3 ms·

This can also be handled by market forces. The people who expect to buy the apartments in a high-rise like this could collectively hire their own inspectors dur

by avar 8y ago

This can also be handled by market forces. The people who expect to buy the apartments in a high-rise like this could collectively hire their own inspectors during construction, which would be answerable to them alone. The obvious way to collectivize this is through insurance. The problem stated by the linked Reddit commentator happens because the interests of everyone (architects, engineers, constructors and inspectors) currently align to de-prioritize safety. There's numerous reasons why that doesn't happen. One being that no individual apartments might have been sold before the construction is finished, but another reason could be that building codes have been good enough, so people think of that as a waste of money.

scarejunba 8y ago
But as a neighbour, I don’t want the building to fall on me. Part of the risk is externalized. Do I get to send an inspector too? That over privileges me because then I can stall projects by claiming an ostensible high threshold of risk.
- avar 8y ago
  You couldn't stall a project by holding it to a higher standard than the building codes supposedly being violated (if the Reddit OP is to be believed).
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Fair point. If the standards were inflated we'd have to bring them back down (which may be politically infeasible) but what you say sounds fine.
starshadowx2 8y ago
Privately hired inspectors is a terrible idea. That leads it to only the rich being able to afford to buy good inspectors leading to only the rich getting safe housing. Your whole comment can be condensed down to "I think poor people should have to live in dangerously built housing and die but it'll be their own fault for being poor." There needs to be much more regulation with much higher penalties for failures, and a dismantlement of the incentives of corruption.
- avar 8y ago
  Consumers feel like they need to consider the safety rating of cars they buy, and they pay to e.g. buy brands like Volvo or Tesla known for exceeding the bare minimum when it comes to safety. Yet I don't think you'd say that someone advocating that we continue that system thinks that poor people should drive dangerously built cars, and it'll be their own fault of they die in car accidents. I'm pointing out that it's interesting that there seems to be no analogous mechanism to ensure safety when it comes to buying houses, which are a much bigger investment than a car. > There needs to be much more regulation[...] If the Reddit OP is to be believed the problem isn't that there aren't regulations, but that they're systematically not being enforced. > [...]with much higher penalties for failures[...] I doubt that would work as well as aligning incentives. Even if you gave engineers the death penalty for cutting corners they stand to make a lot of money, and most of the time they'd get away with it. How many buildings in Sydney aren't in the news? > [...]a dismantlement of the incentives of corruption[...] The best way to dismantle such incentives is to ensure that there's conflicting interests. Here buyers are being screwed over by the builders, certifying authorities and the councils because the interests of all three align to screw buyers over.
  - ggcdn 8y ago
    > I doubt that would work as well as aligning incentives. Even if you gave engineers the death penalty for cutting corners they stand to make a lot of money, and most of the time they'd get away with it. How many buildings in Sydney aren't in the news? In the US, Canada, and I presume Australia, the design engineer is actually separate from the contractor. Generally, there is a developer who pays all the design consultants and the contractor to make the project reality. So the engineer really doesn't stand to make money from cutting corners. In fact, they have much to lose, including their ability to continue practicing engineering (it's a regulated profession) Their fee is the same if it gets built correctly or not, and it costs them nothing extra to ensure it's built correctly and mistakes are rectified.
- endgame 8y ago
  > Your whole comment can be condensed down to "I think poor people should have to live in dangerously built housing and die but it'll be their own fault for being poor." I think this is accidentally being uncharitable. It's possible that GP did not think all the way through to the conclusion you saw. A more accurate inference that doesn't assume hatred of the poor from GP would be something like "this will lead to a system where only the rich can verify the quality of housing" and stopping there.
oldgradstudent 8y ago
A friend's father was working as a private safety inspector after retiring as a civil engineer. One day someone came to him, offered him additional payment to ignore cost skimming, and told him he's got a nice family and that it would be a shame if something bad happened to them. He quit the same day. When you have organized crime involvement market forces cannot be relied upon.

by avar 8y ago

scarejunba 8y ago

But as a neighbour, I don’t want the building to fall on me. Part of the risk is externalized. Do I get to send an inspector too? That over privileges me because then I can stall projects by claiming an ostensible high threshold of risk.

avar 8y ago
You couldn't stall a project by holding it to a higher standard than the building codes supposedly being violated (if the Reddit OP is to be believed).
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Fair point. If the standards were inflated we'd have to bring them back down (which may be politically infeasible) but what you say sounds fine.

starshadowx2 8y ago

Privately hired inspectors is a terrible idea. That leads it to only the rich being able to afford to buy good inspectors leading to only the rich getting safe housing. Your whole comment can be condensed down to "I think poor people should have to live in dangerously built housing and die but it'll be their own fault for being poor." There needs to be much more regulation with much higher penalties for failures, and a dismantlement of the incentives of corruption.

avar 8y ago
Consumers feel like they need to consider the safety rating of cars they buy, and they pay to e.g. buy brands like Volvo or Tesla known for exceeding the bare minimum when it comes to safety. Yet I don't think you'd say that someone advocating that we continue that system thinks that poor people should drive dangerously built cars, and it'll be their own fault of they die in car accidents. I'm pointing out that it's interesting that there seems to be no analogous mechanism to ensure safety when it comes to buying houses, which are a much bigger investment than a car. > There needs to be much more regulation[...] If the Reddit OP is to be believed the problem isn't that there aren't regulations, but that they're systematically not being enforced. > [...]with much higher penalties for failures[...] I doubt that would work as well as aligning incentives. Even if you gave engineers the death penalty for cutting corners they stand to make a lot of money, and most of the time they'd get away with it. How many buildings in Sydney aren't in the news? > [...]a dismantlement of the incentives of corruption[...] The best way to dismantle such incentives is to ensure that there's conflicting interests. Here buyers are being screwed over by the builders, certifying authorities and the councils because the interests of all three align to screw buyers over.
- ggcdn 8y ago
  > I doubt that would work as well as aligning incentives. Even if you gave engineers the death penalty for cutting corners they stand to make a lot of money, and most of the time they'd get away with it. How many buildings in Sydney aren't in the news? In the US, Canada, and I presume Australia, the design engineer is actually separate from the contractor. Generally, there is a developer who pays all the design consultants and the contractor to make the project reality. So the engineer really doesn't stand to make money from cutting corners. In fact, they have much to lose, including their ability to continue practicing engineering (it's a regulated profession) Their fee is the same if it gets built correctly or not, and it costs them nothing extra to ensure it's built correctly and mistakes are rectified.
endgame 8y ago
> Your whole comment can be condensed down to "I think poor people should have to live in dangerously built housing and die but it'll be their own fault for being poor." I think this is accidentally being uncharitable. It's possible that GP did not think all the way through to the conclusion you saw. A more accurate inference that doesn't assume hatred of the poor from GP would be something like "this will lead to a system where only the rich can verify the quality of housing" and stopping there.

oldgradstudent 8y ago

A friend's father was working as a private safety inspector after retiring as a civil engineer. One day someone came to him, offered him additional payment to ignore cost skimming, and told him he's got a nice family and that it would be a shame if something bad happened to them. He quit the same day. When you have organized crime involvement market forces cannot be relied upon.