9 ms·

This is one of the reasons why I have zero interest in wasting my hard earned money propping up the insane housing bubble in western cities. Building a simple

This is one of the reasons why I have zero interest in wasting my hard earned money propping up the insane housing bubble in western cities. Building a simple house is a 5000 year old technology. I know that since we brought a small piece of land outside the city - brought the raw material and paid some local laborer to help us put our family home together. It cost us a grand total of 10,000 dollars. The only difference was - we did it in india where there are no nonsense housing regulation. Getting internet was supposed to be hard, but we were allowed to just use the telephone pole to get copper internet ( instead of fibre ). From a business perspective - no wonder it temping to offshore - when putting a roof over your head eats so much into your income.

superuser2 11y ago
It should converge on eating about the same percentage of your income - people in lower cost of living areas are typically paid less. Markets remove arbitrage opportunities eventually.
rtpg 11y ago
Super pedantic but some niceties (good insulation! Double paned windows) are less than 5000 years old ;)
- jacalata 11y ago
  Really, you went with insulation rather than indoor plumbing and electricity? :)
  - Pxtl 11y ago
    I'm a Canadian and my first thought was insulation, too. Also heat. Natural gas piping isn't something you'd want to DIY.
    - msandford 11y ago
      Natural gas piping is done at such low pressures in residential environments that it's basically a joke. I think it's about 0.5psi (or 14" of water column) which in the grand scheme of pressures is very low. People can generate greater pressures with their lungs. http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?1587361-What-is-typical-natural-gas-pressure-supply-to-a-residential-regulator http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?1587361-What-is-typi... http://www.personal.psu.edu/ref7/apparatus/2003%20competition/deardorff-LC.htm http://www.personal.psu.edu/ref7/apparatus/2003%20competitio... EDIT: I'm not saying that one should do their own natural gas piping as in many places it's technically illegal unless you're a licensed plumber. But it's certainly not rocket science. The only reason it's "harder" than plumbing compressed air is that if compressed air leaks a tad, it's no big deal. You have to get rather tight on gas piping because of the consequences of a leak, not because it's so difficult to get it tight.
      - infinite8s 11y ago
        I think that was the GP's objection to DIY. Not the actual installation process, but long term leakage issues if you do it incorrectly.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      In Most of Canada and a lot of northern states, if you have no insulation then you soon won't have indoor plumbing, but you'll have a nice ice skating rink in your house.
      - troels 11y ago
        In all fairness - People have been building houses in similar climates for 5000 years, and while they didn't have indoor plumbing, they surely built their houses to some standard of insulation.
        protomyth 11y ago
        I was reaffirming the reasoning behind rtpg and Pxtl's prioritizing insulation over indoor plumbing and further explaining why it is a necessary pre-condition to indoor plumbing.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    I spent my summers in rural Russia, occasionally in the winter. I'll take the insulation over the indoor plumbing and the electricity, and trust me, so would you if that was the binary choice.
KannO 11y ago
Earthquake/fire/electrical regulations might not seem valuable until your entire house/city is in ruins.
- x5n1 11y ago
  When it costs 10,000 to replace, maybe you don't care that much.
  - thedufer 11y ago
    You definitely don't care when you're dead. In that split second before the disaster, maybe the point of silly regulations like not collapsing at the first hint of an earthquake or not going up in flames in seconds will become clear.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Choose your level of risk. I am sure if you want all those features, you can make the determination yourself. If you want to live dangerously, then live dangerously. I personally support this outlook. Better have cheap housing with risk than rent.
      - badsock 11y ago
        You're choosing your neighbour's level of risk too, though. Even a house built to regs has a hard time staying not on fire when the one right beside it is going up like a pile of tinder.
        burfog 11y ago
        If you build for low long-term cost, you're not using wood anyway because of fungus and termites. You're using cementboard, concrete blocks, stucco, and similar. That won't burn. The roof can be corrugated metal.
      - slackstation 11y ago
3pt14159 11y ago
I used to be a structural engineer, and I can tell you _exactly_ what you're giving up if you're interested. The cost difference isn't $10k vs $700k because of building materials. The cost difference is $5k (land) + $5k (construction) vs $600k (land) vs $100k (construction). What I've seen is that most people in the West end up thinking that that $95k difference is worth it. Let me start with a true story of what happened to me the first time I represented myself in court back around 2005. Someone had moved my motorbike to make a bit more room to park their stupid oversized Hummer. My bike was now just past the legal line so I got a $45 ticket. Outraged I vowed to bring this to court. In the pre-meeting with the prosecutor the cop didn't even remember the location of the motorcycle, let alone what was around, whereas I had drawings and the license plate number of the Hummer owner. The prosecutor said that if I plead guilty with an explanation that they would drop the charges. So that is what we did. Right afterwards I got a $40 "courtroom fee" because I'd plead guilty. That's when I learned the adage "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client". 5000 years ago children died because they crawled between the banister railings. Our building code stops that oversight. 5000 years ago houses collapsed during hurricanes. Our building codes severely reduced that. I could go on and on. The main issue isn't the building code. The issue is that it is difficult in modern cities to get the local population to agree to expanding the housing stock with taller buildings. It ruins views, it's noisy, excess supply collapses housing prices. It changes the city's charm and culture. So they elect people that slow it down.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  The issue is that taking away that choice is damaging to many people. I think that the statement "most people in the West agree" glosses over an important detail - perhaps most people who have the money agree, and the others are forced to go along with it. I would far rather have a home that has 'risky banister railings' if that meant I could actually afford it. Mental health is as important as physical health, if not moreso - what's worse, risk of eviction, or having to pay attention near the stairwell? I get that this is an isolated example, but I'd take worse insulation, no solar, worse security, everything, if it meant I could get a home and slowly improve it myself with time. If that means I have to live rurally - so be it - but as far as I can tell that means living outside of the country I was born in (UK), which is quite sad.
api 11y ago
The Western practice of using a house as an investment vehicle and a bank account is partly to blame. Once a person buys a home they instantly become a NIMBY as they are now leveraged into a scarce asset and have a vested interest in keeping it scarce.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
But your not comparing like for like and building codes are there for a reason. Also in the west you don't have to worry about having your home expropriated by "gangsters" - which happened to one of my coworkers family back home.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  Like this [1][2] you mean? [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squatters-strike-Sisters-return-home-Romanian-family-living-home.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squa... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-h...

superuser2 11y ago

It should converge on eating about the same percentage of your income - people in lower cost of living areas are typically paid less. Markets remove arbitrage opportunities eventually.

rtpg 11y ago

Super pedantic but some niceties (good insulation! Double paned windows) are less than 5000 years old ;)

jacalata 11y ago
Really, you went with insulation rather than indoor plumbing and electricity? :)
- Pxtl 11y ago
  I'm a Canadian and my first thought was insulation, too. Also heat. Natural gas piping isn't something you'd want to DIY.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Natural gas piping is done at such low pressures in residential environments that it's basically a joke. I think it's about 0.5psi (or 14" of water column) which in the grand scheme of pressures is very low. People can generate greater pressures with their lungs. http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?1587361-What-is-typical-natural-gas-pressure-supply-to-a-residential-regulator http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?1587361-What-is-typi... http://www.personal.psu.edu/ref7/apparatus/2003%20competition/deardorff-LC.htm http://www.personal.psu.edu/ref7/apparatus/2003%20competitio... EDIT: I'm not saying that one should do their own natural gas piping as in many places it's technically illegal unless you're a licensed plumber. But it's certainly not rocket science. The only reason it's "harder" than plumbing compressed air is that if compressed air leaks a tad, it's no big deal. You have to get rather tight on gas piping because of the consequences of a leak, not because it's so difficult to get it tight.
    - infinite8s 11y ago
      I think that was the GP's objection to DIY. Not the actual installation process, but long term leakage issues if you do it incorrectly.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    In Most of Canada and a lot of northern states, if you have no insulation then you soon won't have indoor plumbing, but you'll have a nice ice skating rink in your house.
    - troels 11y ago
      In all fairness - People have been building houses in similar climates for 5000 years, and while they didn't have indoor plumbing, they surely built their houses to some standard of insulation.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        I was reaffirming the reasoning behind rtpg and Pxtl's prioritizing insulation over indoor plumbing and further explaining why it is a necessary pre-condition to indoor plumbing.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I spent my summers in rural Russia, occasionally in the winter. I'll take the insulation over the indoor plumbing and the electricity, and trust me, so would you if that was the binary choice.

KannO 11y ago

Earthquake/fire/electrical regulations might not seem valuable until your entire house/city is in ruins.

x5n1 11y ago
When it costs 10,000 to replace, maybe you don't care that much.
- thedufer 11y ago
  You definitely don't care when you're dead. In that split second before the disaster, maybe the point of silly regulations like not collapsing at the first hint of an earthquake or not going up in flames in seconds will become clear.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Choose your level of risk. I am sure if you want all those features, you can make the determination yourself. If you want to live dangerously, then live dangerously. I personally support this outlook. Better have cheap housing with risk than rent.
    - badsock 11y ago
      You're choosing your neighbour's level of risk too, though. Even a house built to regs has a hard time staying not on fire when the one right beside it is going up like a pile of tinder.
      - burfog 11y ago
        If you build for low long-term cost, you're not using wood anyway because of fungus and termites. You're using cementboard, concrete blocks, stucco, and similar. That won't burn. The roof can be corrugated metal.
    - slackstation 11y ago

3pt14159 11y ago

I used to be a structural engineer, and I can tell you _exactly_ what you're giving up if you're interested. The cost difference isn't $10k vs $700k because of building materials. The cost difference is $5k (land) + $5k (construction) vs $600k (land) vs $100k (construction). What I've seen is that most people in the West end up thinking that that $95k difference is worth it. Let me start with a true story of what happened to me the first time I represented myself in court back around 2005. Someone had moved my motorbike to make a bit more room to park their stupid oversized Hummer. My bike was now just past the legal line so I got a $45 ticket. Outraged I vowed to bring this to court. In the pre-meeting with the prosecutor the cop didn't even remember the location of the motorcycle, let alone what was around, whereas I had drawings and the license plate number of the Hummer owner. The prosecutor said that if I plead guilty with an explanation that they would drop the charges. So that is what we did. Right afterwards I got a $40 "courtroom fee" because I'd plead guilty. That's when I learned the adage "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client". 5000 years ago children died because they crawled between the banister railings. Our building code stops that oversight. 5000 years ago houses collapsed during hurricanes. Our building codes severely reduced that. I could go on and on. The main issue isn't the building code. The issue is that it is difficult in modern cities to get the local population to agree to expanding the housing stock with taller buildings. It ruins views, it's noisy, excess supply collapses housing prices. It changes the city's charm and culture. So they elect people that slow it down.

stegosaurus 11y ago
The issue is that taking away that choice is damaging to many people. I think that the statement "most people in the West agree" glosses over an important detail - perhaps most people who have the money agree, and the others are forced to go along with it. I would far rather have a home that has 'risky banister railings' if that meant I could actually afford it. Mental health is as important as physical health, if not moreso - what's worse, risk of eviction, or having to pay attention near the stairwell? I get that this is an isolated example, but I'd take worse insulation, no solar, worse security, everything, if it meant I could get a home and slowly improve it myself with time. If that means I have to live rurally - so be it - but as far as I can tell that means living outside of the country I was born in (UK), which is quite sad.

api 11y ago

The Western practice of using a house as an investment vehicle and a bank account is partly to blame. Once a person buys a home they instantly become a NIMBY as they are now leveraged into a scarce asset and have a vested interest in keeping it scarce.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

But your not comparing like for like and building codes are there for a reason. Also in the west you don't have to worry about having your home expropriated by "gangsters" - which happened to one of my coworkers family back home.

mdpopescu 11y ago
Like this [1][2] you mean? [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squatters-strike-Sisters-return-home-Romanian-family-living-home.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029648/Holiday-squa... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-h...