3 ms·

The west’s engineering skills are not in decline, though if you have a metric that indicates that, it would be interesting. Europe has not had USA-level proble

The west’s engineering skills are not in decline, though if you have a metric that indicates that, it would be interesting. Europe has not had USA-level problems with building a popular rail network, or other major works. The main differences in costs and time from 150 years ago are: (A) Accounting for Extrinsic Costs. as the nations have become more dense and more democratic, peoples voices need to be heard. Environmental, wildlife habitat, etc. are complex issues that have only become important in recent decades. People sometimes get tempted by authoritarian rule because they “get shit done cheaply”, but this is a ruse. By not engaging openly, there are often massive extrinsic costs, so the project is “cheap” by cheating and not counting the true costs. Europe seems to have streamlined this, the USA is still stuck in “might over right” political power struggles rather than compromises. (B) Cheap labor. Most infrastructure doesn’t require large numbers of high skilled labor, it needs a mix of skilled and unskilled labor. The railways in the 1800s we’re built with large quantities of immigrant labor. This is in rarer supply in the West these days, for a variety of reasons. (C) Labor rights and safety. Construction projects and rail projects were happy to bury dead workers by the wayside (or in the concrete of the Empire State Building). Or work them to unsustainable hours with limited pay. It took many strikes, some violent, to sort this out. Today’s standards don’t put up with that level of labor abuse. (D) Investment sources. Many large projects were state funded, or were funded by investors with a lot of patience. That kind of patience is in short supply, as is state funding in the USA due to Republicans being Republicans. Europe seems to be able to pull this kind of funding off. (E) Contract Grift. There is a lot more incentive and skill to slow roll and milk the cash flow of construction projects, given their complexity. Traditional large works were more vertically integrated and managed by those with incentive to see the job done, rather than paid by the hour. The solution to this is more vertical integration but that’s hard to pull off because of labor shortages. I’d also note that China has a vested interest in publishing propaganda about its engineering and public works prowess while hiding its extrinsic costs.

yonaguska 5y ago
I agree with everything you listed, except the political quip in point (D). Most of these large projects are funded with federal dollars, and both parties have no shame in clamoring for that money. The comment you're responding to was concerning a bloated project in a blue state. The issue isn't red vs blue- it's organizational. Politicians don't see the intrinsic value of such projects so much as they see the value of money intended for such projects. Unfortunately, grifting has become such an issue that people are opposed to the undertaking of infrastructure projects, but usually their objections only extend so far as their own state lines.
devonkim 5y ago
(E) has been going on for hundreds of years in the US is the thing. The difference is that the cost of goods used to be where the primary grift was instead of on labor (T&M contracts historically). But now T&M contracts are not very common at least in DoD but there is still obviously some level of grift but it’s partly due to extremely terrible guidelines for government procurement processes leading to contractors that do the bare minimum getting more money than contractors that exceed expectations (one rare exception of this happening was during the reconstruction of Atlanta’s I-95 when contractors were getting massive bonuses for finishing ahead of schedule contingent upon safety inspections passing - all work completed months ahead of schedule). Note that South Korea and France have nuclear cheaper than renewables still because their processes over decades have led to basically producing nuclear plants with horizontal scaling, driving costs down dramatically. In essence, all energy production within the borders of a country is a matter of political will moreso than even technical requirements. If a culture wants to push back on X and wins politically, it becomes more expensive and distorts intrinsic costs. If a culture pushes for Y and eventually subsidizes it, it becomes dramatically cheaper even below intrinsic costs and is over-consumed (see: fossil fuels)
wpietri 5y ago
One other factor I think is really interesting is what Poppendieck calls, "the tyranny of The Plan": https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of-the-plan/ https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of... The basic notion is that the way non-experts think about the work has changed in ways that have drastically increased system inefficiency. I know zip about construction megaprojects. But this is definitely true in software. Many executives want to pretend that projects are perfectly predictable, which a) diverts a lot of effort to non-value-creating outputs (fantasy plans, fantasy schedules), b) creates huge inefficiency by favoring fantasy plans over what's actually happening, and c) creates plenty of rework and chaos trying to solve the real-world problems when the gaps between fantasy and reality become too big to ignore. To me, this problem is mainly rooted in executive culture, and is related to the phenomenon some call managerialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Solar costs stay in line because it is easy to count panels, and multiply by by the very public cost per panel. Similarly for wind, and for storage. But few have the skills to estimate what any part of nuke should cost.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    And also because the turnaround time from conception to execution is short, allowing bad practices to be identified and addressed. It also helps that solar construction at the utility scale requires lower skill labor and is more forgiving of mistakes.
NeuNeurosis 5y ago
One thing I would like to support in your statement is (A)The Extrinsic Costs. This was not accounted for in China and is shaping up to be a very volatile national issue for them for their Railways. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-railways-plunge-from-high-profits-into-a-debt-trap/ https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-rai... https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/sub86/item1848.html https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/sub86/item1848.html

yonaguska 5y ago

I agree with everything you listed, except the political quip in point (D). Most of these large projects are funded with federal dollars, and both parties have no shame in clamoring for that money. The comment you're responding to was concerning a bloated project in a blue state. The issue isn't red vs blue- it's organizational. Politicians don't see the intrinsic value of such projects so much as they see the value of money intended for such projects. Unfortunately, grifting has become such an issue that people are opposed to the undertaking of infrastructure projects, but usually their objections only extend so far as their own state lines.

devonkim 5y ago

(E) has been going on for hundreds of years in the US is the thing. The difference is that the cost of goods used to be where the primary grift was instead of on labor (T&M contracts historically). But now T&M contracts are not very common at least in DoD but there is still obviously some level of grift but it’s partly due to extremely terrible guidelines for government procurement processes leading to contractors that do the bare minimum getting more money than contractors that exceed expectations (one rare exception of this happening was during the reconstruction of Atlanta’s I-95 when contractors were getting massive bonuses for finishing ahead of schedule contingent upon safety inspections passing - all work completed months ahead of schedule). Note that South Korea and France have nuclear cheaper than renewables still because their processes over decades have led to basically producing nuclear plants with horizontal scaling, driving costs down dramatically. In essence, all energy production within the borders of a country is a matter of political will moreso than even technical requirements. If a culture wants to push back on X and wins politically, it becomes more expensive and distorts intrinsic costs. If a culture pushes for Y and eventually subsidizes it, it becomes dramatically cheaper even below intrinsic costs and is over-consumed (see: fossil fuels)

wpietri 5y ago

One other factor I think is really interesting is what Poppendieck calls, "the tyranny of The Plan": https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of-the-plan/ https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of... The basic notion is that the way non-experts think about the work has changed in ways that have drastically increased system inefficiency. I know zip about construction megaprojects. But this is definitely true in software. Many executives want to pretend that projects are perfectly predictable, which a) diverts a lot of effort to non-value-creating outputs (fantasy plans, fantasy schedules), b) creates huge inefficiency by favoring fantasy plans over what's actually happening, and c) creates plenty of rework and chaos trying to solve the real-world problems when the gaps between fantasy and reality become too big to ignore. To me, this problem is mainly rooted in executive culture, and is related to the phenomenon some call managerialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism

ncmncm 5y ago
Solar costs stay in line because it is easy to count panels, and multiply by by the very public cost per panel. Similarly for wind, and for storage. But few have the skills to estimate what any part of nuke should cost.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  And also because the turnaround time from conception to execution is short, allowing bad practices to be identified and addressed. It also helps that solar construction at the utility scale requires lower skill labor and is more forgiving of mistakes.

NeuNeurosis 5y ago

One thing I would like to support in your statement is (A)The Extrinsic Costs. This was not accounted for in China and is shaping up to be a very volatile national issue for them for their Railways. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-railways-plunge-from-high-profits-into-a-debt-trap/ https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-rai... https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/sub86/item1848.html https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/sub86/item1848.html