3 ms·

So much of what this guy rambles about is so moot to anyone who's ever actually worked in the building industry. Why is he even qualified to have this opinion?

So much of what this guy rambles about is so moot to anyone who's ever actually worked in the building industry. Why is he even qualified to have this opinion? The premise that buildings "nowadays" are universally cheap and inferior is stupid: There have always been shitty buildings that don't last, because poor people also need homes. Cheap buildings today are significantly better protection against the elements than shacks from the "good old days". I agree with the spirit of the articles, so I guess I don't care (Yes, we should encourage people to spend more money in the building industry! Yes, hire a local artisan to make something!), but I think an economic argument is more compelling than an emotional one.

grantheaslip 16y ago
> There have always been shitty buildings that don't last, because poor people also need homes. (Haven't read the article yet) That's probably where his mistake came from. He's judging the buildings of the past by the ones that are around now, which are (by nature of the fact that they still exist) higher quality. All of the shoddily-constructed ones are gone now. Textbook selection bias.
whatusername 16y ago
Thankyou for that. I've been a bit on the 'good-old-days' side about Buildings and completely forgot about survivorship bias. Just like all the music these days is crap (when we compare to only the best songs that we remember from 30 years ago). I think there might be something in the idea that we did it 'better' for public buildings in the old days (Are there any buildings that cost remotely the amount of National GDP that the Pyramids or the Great Wall did?) -- But I think you're absolutely right when thinking about averages.