3 ms·

It's not just condo boards, it's everything in America... physical infrastructure, corporate R&D, software security bugs. It's more attention grabbing and perso

It's not just condo boards, it's everything in America... physical infrastructure, corporate R&D, software security bugs. It's more attention grabbing and personally profitable to do something new than maintain something old, so people kick the can down the road and cash in, making the problem someone else's (and a bigger problem). Even worse, America's soft power / cultural influence is infecting other countries with this mindset, which once used to have family owned businesses managed on a centuries-long mindset. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

somethoughts 5y ago
I agree here. And its not just America but really just any government in any country. I've come to think of governments/countries as just a very, very extensive, giant home owners association that happens to float its own currency, fund its own schools, etc. The HOA fees are basically taxes and often times fees are accessed by the size of your unit. Thinking from an HOA perspective - you then become comfortable with all the warts and inefficiencies that a country/government may have. Serving on the HOA board is quasi-voluntary, tends toward folks with free time and a desire for power, no one is particularly accountable. The home owners themselves are a fickle and diverse bunch, the vocal ones mostly complain about stuff, the silent ones don't say anything and are just getting on with their lives and all have varying attitudes toward expenses for improvements and investment for the future.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  > I've come to think of governments/countries as just a very, very extensive, giant home owners association that happens to float its own currency, fund its own schools, etc. I'm always nervous about this type of reductive thinking. It tends to go wrong for the same reasons that "the government's checkbook should be managed like a household budget!" goes wrong. Your HOA doesn't control the financial systems of every other HOA in the world and can't freeze the assets of HOAistan because their premier is causing problems. Your HOA doesn't spend nearly half of its funds on a military that has first nuclear strike capability against the D.P.R.H(OA). Etc. Probably the biggest gap in this thinking: if you don't like your HOA, you can sell your house. In this market there's no lack of buyers and you have tons of options – other HOAs, unencumbered properties, etc. This sucks, sure, but compare it to emigrating to a country that you'd like to live in. It's miles apart.
  - somethoughts 5y ago
    Agree and perhaps a better way to frame it would be, countries mostly start out as HOAs and then experience a ton of expansion and scope creep in their charter over the 5-10 centuries of their existence. > Probably the biggest gap in this thinking: if you don't like your HOA, you can sell your house. In this market there's no lack of buyers and you have tons of options – other HOAs, unencumbered properties, etc. This sucks, sure, but compare it to emigrating to a country that you'd like to live in. It's miles apart. I'd say this is just endgame monopolization in the market for HOAs. There used to be 100's of independent HOAs in the US in 1700's, they then consolidated to 13 colonies and then 200 years of further consolidation and voila - the country known as the United States.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > countries mostly start out as HOAs and then experience a ton of expansion and scope creep in their charter over the 5-10 centuries of their existence. [citation needed] > There used to be 100's of independent HOAs in the US in 1700's, they then consolidated to 13 colonies and then 200 years of further consolidation and voila - the country known as the United States. That’s...not accurate even as a very loose analogy.
      - somethoughts 5y ago
        Its interesting - we sometimes think of HOAs as being overly restrictive but if you read the charters for the original colonial settlements in the US, their HOA charters governed every aspect of life for the residents. These companies, such as the Virginia Company, were very much private, for profit, development companies. "In addition to survival, the early colonists had another pressing mission: to make a profit for the stockholders of the Virginia Company... The Company plastered street corners with tempting broadsheets, published persuasive articles, and even convinced the clergy to preach of the virtues of supporting colonization. Before the Company was dissolved, it would publish 27 books and pamphlets promoting the Virginia venture. To make shares more marketable, the Virginia Company changed its sales pitch. Instead of promising instant returns and vast profits for investors, the Company exploited patriotic sentiment and national pride." https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/the-virginia-company-of-london.htm https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/the-virginia-c... "John White continued to seek funding for a colony. On 19 March 1627/8, the Council for New England issued a land grant to a new group of investors that included a few from the Dorchester Company. The land grant was for territory between the Charles River and Merrimack River that extended from "the Atlantick and westerne sea and ocean on the east parte, to the South sea on the west parte."[21] The company to whom the grant was sold was styled "The New England Company for a Plantation in Massachusetts Bay".[22] The company elected Matthew Cradock as its first governor and immediately began organizing provisions and recruiting settlers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony#Legal_formation_of_the_colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony#Legal... On the flip side, there are active proposals in Nevada for community associations that self-govern - replete with police, fire, school system and their own digital currency: "For this to happen, Mr Berns says a new model of local government is needed in Nevada. This government would have powers to raise taxes, enforce the law, and administer public services such as schools, utilities and transport." Nevada smart city: A millionaire’s plan to create a local government: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56409924 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56409924
akudha 5y ago
Japanese are known to think very long term as well
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Housing is a big exception to this. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl... > Unlike in other countries, Japanese homes gradually depreciate over time, becoming completely valueless within 20 or 30 years. When someone moves out of a home or dies, the house, unlike the land it sits on, has no resale value and is typically demolished. This scrap-and-build approach is a quirk of the Japanese housing market that can be explained variously by low-quality construction to quickly meet demand after the second world war, repeated building code revisions to improve earthquake resilience and a cycle of poor maintenance due to the lack of any incentive to make homes marketable for resale.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I do not think that is incongruent to thinking long term. Creating unnecessarily resilient buildings is a misallocation or resources and a problem if it’s own. If you think there will be volatility in the long term, then investing in flexibility is the right long term play.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      What is the right term? I think Japan has gone too far, but on the other hand I've also seen what the rich lived in 2000 years ago - I prefer the apartments the poor in the US live in today. (note that I'm excluding poor in other countries and poor that can't get into an apartment for whatever reason - these groups have worse situations than the above) Even houses built 120 years ago are things I'm not sure I'd want. Since then we have go indoor plumbing and electric. We are fortunate that modern AC is mostly easy to retrofit into the common forced air furnace systems of the past. I've faced the pain of running cat-3 network cables into houses I've lived in (I just missed rg-58), now I question if cat-5 cables are worth replacing. I have no idea what will change about houses next, but I suspect my house of the future will need changes that don't fit well with the house of today.
nmstoker 5y ago
Completely agree. You can abstract this into a general maintenance aversion. Effectively there is a moral hazard here: when problems are put off there is a strong chance that the cost will be borne by others.

somethoughts 5y ago

I agree here. And its not just America but really just any government in any country. I've come to think of governments/countries as just a very, very extensive, giant home owners association that happens to float its own currency, fund its own schools, etc. The HOA fees are basically taxes and often times fees are accessed by the size of your unit. Thinking from an HOA perspective - you then become comfortable with all the warts and inefficiencies that a country/government may have. Serving on the HOA board is quasi-voluntary, tends toward folks with free time and a desire for power, no one is particularly accountable. The home owners themselves are a fickle and diverse bunch, the vocal ones mostly complain about stuff, the silent ones don't say anything and are just getting on with their lives and all have varying attitudes toward expenses for improvements and investment for the future.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> I've come to think of governments/countries as just a very, very extensive, giant home owners association that happens to float its own currency, fund its own schools, etc. I'm always nervous about this type of reductive thinking. It tends to go wrong for the same reasons that "the government's checkbook should be managed like a household budget!" goes wrong. Your HOA doesn't control the financial systems of every other HOA in the world and can't freeze the assets of HOAistan because their premier is causing problems. Your HOA doesn't spend nearly half of its funds on a military that has first nuclear strike capability against the D.P.R.H(OA). Etc. Probably the biggest gap in this thinking: if you don't like your HOA, you can sell your house. In this market there's no lack of buyers and you have tons of options – other HOAs, unencumbered properties, etc. This sucks, sure, but compare it to emigrating to a country that you'd like to live in. It's miles apart.
- somethoughts 5y ago
  Agree and perhaps a better way to frame it would be, countries mostly start out as HOAs and then experience a ton of expansion and scope creep in their charter over the 5-10 centuries of their existence. > Probably the biggest gap in this thinking: if you don't like your HOA, you can sell your house. In this market there's no lack of buyers and you have tons of options – other HOAs, unencumbered properties, etc. This sucks, sure, but compare it to emigrating to a country that you'd like to live in. It's miles apart. I'd say this is just endgame monopolization in the market for HOAs. There used to be 100's of independent HOAs in the US in 1700's, they then consolidated to 13 colonies and then 200 years of further consolidation and voila - the country known as the United States.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > countries mostly start out as HOAs and then experience a ton of expansion and scope creep in their charter over the 5-10 centuries of their existence. [citation needed] > There used to be 100's of independent HOAs in the US in 1700's, they then consolidated to 13 colonies and then 200 years of further consolidation and voila - the country known as the United States. That’s...not accurate even as a very loose analogy.
    - somethoughts 5y ago
      Its interesting - we sometimes think of HOAs as being overly restrictive but if you read the charters for the original colonial settlements in the US, their HOA charters governed every aspect of life for the residents. These companies, such as the Virginia Company, were very much private, for profit, development companies. "In addition to survival, the early colonists had another pressing mission: to make a profit for the stockholders of the Virginia Company... The Company plastered street corners with tempting broadsheets, published persuasive articles, and even convinced the clergy to preach of the virtues of supporting colonization. Before the Company was dissolved, it would publish 27 books and pamphlets promoting the Virginia venture. To make shares more marketable, the Virginia Company changed its sales pitch. Instead of promising instant returns and vast profits for investors, the Company exploited patriotic sentiment and national pride." https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/the-virginia-company-of-london.htm https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/the-virginia-c... "John White continued to seek funding for a colony. On 19 March 1627/8, the Council for New England issued a land grant to a new group of investors that included a few from the Dorchester Company. The land grant was for territory between the Charles River and Merrimack River that extended from "the Atlantick and westerne sea and ocean on the east parte, to the South sea on the west parte."[21] The company to whom the grant was sold was styled "The New England Company for a Plantation in Massachusetts Bay".[22] The company elected Matthew Cradock as its first governor and immediately began organizing provisions and recruiting settlers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony#Legal_formation_of_the_colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony#Legal... On the flip side, there are active proposals in Nevada for community associations that self-govern - replete with police, fire, school system and their own digital currency: "For this to happen, Mr Berns says a new model of local government is needed in Nevada. This government would have powers to raise taxes, enforce the law, and administer public services such as schools, utilities and transport." Nevada smart city: A millionaire’s plan to create a local government: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56409924 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56409924

akudha 5y ago

Japanese are known to think very long term as well

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 5y ago
Housing is a big exception to this. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl... > Unlike in other countries, Japanese homes gradually depreciate over time, becoming completely valueless within 20 or 30 years. When someone moves out of a home or dies, the house, unlike the land it sits on, has no resale value and is typically demolished. This scrap-and-build approach is a quirk of the Japanese housing market that can be explained variously by low-quality construction to quickly meet demand after the second world war, repeated building code revisions to improve earthquake resilience and a cycle of poor maintenance due to the lack of any incentive to make homes marketable for resale.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not think that is incongruent to thinking long term. Creating unnecessarily resilient buildings is a misallocation or resources and a problem if it’s own. If you think there will be volatility in the long term, then investing in flexibility is the right long term play.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    What is the right term? I think Japan has gone too far, but on the other hand I've also seen what the rich lived in 2000 years ago - I prefer the apartments the poor in the US live in today. (note that I'm excluding poor in other countries and poor that can't get into an apartment for whatever reason - these groups have worse situations than the above) Even houses built 120 years ago are things I'm not sure I'd want. Since then we have go indoor plumbing and electric. We are fortunate that modern AC is mostly easy to retrofit into the common forced air furnace systems of the past. I've faced the pain of running cat-3 network cables into houses I've lived in (I just missed rg-58), now I question if cat-5 cables are worth replacing. I have no idea what will change about houses next, but I suspect my house of the future will need changes that don't fit well with the house of today.

nmstoker 5y ago

Completely agree. You can abstract this into a general maintenance aversion. Effectively there is a moral hazard here: when problems are put off there is a strong chance that the cost will be borne by others.