!

Inflated salaries. Haha. Must be joking.