[potato3732842]

Nitpick all you want. My point stands. USDA draws heavily on the ag sector talent pool so it should be where that talent pool is. Maybe that's not KC, maybe some other city in middle america is better. But KC is still way better than DC.

[ceejayoz]

> USDA draws on the ag sector talent pool...

71% of their budget goes to stuff like the food stamp program, interacting with tens of thousands of schools and state/local governments and whatnot.

The talent pool for bureaucrats (and researchers, and statisticians, etc.) is fundamentally more important.

(And let's not pretend there's no agriculture on the East Coast.)

[micromacrofoot]

So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live.

Forget the point, you don't even have a leg to stand on.

[potato3732842]

>So admittedly KC isn't the best for the AG sector, but somehow it's still magically better than DC... where all the experts who have worked for the USDA and who are the most familiar with how it operates, live.

I'm not saying it's not the best. I'm hedging against people like you making low effort comments that contribute nothing to the discussion like that by saying it might not be the best but it's better than DC

[micromacrofoot]

Better based on what? How can you call any comment low effort when you provide 0 information to back up your claim that Missouri is better than DC?

The USDA move was so bad that they lost a significant number of employees and were still working with significantly less experience years later. This is outrageously expensive and disruptive to any company or agency.

Not to mention the fact that about 5 years later the administration is making massive additional cuts to the agency after relocating and rehiring for it. It's just churn for nothing.