4 ms·

> There will always be mistakes and corruption but it shouldn't stop us from doing things that in general pay big dividends. This is, of course, correct. > In

by sqeaky 2y ago

> There will always be mistakes and corruption but it shouldn't stop us from doing things that in general pay big dividends. This is, of course, correct. > In the long run requiring stronger buildings probably won't hurt the economy and likely will actually help it. This is likely wrong, largely depending on details. But first, building don't have hit points, they have structure. Earthquake dampers don't help with anything else these buildings experience, and a lot of other earthproofing doesn't help most situations. Raising the cost of something when not needed is literally wasting money. If it has no impact then how will it help the economy? Most buildings don't last the requisite 500 years to see a single earthquake. It isn't like the New Madrid region of MO has skyscrapers. Look at the picture on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid,_Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid,_Missouri That is 3,000 people on a busy day! Telling them to earthquake proof means potholes don't get filled. What does buildings that cost 50% more get them? It won't help with floods, fires, or tornadoes, things they likely actually see every year. Even in a larger place, like an actual city like Omaha or St Louis the amount of tall buildings is limited and those falling would risk thousands of lives. A targeted piece of legislation mandating some kind of check/restriction/requirement on buildings over 5 stories would cover a hypothetical risk for nearly all risk cases. > Stronger infrastructure lasts longer and encourages Does it? I live in Omaha. There is no man-made structure that can withstand a big enough tornado. The First National tower, the 47 story skyscraper we have, could collapse any day if tornado decides it happens. It resides at roughly 20th and Dodge street (every 12 streets is a mile) and we had real tornado destroy a neighborhood at roughly 180th and dodge. That was 3 months and a day ago. That same storm put a tornado down on the Eppley Airfield's flight line (Omaha's tiny airport north of 10th and dodge). That one storm put tornadoes on either side of the First National Tower. If the F3 that hit that neighborhood hit downtown the FNB Tower would have gone down no matter how many elastic earthquake dampers were installed because a building doesn't have more or less HP like a video game, it has structural integrity to resist shearing, tensile, compressive, and elastic loads. There is no building above the ground that survives 200+ mph wind smashing the remnants of nearby houses into it. Source for tornado: https://www.wowt.com/2024/04/27/live-updates-tornado-survivors-around-omaha-metro-take-stock-move-forward-aftermath/ https://www.wowt.com/2024/04/27/live-updates-tornado-survivo... That building could have collapsed and engineering something that tall to withstand tornadoes is simply something humanity hasn't figured out yet. Why bother with stronger against shakes that never happen when everything gets rebuilt for tornadoes on a long enough time frame? Just leaving that earthquake damping money in an interest bearing tornado recovery fund would save more lives and do more good. > My point about the economy not being zero sum is that we can prepare and prosper, they aren't mutually exclusive. The economy isn't a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to simply destroy resources. And money we have on hand now is literally a zero game. New Madrid could spend money on hiring a few teachers or "New Infrastructure" and see much larger gains for their economy because in 18 years their workforce would be better educated and likely save a few lives. In that same time earthquake-proof construction would do nothing. Even if they did have the money, no one has infinite money so wasting it is bad. Consider Omaha, earthquake proofing costs something like double or triple the construction cost for many kinds of structures and for most people will and fundamentally can never provide them a benefit. Let's flip this around. How much money does your town spend on preparation for giant asteroid collisions? Probably none. Because it doesn't happen there and if it did you wouldn't be ready no matter how much you spent. Phoenix doesn't waste money on snow plows, and if it did snow the city needs to shut down anyway. Salt Lake City doesn't prepare for hurricanes, and if it had one the city would need to shut down anyway. Why prepare for things that are so unlikely you don't even know how to prepare for them? If these were city ending events that literally erased all life, then maybe, but think about how much else needs to change for any of these scenarios. These would all be either nothing-burgers or national disasters one city couldn't hope to prepare for. Money spent on any of those is completely wasted and could have gone to filling potholes that all of have because I have seen them all first hand. Phoenix has the fewest but the scariest, those heat induced fumaroles are gnarly. Filling potholes immediately returns on investments because roads are infrastructure that actually gets used.

jmward01 2y ago
I'll grant I could have said 'In the long run requiring better infrastructure probably won't hurt the economy and likely will actually help it.' instead of giving the focus word 'buildings'. Past that, I think my arguments stand. The fact that the economy isn't a zero sum game means that often just building something, anything, can make the economy better for everyone. Trying it to something useful greatly magnifies this. The New Madrid zone is much bigger than the town. It crosses into three states and likely encompasses regional infrastructure. Being prepared often focuses on critical infrastructure like bridges, first responder buildings, schools, etc since ensuring core services in a large emergency is key. Simple programs that focus on those areas would probably also lead to better services in these places today as well as ensuring they were available in an emergency and that would lead to real economic value outside of just being prepared or churning the economy to build it. > The economy isn't a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to simply destroy resources. And money we have on hand now is literally a zero game. This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. As I have argued, twice now, it likely isn't throwing money away and could create real economic value, especially if the focus is on critical infrastructure, infrastructure that gets heavy daily use anyway. The fact that it isn't a zero sum game means you can do this and still fill potholes. In fact, it means you likely could do this and slip in filling potholes under the guise of 'ensuring access to critical infrastructure'. In the end this is only a zero sum game when we make it one artificially by finding reasons to avoid doing things that give us value like improving infrastructure and disaster preparedness.
- sqeaky 2y ago
  > This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. I am not taking it seriously because I feel you are presenting platitudes and deepities instead of serious arguments. "Not a zero sum game" is often used interchangeably with "society doesn't need to care about costs", and I feel that is what you are doing here. And I strongly value infrastructure and generally support things that are considered "wealth redistribution schemes". Convince me spending on earthquake-proofing will have ANY value and you can begin changing my mind. Convince me spending earthquake-proofing is better than tornado resilience and you will have completely changed my mind. Tornadoes actually kill people every year in the regions we are talking and those funds are already tight. I simply think there are better ways to save lives and money than earthquake-proofing in regions that get earthquakes approximately as often Phoenix gets snow.

by sqeaky 2y ago

jmward01 2y ago

I'll grant I could have said 'In the long run requiring better infrastructure probably won't hurt the economy and likely will actually help it.' instead of giving the focus word 'buildings'. Past that, I think my arguments stand. The fact that the economy isn't a zero sum game means that often just building something, anything, can make the economy better for everyone. Trying it to something useful greatly magnifies this. The New Madrid zone is much bigger than the town. It crosses into three states and likely encompasses regional infrastructure. Being prepared often focuses on critical infrastructure like bridges, first responder buildings, schools, etc since ensuring core services in a large emergency is key. Simple programs that focus on those areas would probably also lead to better services in these places today as well as ensuring they were available in an emergency and that would lead to real economic value outside of just being prepared or churning the economy to build it. > The economy isn't a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to simply destroy resources. And money we have on hand now is literally a zero game. This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. As I have argued, twice now, it likely isn't throwing money away and could create real economic value, especially if the focus is on critical infrastructure, infrastructure that gets heavy daily use anyway. The fact that it isn't a zero sum game means you can do this and still fill potholes. In fact, it means you likely could do this and slip in filling potholes under the guise of 'ensuring access to critical infrastructure'. In the end this is only a zero sum game when we make it one artificially by finding reasons to avoid doing things that give us value like improving infrastructure and disaster preparedness.

sqeaky 2y ago
> This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. I am not taking it seriously because I feel you are presenting platitudes and deepities instead of serious arguments. "Not a zero sum game" is often used interchangeably with "society doesn't need to care about costs", and I feel that is what you are doing here. And I strongly value infrastructure and generally support things that are considered "wealth redistribution schemes". Convince me spending on earthquake-proofing will have ANY value and you can begin changing my mind. Convince me spending earthquake-proofing is better than tornado resilience and you will have completely changed my mind. Tornadoes actually kill people every year in the regions we are talking and those funds are already tight. I simply think there are better ways to save lives and money than earthquake-proofing in regions that get earthquakes approximately as often Phoenix gets snow.