3 ms·

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

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.

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.