4 ms·
It's far more cost efficient to just avoid entering such areas.
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
It's far more cost efficient to just avoid entering such areas.
- dredmorbius 10y agoThat's about the first sensible thing I've seen you say in this thread. Yes: it's far more cost effective to avoid the risk altogether than attempt to mitigate the exceptionally unlikely event of a very-tall-building collapse or fire, particularly through use of, say, parachutes (into an urban landscape with many landing hazards and few readily accessible landing zones). On the other hand, that decision also means foregoing opportunities, including the income potential of working for a firm in or near a dense downtown with such tall office towers in it. A cost you might be willing to accept. Risks and costs can be balanced, though the cases in which people make decisions which are both fully informed and rational strike me as relatively rare.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe supply of highly suspended office space is quite limited and I'd guess that almost none of the highest paid workers work in one. If the cost of a few dozen parachutes is deemed too expensive to hold in reserve for emergencies then I have to seriously doubt that such a space could have much real-increase on income. At best, I'd expect the ownership to collect much of the increase in rent as the small supply is fought for.