6 ms·

Naively, I'd say that there really is a lot of missing productivity. The Empire State Building took a little over a year to build, while the Freedom Tower took

by three14 10y ago

Naively, I'd say that there really is a lot of missing productivity. The Empire State Building took a little over a year to build, while the Freedom Tower took 8, if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly. On the one hand, the safety precautions during construction were clearly different, but on the other, you get a lot less for a investment in many areas these days. Empire State Building according to Wikipedia: $645 million in 2017 dollars One World Trade Center: $3.9 billion

philipkglass 10y ago
That's what I'm trying to figure out -- whether the standard productivity definition uses physically grounded measures (like how much skyscraper floor area can be built per year or per full time employee, how many bytes of DRAM are manufactured per year or per full time employee...) or just money-units. In the latter case building skyscrapers at much higher costs than in the past might count as increased production, as long as you can get people to pay the higher prices. That seems backwards to me but I'm trying to temper my reaction until I learn more from people with a deeper economics background than I possess.
- three14 10y ago
  I'm saying that even if the measure they use is imperfect, I wouldn't be surprised if "real productivity", however you define it, is also down.
sandworm101 10y ago
Not only regulation, but construction expectations have changed. Take a construction worker back 100 years an they would be shocked at the lack of detailed plans. Today's buildings are planned and costed down to ever bolt. Every square foot is pre-sold and must be built to spec. A 4-year build that delays into a 6, thats a nightmare. So too is a 6-year build that finishes after 5 as that screws up the financial/tax planning -> profits. So we aim for slow, measured, and built to expectations. That is a change in business methods not tied to regulation.
bborud 10y ago
In terms of complexity the two projects are not comparable. Modern buildings have more bits and more of those bits need to work with other bits. And, for the two projects to be comparable, you have to compare them at the time of completion. (Empire state building has enjoyed 86 years of upgrades and retrofits). And that is before we look at things like worker safety, bureaucratic demands etc. We do harder things now.
- three14 10y ago
  Perhaps I should have given a different example, but I don't think that your objection affects the substance of what I wrote. Sure, the projects are totally different. Still, an extremely advanced building at the time cost a tiny fraction of what an extremely advanced building costs now, and the tenants still just get office space. It is not clear that we get a steady improvement in productivity across all areas of the economy.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I think you've chosen a bad example, because the One WTC is a special case, with all the legacy it represents. The Bank of America Tower, for example, has about the same floor space as the Empire State Building, and "is considered a worldwide model for green architecture in skyscrapers", yet cost $1B.
    - three14 10y ago
      OK, so use your example. The Empire State Building was 2/3 the price, took 1/3 the time, and hilariously, from Wikipedia: "The magazine Time found out in August 2013 that the Bank of America Tower used twice as much energy overall as the Empire State Building did, due to the large energy usage in the Bank of America Tower and the comparatively small occupancy rate of the Empire State Building." Even if you want to throw in the $120 million for fixing the Empire State Building's energy efficiency in 2009, it still doesn't say great things for modern productivity.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago

by three14 10y ago

philipkglass 10y ago

That's what I'm trying to figure out -- whether the standard productivity definition uses physically grounded measures (like how much skyscraper floor area can be built per year or per full time employee, how many bytes of DRAM are manufactured per year or per full time employee...) or just money-units. In the latter case building skyscrapers at much higher costs than in the past might count as increased production, as long as you can get people to pay the higher prices. That seems backwards to me but I'm trying to temper my reaction until I learn more from people with a deeper economics background than I possess.

three14 10y ago
I'm saying that even if the measure they use is imperfect, I wouldn't be surprised if "real productivity", however you define it, is also down.

sandworm101 10y ago

Not only regulation, but construction expectations have changed. Take a construction worker back 100 years an they would be shocked at the lack of detailed plans. Today's buildings are planned and costed down to ever bolt. Every square foot is pre-sold and must be built to spec. A 4-year build that delays into a 6, thats a nightmare. So too is a 6-year build that finishes after 5 as that screws up the financial/tax planning -> profits. So we aim for slow, measured, and built to expectations. That is a change in business methods not tied to regulation.

bborud 10y ago

In terms of complexity the two projects are not comparable. Modern buildings have more bits and more of those bits need to work with other bits. And, for the two projects to be comparable, you have to compare them at the time of completion. (Empire state building has enjoyed 86 years of upgrades and retrofits). And that is before we look at things like worker safety, bureaucratic demands etc. We do harder things now.

three14 10y ago
Perhaps I should have given a different example, but I don't think that your objection affects the substance of what I wrote. Sure, the projects are totally different. Still, an extremely advanced building at the time cost a tiny fraction of what an extremely advanced building costs now, and the tenants still just get office space. It is not clear that we get a steady improvement in productivity across all areas of the economy.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I think you've chosen a bad example, because the One WTC is a special case, with all the legacy it represents. The Bank of America Tower, for example, has about the same floor space as the Empire State Building, and "is considered a worldwide model for green architecture in skyscrapers", yet cost $1B.
  - three14 10y ago
    OK, so use your example. The Empire State Building was 2/3 the price, took 1/3 the time, and hilariously, from Wikipedia: "The magazine Time found out in August 2013 that the Bank of America Tower used twice as much energy overall as the Empire State Building did, due to the large energy usage in the Bank of America Tower and the comparatively small occupancy rate of the Empire State Building." Even if you want to throw in the $120 million for fixing the Empire State Building's energy efficiency in 2009, it still doesn't say great things for modern productivity.
WillPostForFood 10y ago