6 ms·

I wonder how much it would have cost to do this with mining/tunnelling/etc. modern equipment. And whether it would have been cheaper to pay him $10/hr for 22 ye

by mileswu 14y ago

I wonder how much it would have cost to do this with mining/tunnelling/etc. modern equipment. And whether it would have been cheaper to pay him $10/hr for 22 years of work, or whether the 'modern' way would have cost more.

masklinn 14y ago
$10/h is way too much, India's nominal per-capita income is $1219 ($3.33/day) and its poverty threshold (below which a quarter of the population lives) is 40 cents a day. And this is for the mid-00s, not for 1960. A "normal" pay would probably have been closer to half a dollar to a dollar per day (if even that), 300 days a year or so. So we're talking $3000~$6000 total, tops. This is basically a big straight trench, so you could probably have done it in a few days or weeks with an excavator. An excavator rental costs between 800 and 3000 a week depending on the excavator class (size and engine power, minis in the 15-40hp range will be at the lower end, the stuff you can see on construction sites will usually be in the 150hp range and closer to the higher third, I'm excluding the ridiculous stuff such as the CAT 6090 or the baggers which make sense in neither scale nor cost for this comparison) So the purely monetary cost would probably be about the same if you had an excavator close-by which you could rent (and you were a skilled operator). edit: actually for that kind of works you'd probably use a backhoe loader rather than a straight excavator, but the costs should be in the same range edit 2: but to answer the question as asked, it would be way cheaper to use even a full-blown set of heavy earth-movers (and crew) than to pay the guy $10/h, 10h/day, 300 days/year for 22 years (which would cost $660k)
- nekojima 14y ago
  "300 days/year" Why does he get 65 days off a year? This is not North America, Europe or industrialized Asia. Most of day labourers I've spoken to in Asia consider themselves lucky if they get two or three days off a month. At that low level, for most of us, they lose a precious few days of work which is often vital for them to have enough money to eat that day.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > Why does he get 65 days off a year? Because why not (and I know india has quite a lot of religious celebrations which may or may not have holidays attached).
    - masklinn 14y ago
      also, sundays alone is 54 days off.
  - jgeralnik 14y ago
    > Why does he get 65 days off a year? Because it's easier to multiply by 300 than by any 340
  - ktizo 14y ago
    The average US worker apparently takes about 20 days of holiday per year, out of an offered 25, and apparently it is more or less the same for Indians. http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/for-days-of-holiday-and-vacation-taken-per-year-the-usa-ranks-23rd-out-of-23/ http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/for-days-of-holiday-and... http://www.rediff.com/money/slide-show/slide-show-1-indians-are-vacation-deprived-japan-tops-list/20111202.htm http://www.rediff.com/money/slide-show/slide-show-1-indians-... http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.life.balance/chart/ http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.life.balance/chart...
    - drstewart 14y ago
      Weekends alone are 104 days, in case you forgot about them.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        Fair point, but India has a legal maximum of 48 hours a week, though it does not appear to be enforced much and it seems quite hard to find any figures. Everything I can find seems to indicate that the average US worker does not have a lot of leisure time in comparison to most countries, and also that average working hours does not seem to have a particularly strong correlation with the average wealth of the citizens. Indians probably do work longer hours on average, but I don't think the gap is that large from what I can tell, though the statistics vary wildly. Forbes for instance has figures that seem to be much lower than other estimates and they claim an average of 25 hours a week for people from the US. http://www.ilo.org/jobspact/WCMS_071326/lang--en/index.htm http://www.ilo.org/jobspact/WCMS_071326/lang--en/index.htm http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-line-healthful-habits-made-simple/2012/apr/22/nation-overworked-abandoning-happiness-and-health-/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-lin... http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/steven-landsburg-labor_cx_sl_06work_0523landsburg.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/steven-landsburg-labor_cx_s...
- steve19 14y ago
  I think you might be underestimating the costs of doing it commercially. Judging from the photos, The mountain looks like one big rock. You would surely need a hydraulic breaker on your backhoe, and the maintenance that would go with it for so much work. Also, it looks like it would be hard to get a backhoe on top of that steep mountain. I would have thought for something like this, drilling deep holes and shoving in some TNT would be the way to go in order to reduce the solid rock to rubble.
- andyjsong 14y ago
  > edit 2: but to answer the question as asked, it would be way cheaper to use even a full-blown set of heavy earth-movers (and crew) than to pay the guy $10/h, 10h/day, 300 days/year for 22 years (which would cost $660k) Not to mention the lives that could have been saved if the road was built faster with heavy machinery. I wonder how many people died waiting for that road to be built.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    If there was no will to build it, then how much longer would it take for the road to be built? How many lives is that road saving now that it might not have if he hadn't built it? The glass is half full, too, ya know.
    - andyjsong 14y ago
      If there was no one to build the road, then no one would've built it. It took a personal crisis, self-sacrifice and dedication to carve the road out of the mountain. He probably saved a lot of lives after it was built, even one life would have been worth his efforts. I was just talking about opportunity costs and if some had helped him, less people would have died/suffered while the road was being built. If heavy machinery was involved, less people would've died waiting or suffered less traveling the long way to medical care.
      - javajosh 14y ago
        Oh, I misunderstood your post. You're lamenting that it wasn't done faster - which is true. I thought you were leveling a hacker-ish attack that it was a waste of effort and could have done faster and cheaper, and that the man shouldn't have wasted so many years on something that could have been done trivially. My bad.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Wages in India are irrelevant, as long as the comparison is made within the same market. The question is one of purchasing-power parity rather than absolute value.
  - nandemo 14y ago
    Purchasing-power parity is an approximation, it doesn't take into account the fact that relative prices can be very different depending on the country. E.g., suppose day labourers get paid $15 an hour in developed country X, but only $1.5/h in India. In general you cannot extrapolate that heavy machinery that costs $15000 a week in X will cost only $1500 in India.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  With the low average pay in India, how did he afford to do it. Did he have his expenses paid by someone else? Food, housing, equipment and (maybe?) power/water. Those costs, while potentially small where he lives, have to add up over decades.
mcosta 14y ago
Are you serious? Do you have any doubt modern machinery is faster and cheaper? 40 hours/week * 50 week/year * 20 years * 10 $/hour= = 400000$
jakejake 14y ago
It would be way more expensive with modern equipment because all of the politicians would need to get paid, years of debate, massive overcharging for the crew, equipment. Probably kick-backs to various parties. Opening ceremony where politicians cut the ribbon and take all the credit, etc.

by mileswu 14y ago

masklinn 14y ago

$10/h is way too much, India's nominal per-capita income is $1219 ($3.33/day) and its poverty threshold (below which a quarter of the population lives) is 40 cents a day. And this is for the mid-00s, not for 1960. A "normal" pay would probably have been closer to half a dollar to a dollar per day (if even that), 300 days a year or so. So we're talking $3000~$6000 total, tops. This is basically a big straight trench, so you could probably have done it in a few days or weeks with an excavator. An excavator rental costs between 800 and 3000 a week depending on the excavator class (size and engine power, minis in the 15-40hp range will be at the lower end, the stuff you can see on construction sites will usually be in the 150hp range and closer to the higher third, I'm excluding the ridiculous stuff such as the CAT 6090 or the baggers which make sense in neither scale nor cost for this comparison) So the purely monetary cost would probably be about the same if you had an excavator close-by which you could rent (and you were a skilled operator). edit: actually for that kind of works you'd probably use a backhoe loader rather than a straight excavator, but the costs should be in the same range edit 2: but to answer the question as asked, it would be way cheaper to use even a full-blown set of heavy earth-movers (and crew) than to pay the guy $10/h, 10h/day, 300 days/year for 22 years (which would cost $660k)

nekojima 14y ago
"300 days/year" Why does he get 65 days off a year? This is not North America, Europe or industrialized Asia. Most of day labourers I've spoken to in Asia consider themselves lucky if they get two or three days off a month. At that low level, for most of us, they lose a precious few days of work which is often vital for them to have enough money to eat that day.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Why does he get 65 days off a year? Because why not (and I know india has quite a lot of religious celebrations which may or may not have holidays attached).
  - masklinn 14y ago
    also, sundays alone is 54 days off.
- jgeralnik 14y ago
  > Why does he get 65 days off a year? Because it's easier to multiply by 300 than by any 340
- ktizo 14y ago
  The average US worker apparently takes about 20 days of holiday per year, out of an offered 25, and apparently it is more or less the same for Indians. http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/for-days-of-holiday-and-vacation-taken-per-year-the-usa-ranks-23rd-out-of-23/ http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/for-days-of-holiday-and... http://www.rediff.com/money/slide-show/slide-show-1-indians-are-vacation-deprived-japan-tops-list/20111202.htm http://www.rediff.com/money/slide-show/slide-show-1-indians-... http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.life.balance/chart/ http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.life.balance/chart...
  - drstewart 14y ago
    Weekends alone are 104 days, in case you forgot about them.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Fair point, but India has a legal maximum of 48 hours a week, though it does not appear to be enforced much and it seems quite hard to find any figures. Everything I can find seems to indicate that the average US worker does not have a lot of leisure time in comparison to most countries, and also that average working hours does not seem to have a particularly strong correlation with the average wealth of the citizens. Indians probably do work longer hours on average, but I don't think the gap is that large from what I can tell, though the statistics vary wildly. Forbes for instance has figures that seem to be much lower than other estimates and they claim an average of 25 hours a week for people from the US. http://www.ilo.org/jobspact/WCMS_071326/lang--en/index.htm http://www.ilo.org/jobspact/WCMS_071326/lang--en/index.htm http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-line-healthful-habits-made-simple/2012/apr/22/nation-overworked-abandoning-happiness-and-health-/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-lin... http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/steven-landsburg-labor_cx_sl_06work_0523landsburg.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/steven-landsburg-labor_cx_s...
steve19 14y ago
I think you might be underestimating the costs of doing it commercially. Judging from the photos, The mountain looks like one big rock. You would surely need a hydraulic breaker on your backhoe, and the maintenance that would go with it for so much work. Also, it looks like it would be hard to get a backhoe on top of that steep mountain. I would have thought for something like this, drilling deep holes and shoving in some TNT would be the way to go in order to reduce the solid rock to rubble.
andyjsong 14y ago
> edit 2: but to answer the question as asked, it would be way cheaper to use even a full-blown set of heavy earth-movers (and crew) than to pay the guy $10/h, 10h/day, 300 days/year for 22 years (which would cost $660k) Not to mention the lives that could have been saved if the road was built faster with heavy machinery. I wonder how many people died waiting for that road to be built.
- javajosh 14y ago
  If there was no will to build it, then how much longer would it take for the road to be built? How many lives is that road saving now that it might not have if he hadn't built it? The glass is half full, too, ya know.
  - andyjsong 14y ago
    If there was no one to build the road, then no one would've built it. It took a personal crisis, self-sacrifice and dedication to carve the road out of the mountain. He probably saved a lot of lives after it was built, even one life would have been worth his efforts. I was just talking about opportunity costs and if some had helped him, less people would have died/suffered while the road was being built. If heavy machinery was involved, less people would've died waiting or suffered less traveling the long way to medical care.
    - javajosh 14y ago
      Oh, I misunderstood your post. You're lamenting that it wasn't done faster - which is true. I thought you were leveling a hacker-ish attack that it was a waste of effort and could have done faster and cheaper, and that the man shouldn't have wasted so many years on something that could have been done trivially. My bad.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Wages in India are irrelevant, as long as the comparison is made within the same market. The question is one of purchasing-power parity rather than absolute value.
- nandemo 14y ago
  Purchasing-power parity is an approximation, it doesn't take into account the fact that relative prices can be very different depending on the country. E.g., suppose day labourers get paid $15 an hour in developed country X, but only $1.5/h in India. In general you cannot extrapolate that heavy machinery that costs $15000 a week in X will cost only $1500 in India.
lostlogin 14y ago
With the low average pay in India, how did he afford to do it. Did he have his expenses paid by someone else? Food, housing, equipment and (maybe?) power/water. Those costs, while potentially small where he lives, have to add up over decades.

mcosta 14y ago

Are you serious? Do you have any doubt modern machinery is faster and cheaper? 40 hours/week * 50 week/year * 20 years * 10 $/hour= = 400000$

jakejake 14y ago

It would be way more expensive with modern equipment because all of the politicians would need to get paid, years of debate, massive overcharging for the crew, equipment. Probably kick-backs to various parties. Opening ceremony where politicians cut the ribbon and take all the credit, etc.