Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrik | Hacker News Reader

Wow, I'd be surprised if some young congressperson doesn't make their career by publicly eviscerating Boeing soon.

I hope you don't think it's going to be a US congresscritter.

"Why do you hate American jobs!"

Boeing as a whole might not be "evil", the same way VW as a whole is not "evil". So going after the whole of Boeing may not be the right thing.

At the same time, some high-up people in VW are paying for the emissions-cheating scandal, which arguably could endanger human beings and the environment.

When are people in Boeing going to pay for actually contributing to the deaths caused by this scandal?

You can turn that logic around real quick since Boeing also makes planes and other equipment for the US military:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Secu...

You don't hate the troops after all, do you?

"Why does the honorable senator from wherever want our troops to fly in unsafe planes? Shouldn't the honorable senator, who claims to support the troops, want our troops to have the most reliable and effective planes available?"

yep, "think of the troops" is just as emotive (and patronizing) as "think of the children". Unbelievable that people repeatedly fall for it.

I think it's valid to think about both. I just think sometimes people try to reduce risk to zero with no regard for the fact a zero risk society is one without civil liberties.

I feel like you are fantastically undervaluing the power of the Boeing lobby groups...

I'm thinking of a particular congresswoman that almost certainly isn't going to do it because she'd lose the vote of pretty much every blue collar worker that aspires to have a stable job somewhere like Boeing. It's not an obvious political win.

Edit: Ah, the good ol' "reality makes me unhappy so I'll shoot the messenger" down-votes. I don't know why I even comment in any of the Boeing threads anymore.

If it were me, I'd rail against the Boeing _leadership_. Frame it as management's greed putting blue collar jobs at risk (by putting sales and corporate reputation at risk).

You can "frame" it either way. If your goal is to get elected it doesn't seem prudent to wade into this kind of issue unless you can be sure that you can successfully frame it the way you want.

There's lower hanging political fruit out there.

So let's not make a fuss about safety, because of jobs?

Where did I say that? All I said is that it wasn't a clear political win because it could easily be framed as a jobs issue.

> she'd lose the vote of pretty much every blue collar worker that aspires to have a stable job somewhere like Boeing

It sounds like you're suggesting that we shouldn't hold Boeing too accountable because they wouldn't be able to retain or hire as many blue collar workers.

That definitely could be a side effect but I'd be more concerned about creating safe airplanes than safe jobs.

dsfyu404ed never commented or implied on what should happen. He simply stated what might happen, and why it might happen.

Right... Let's not be too hard on the tobacco companies because you'll lose the vote of every blue collar farmer that's wants a stable job cultivating tobacco.

It's a pretty routine argument that says if you threaten my job for any reason I'll vote you out.

Doesn't matter if my job is creating things that crash, giving people cancer, etc.

That argument doesn't fly for a lot of us.

There will still be mechanical and aerospace jobs, just at companies that aren't going to play fast and loose with regulations.

I don't think he's saying that, but he is being a pessimist (though with the way our political system is working, maybe more a realist than I want to accept).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com