Re:The Washington state legislature has voted to end limits ...
by foerbert on Friday April 16, 2021 @01:49AM
(#26830015)
In defense of the original commenter, they mentioned they had a personal connection to the person paid to do that work. It seems plausible enough that that was the reason it was picked as an example, over other things they might have no personal connection to. I would be inclined to chalk it up to that, rather than anything else.
Re:The Washington state legislature has voted to end limits ...
by eganist on Friday April 16, 2021 @07:55AM
(#26832764)
That may be one defense, but the counter to that is that personal stories do a better job of winning people to pick a side versus facts and stats.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07495...
It's also why anecdotes are often used as a technique of persuasion, because so many people eat them up and it eliminates the need for a citation.
Yikes. If the market demand for the role is six figures (because the financial rewards more-than-justify the spend; see my previous citation), then the cost is absolutely a good value for the grid, for the employee, and for the customers who get better service out of the utility.
And to tshaddox's point, nostromo's comment picked this specific spend as an (implied) example of fraud and waste... over all the other inefficiencies in the system. Utilities are wasteful in so, so many more ways, largely around maintaining manual and error-prone processes that are both slow and costly as a result. These inefficiencies are leagues worse tha studying "how the utility grid was systemically racist" in wastefulness.
I'm not really sure this conversation makes any more sense to pursue.