3 ms·
I agreed with some of your more abstract posts on this topic, but I really can't buy into that assumption that just being a little less fearful would reduce cos
by usrusr 9y ago
I agreed with some of your more abstract posts on this topic, but I really can't buy into that assumption that just being a little less fearful would reduce costs by half. You wave that second bid around as if they had actually done the same work, at the lower price, with a known quantity of bloodshed. But that is only a hypothetical, That second bid might have had even bigger cost overruns, we don't know. The winning bid might actually have terrible safety standards while being lucky, we don't know. There is no simple, isolated safety/cost tradeoff that you can dial in at will and get the expected results. On the contrary, a contractor that is sloppy with safety will often also be sloppy with other things, causing costs to increase, not to sink.
- jychang 9y agoI agree, I'm only arguing the hypothetical. I would highly doubt that $250mil went into slower progress for the sake of safety. Definitely, there were other costs. You're supposed to only consider the abstract idea I presented. That's why I changed from $250mil numbers to $100mil halfway through, although I didn't make it fully clear to divorce the concrete numbers from the abstract cultural ideas.