4 ms·

I wonder how much emergency responders have negatively impacted the economy over the years by insisting on safety protocols that are above and beyond what are r

I wonder how much emergency responders have negatively impacted the economy over the years by insisting on safety protocols that are above and beyond what are required. Two examples I can think of are the opposition to battery storage in homes in California, and the expansion of code requiring fire sprinklers in most new construction. These were done to improve emergency conditions, but may have slowed battery storage installation and new construction. This feels similar in to me.

lolinder 3y ago
The economy is not the highest good. The fastest way to speed up new construction is to drop all safety protocols whatsoever—that's how you get rapid build up in developing countries, but that's also how you lose thousands of people to an earthquake or to a citywide fire. One of the characteristics of a developed nation is that we place a higher priority on not losing the development we already have than we do on developing further. Stability over growth. The rewards are lower, but so is the risk of a disaster.
- ourlordcaffeine 3y ago
  Complaining that fire safety is bad for the economy. Wow, now that's a take I don't think you'll see in many places other than hackernews
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Tragedies like the shirtwaist fire are because of people and attitudes like this. Number must go up! Human lives risked? No, number must go up!
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  There are valid tradeoffs, though. If you have a little more fire safety but as a result a significant increase in housing costs that pushes some people at the margins into homelessness, that might not be worthwhile. Is the requirement to have two staircases in apartment buildings worth all of the extra lost space? Maybe, but also maybe not. Ultimately we should be optimizing our policies for human well being, not safety. If we lock everybody in padded rooms, they'll be much safer than if we allow them to go out and do dangerous things like get in cars, but that's obviously a bad tradeoff.

lolinder 3y ago

The economy is not the highest good. The fastest way to speed up new construction is to drop all safety protocols whatsoever—that's how you get rapid build up in developing countries, but that's also how you lose thousands of people to an earthquake or to a citywide fire. One of the characteristics of a developed nation is that we place a higher priority on not losing the development we already have than we do on developing further. Stability over growth. The rewards are lower, but so is the risk of a disaster.

ourlordcaffeine 3y ago
Complaining that fire safety is bad for the economy. Wow, now that's a take I don't think you'll see in many places other than hackernews
- flangola7 3y ago
  Tragedies like the shirtwaist fire are because of people and attitudes like this. Number must go up! Human lives risked? No, number must go up!
idopmstuff 3y ago
There are valid tradeoffs, though. If you have a little more fire safety but as a result a significant increase in housing costs that pushes some people at the margins into homelessness, that might not be worthwhile. Is the requirement to have two staircases in apartment buildings worth all of the extra lost space? Maybe, but also maybe not. Ultimately we should be optimizing our policies for human well being, not safety. If we lock everybody in padded rooms, they'll be much safer than if we allow them to go out and do dangerous things like get in cars, but that's obviously a bad tradeoff.