What happens when ESG and DEI become more important to the company than their quality control or hiring qualifications?
Amen.I hope,that we still have time to act.
For defense, ESG and DEI will always be more important to the company than quality control. ESG and especially DEI are used as shields vs lawsuits, which are practically the only way for a DOD contractor to lose money. Quality doesn't matter at all, as all costs are paid for by the DOD.
Because the military won't buy things if they don't work anymore.
That's the real concern.
For defense contractors, the rot has been there for decades. The DOD contractors are essentially communist, as they operate in a way that socializes losses. Imagine how good our weapon systems would be right now if we actually acted like a capitalist country when it came to funding weapon systems? Imagine how much cheaper things would be?
Again. It's the cost plus contract. There is zero incentive for a company to reduce cost. In fact, there's incentive for them to raise costs without raising performance.
Military gear also needs to be cheap. There are a limited number of resources, and so cheaper also means better. You are utterly ignoring that people die from not having stuff, as well as having ineffective stuff. But as it turns out, if you want effective and cheap, there's a solution! It's called capitalism.
Cost plus contracts exist in the DOD because the MIC owns enough of congress. Just look how Lockheed strategically locates factories in congressional districts so the congresspeople know that their votes depend on being pro whatever stupid waste of money they want this time.
www.politico.com
Yet the second someone points out that they are already rotten, you deny that the rot exists, while still worrying about future rot.
Cheap is jow we get things like the IHPS that has worse protection then the ECH and ACH.Again. It's the cost plus contract. There is zero incentive for a company to reduce cost. In fact, there's incentive for them to raise costs without raising performance.
Military gear also needs to be cheap. There are a limited number of resources, and so cheaper also means better. You are utterly ignoring that people die from not having stuff, as well as having ineffective stuff. But as it turns out, if you want effective and cheap, there's a solution! It's called capitalism.
Cost plus contracts exist in the DOD because the MIC owns enough of congress. Just look how Lockheed strategically locates factories in congressional districts so the congresspeople know that their votes depend on being pro whatever stupid waste of money they want this time.
Is Lockheed Martin too big to fail?
The company dominates Capitol Hill – with defense jobs in virtually every state.
Also, it strikes me as hilarious how you were complaining about 'but what if rot sets into the DOD and MIC?' here:
Yet the second someone points out that they are already rotten, you deny that the rot exists, while still worrying about future rot.
Fortunately, I have good news: You will never see any rot in the DOD or their contractors as long as you keep up this mindset!
I abhore the rot in the DoD/MIC because it makes the DoD/MIC less effective than it should be, not because I dislike them as institutions.Again. It's the cost plus contract. There is zero incentive for a company to reduce cost. In fact, there's incentive for them to raise costs without raising performance.
Military gear also needs to be cheap. There are a limited number of resources, and so cheaper also means better. You are utterly ignoring that people die from not having stuff, as well as having ineffective stuff. But as it turns out, if you want effective and cheap, there's a solution! It's called capitalism.
Cost plus contracts exist in the DOD because the MIC owns enough of congress. Just look how Lockheed strategically locates factories in congressional districts so the congresspeople know that their votes depend on being pro whatever stupid waste of money they want this time.
Is Lockheed Martin too big to fail?
The company dominates Capitol Hill – with defense jobs in virtually every state.
Also, it strikes me as hilarious how you were complaining about 'but what if rot sets into the DOD and MIC?' here:
Yet the second someone points out that they are already rotten, you deny that the rot exists, while still worrying about future rot.
Fortunately, I have good news: You will never see any rot in the DOD or their contractors as long as you keep up this mindset!
The military does years and years more testing than it needs to because the MIC can charge for those years and years of testing. Look, I, a short time ago, used to think that the MIC was an ugly but necessary part of the US's national defense. Then I worked as a sub for a sub at Boeing. I talked to someone who was paid for an entire year before she got her laptop and could do any work. I, despite my best efforts, got nearly nothing done because the job description was entirely incorrect and I was a bad hire (I was told I needed to know C++, as that was what the program was written in, but actually that was entirely irrelevant, for just one example). I left after six months, and people thought I did well. I had to fight and claw to get nearly anything done at all, and they wouldn't had cared if I had sat and done nothing. About half of my time there was spent in irrelevant meetings, so I was able to watch nearly the entire Johnny Depp trial, for one (I was rarely in the lab, though I did have clearance).
You will never notice the rot in the DoD's MIC because you do not realize that the rot is the entire point of the institution, which wears an American flag as a skinsuit.
No, you can't.
The contractors work directly with people in the military are not the contractors I'm really talking about. Their job is basically a normal job: Do X, get paid for doing X, just they get paid better. Here, there's not much of an issue, or at least any issue is much less than what I'm talking about. You'll only see minor bloat.
No it is not, that's your ANCAP bias/BS and bad work experience exaggerating things massively for rhetorical flourish and political posturing.
