Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The FBI could be moved and plenty of talent could be found. You take one extreme example and paint the rest of the gov. Absurd

Most FBI agents have advanced degrees, and recruiting is very competitive. But the FBI is probably the least sensible agency to move, since most employees are spread throughout the country anyway.

Why are you trying to hammer that not many people are HQ'd in DC? You're absurd -- the swamp is overflowing. 7 of 12 richest counties! Too much fat here.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The FBI could be moved and plenty of talent could be found. You take one extreme example and paint the rest of the gov. Absurd

Most FBI agents have advanced degrees, and recruiting is very competitive. But the FBI is probably the least sensible agency to move, since most employees are spread throughout the country anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis.

Grand Rapids (MI), Nashville, Madison (WI), St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo ... all great places for federal agency HQs. 8)

Based on what? I have lived in three places on your list. They are fine places to live. I am just not sure you gain much by uprooting Federal agency HQs and sprinkling them throughout the country. I just do not but the notion that people who live and work in these agencies are tainted just because they live in DMV. People come from this area from all over the country and bring varying perspectives to the job. In my unit of 12 people, only one is a DMV native. The rest of us are from places like the ones you named. Because of the varying perspectives, we are able to make policy that tries to be responsive to the issues in those places. We are from those places and we know them. Do you really want a Dept of Ed where people from South Central Michigan are driving educational policy for the rest of the country. Nothing wrong with them as people - I am one of them. But their views on public education are different than those than people in Mississippi might have. The best thing about DC is that it does draw people from different backgrounds and walks of life.

DC is so great because the wealth is so concentrated. That wealth is funded by American tax dollars. Time to spread the wealth, make flyover country great again.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The FBI could be moved and plenty of talent could be found. You take one extreme example and paint the rest of the gov. Absurd

Most FBI agents have advanced degrees, and recruiting is very competitive. But the FBI is probably the least sensible agency to move, since most employees are spread throughout the country anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Did you read any of the many posts about how most of the federal government is outside of DC (86% of employees!) and it makes no sense to move all of the centralized headquarters functions away from one location or do you just like to repeat your tired old narrative about smug bureaucrats no matter what that actually say?

We are not ignorant of the facts. It's the smugness. Can you not express your ideas without demeaning people from small towns, middle America, fly-over country, or however else you describe non-DC American citizens?

Anonymous wrote:
The FBI could be moved and plenty of talent could be found. You take one extreme example and paint the rest of the gov. Absurd

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis.

Grand Rapids (MI), Nashville, Madison (WI), St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo ... all great places for federal agency HQs. 8)

Based on what? I have lived in three places on your list. They are fine places to live. I am just not sure you gain much by uprooting Federal agency HQs and sprinkling them throughout the country. I just do not but the notion that people who live and work in these agencies are tainted just because they live in DMV. People come from this area from all over the country and bring varying perspectives to the job. In my unit of 12 people, only one is a DMV native. The rest of us are from places like the ones you named. Because of the varying perspectives, we are able to make policy that tries to be responsive to the issues in those places. We are from those places and we know them. Do you really want a Dept of Ed where people from South Central Michigan are driving educational policy for the rest of the country. Nothing wrong with them as people - I am one of them. But their views on public education are different than those than people in Mississippi might have. The best thing about DC is that it does draw people from different backgrounds and walks of life.

DC is so great because the wealth is so concentrated. That wealth is funded by American tax dollars. Time to spread the wealth, make flyover country great again.