4 ms·

Libertarians: this is why we have building codes. We don't need builders cutting corners and harming people years down the road, because profit convinced them

Libertarians: this is why we have building codes. We don't need builders cutting corners and harming people years down the road, because profit convinced them that was the right thing to do for their own interests.

notch898a 4y ago
Why were the people living in that house so greedy that they cheeped out on buying/renting housing? There is soundly built housing in Turkey. If they were rich enough to buy sturdier housing then they could have done that. I'm not pointing this out to blame those people in any way, but it may be legitimately they can't afford better housing and this is the best they could do and the risk of dying in an earthquake was better than their alternatives. Maybe sturdier housing everywhere would mean some those people would have been dead long ago from exposure.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  You're assuming the people affected did some kind of rational cost/benefit analysis, and just whatever choice they made was worth the chance of people dying. I very much doubt that was the case. You also seem to be falsely assuming there's only three options: be rich, live in a death trap, or be homeless on the street. That's not the case. People can be tricked, be stupid, just have bad ideas, or similar. Building codes are a check against all that. And if they make a certain class of housing more expensive, there are always alternatives of other classes of housing.
- ornornor 4y ago
  Corruption doesn’t make things cheaper. Shoddy housing most likely costs the same as up to code housing, especially since you can’t tell if it complies or not (hard to see the rebar embedded in the concrete or its absence) See the market for lemons.
- MisterTea 4y ago
  > Why were the people living in that house so greedy that they cheeped out on buying/renting housing? Can you please point out in the article where it states these occupants knowingly purchased/rented a structurally compromised home? Because the article I read does not state this. Don't say foolish things before reading the article.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    That they purchased/rented a structurally compromised home is self-evident from the news articles showing the post-earthquake rubble. They certainly may have not known it was compromised (never claimed they did), but they sure as hell didn't know it was sound (probably because they either could not afford reputable inspection or even if they could didn't have the money to afford sound housing.)
hummus_bae 4y ago
Do we have building codes in the US? Does anybody know what they are? Does anybody know if builders are required to follow them?
- kube-system 4y ago
  yes, yes, and yes Here's a good place to start: https://codecheck.com/code-adoption-by-state/ https://codecheck.com/code-adoption-by-state/
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Just because some building codes have a good purpose doesn't mean all building codes do. On another forum there was recently a long discussion about the requirement for x number of power outlets in hallways of single family homes. This was added when wall-to-wall carpeting was fashionable and people in homes without outlets in the hallways were using extension cords so their vacuum cleaners could reach all of the carpet. The theory was that it kept people from tripping over excessively long cord or from daisy chaining together too many extension cords. Is this something that should be legally mandated for everyone? Especially since wall-to-wall carpeting has fallen out of fashion, robotic floor cleaners exist, as do much lighter, often battery powered, canister vacuums. The cost of wiring up a hallway and putting in some outlets is only a small fraction of the cost of a new house but when you have dozens and dozens of these types of requirements, it does drive up the cost for a benefit that exists at a much lower level than when the requirements was added. One of the suggestions was that if a homeowner didn't like the requirements, they could petition the authors of the International Residential Code for an amendment during the next release of the code manual in three years. This sounds reasonable to bureaucratic authoritarians but isn't something an individual should be required to go through just because they're not interested in living in a 1970s shag carpeted retro wonderland.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Yes, codes do become outdated, but this works both ways. There is an opposite example to your hallway carpet example: many old bathrooms were not required to have outlets because there were not many mains powered bathing accessories, but now there have been multiple instances of people being electrocuted when running extension cords from other rooms into the bathroom to use. Really, if we had outlets everywhere that met the best safety standards possible -- we'd prevent all of these issues, in any time. But we don't do this because people want to save money.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > On another forum there was recently a long discussion about the requirement for x number of power outlets in hallways of single family homes. This was added when wall-to-wall carpeting was fashionable... > Is this something that should be legally mandated for everyone? Especially since wall-to-wall carpeting has fallen out of fashion... That's a bizarre argument. Anyone who knows about fashions knows that 1) what goes out of fashion, often comes back into fashion again, 2) fashions aren't universally followed. Unless building codes were changed to forbid carpeted hallways, I don't see any good rationale for eliminating the code requirements for them. America isn't Japan, it's quite reasonable to assume someone will likely put carpet in that hallway at a later date (anecdote: I personally know people who have pulled out carpet and found hardwood floors underneath). Also you're focusing too much one one rationale. Those outlets are also very useful for night lights. Falling isn't usually a big deal for younger people, but it can be very serious for older people.
nickpp 4y ago
Turkiye had building codes. But a corrupt government didn't enforce them. Non-libertarians: this is exactly why we never trust governments with our lives. Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution but governments will only manage to instill a false sense of security with promises and lies while happily taking our money with both hands.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution The facts would seem to disagree with this assumption.
  - nickpp 4y ago
    The actual history proves my point though.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Really? I'd love to hear some historical examples of how an unregulated market achieved a high standard of construction to protect against an irregular event.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  >Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution Yeah Norfolk Southern really showed the dang gubmint how it's done. Raise your glass of contaminated Ohio River water to private enterprise!
  - nickpp 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      Ohio the other day was Norfolk Southern cutting costs. Same general deal with Houston and just now Tuscon.

notch898a 4y ago

Why were the people living in that house so greedy that they cheeped out on buying/renting housing? There is soundly built housing in Turkey. If they were rich enough to buy sturdier housing then they could have done that. I'm not pointing this out to blame those people in any way, but it may be legitimately they can't afford better housing and this is the best they could do and the risk of dying in an earthquake was better than their alternatives. Maybe sturdier housing everywhere would mean some those people would have been dead long ago from exposure.

tablespoon 4y ago
You're assuming the people affected did some kind of rational cost/benefit analysis, and just whatever choice they made was worth the chance of people dying. I very much doubt that was the case. You also seem to be falsely assuming there's only three options: be rich, live in a death trap, or be homeless on the street. That's not the case. People can be tricked, be stupid, just have bad ideas, or similar. Building codes are a check against all that. And if they make a certain class of housing more expensive, there are always alternatives of other classes of housing.
ornornor 4y ago
Corruption doesn’t make things cheaper. Shoddy housing most likely costs the same as up to code housing, especially since you can’t tell if it complies or not (hard to see the rebar embedded in the concrete or its absence) See the market for lemons.
MisterTea 4y ago
> Why were the people living in that house so greedy that they cheeped out on buying/renting housing? Can you please point out in the article where it states these occupants knowingly purchased/rented a structurally compromised home? Because the article I read does not state this. Don't say foolish things before reading the article.
- notch898a 4y ago
  That they purchased/rented a structurally compromised home is self-evident from the news articles showing the post-earthquake rubble. They certainly may have not known it was compromised (never claimed they did), but they sure as hell didn't know it was sound (probably because they either could not afford reputable inspection or even if they could didn't have the money to afford sound housing.)

hummus_bae 4y ago

Do we have building codes in the US? Does anybody know what they are? Does anybody know if builders are required to follow them?

kube-system 4y ago
yes, yes, and yes Here's a good place to start: https://codecheck.com/code-adoption-by-state/ https://codecheck.com/code-adoption-by-state/

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

Just because some building codes have a good purpose doesn't mean all building codes do. On another forum there was recently a long discussion about the requirement for x number of power outlets in hallways of single family homes. This was added when wall-to-wall carpeting was fashionable and people in homes without outlets in the hallways were using extension cords so their vacuum cleaners could reach all of the carpet. The theory was that it kept people from tripping over excessively long cord or from daisy chaining together too many extension cords. Is this something that should be legally mandated for everyone? Especially since wall-to-wall carpeting has fallen out of fashion, robotic floor cleaners exist, as do much lighter, often battery powered, canister vacuums. The cost of wiring up a hallway and putting in some outlets is only a small fraction of the cost of a new house but when you have dozens and dozens of these types of requirements, it does drive up the cost for a benefit that exists at a much lower level than when the requirements was added. One of the suggestions was that if a homeowner didn't like the requirements, they could petition the authors of the International Residential Code for an amendment during the next release of the code manual in three years. This sounds reasonable to bureaucratic authoritarians but isn't something an individual should be required to go through just because they're not interested in living in a 1970s shag carpeted retro wonderland.

kube-system 4y ago
Yes, codes do become outdated, but this works both ways. There is an opposite example to your hallway carpet example: many old bathrooms were not required to have outlets because there were not many mains powered bathing accessories, but now there have been multiple instances of people being electrocuted when running extension cords from other rooms into the bathroom to use. Really, if we had outlets everywhere that met the best safety standards possible -- we'd prevent all of these issues, in any time. But we don't do this because people want to save money.
tablespoon 4y ago
> On another forum there was recently a long discussion about the requirement for x number of power outlets in hallways of single family homes. This was added when wall-to-wall carpeting was fashionable... > Is this something that should be legally mandated for everyone? Especially since wall-to-wall carpeting has fallen out of fashion... That's a bizarre argument. Anyone who knows about fashions knows that 1) what goes out of fashion, often comes back into fashion again, 2) fashions aren't universally followed. Unless building codes were changed to forbid carpeted hallways, I don't see any good rationale for eliminating the code requirements for them. America isn't Japan, it's quite reasonable to assume someone will likely put carpet in that hallway at a later date (anecdote: I personally know people who have pulled out carpet and found hardwood floors underneath). Also you're focusing too much one one rationale. Those outlets are also very useful for night lights. Falling isn't usually a big deal for younger people, but it can be very serious for older people.

nickpp 4y ago

Turkiye had building codes. But a corrupt government didn't enforce them. Non-libertarians: this is exactly why we never trust governments with our lives. Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution but governments will only manage to instill a false sense of security with promises and lies while happily taking our money with both hands.

shkkmo 4y ago
> Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution The facts would seem to disagree with this assumption.
- nickpp 4y ago
  The actual history proves my point though.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Really? I'd love to hear some historical examples of how an unregulated market achieved a high standard of construction to protect against an irregular event.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
>Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution Yeah Norfolk Southern really showed the dang gubmint how it's done. Raise your glass of contaminated Ohio River water to private enterprise!
- nickpp 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    Ohio the other day was Norfolk Southern cutting costs. Same general deal with Houston and just now Tuscon.