Hacker News Reader

> without onerous regulation about fire escapes

History education in America may have failed you - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

Did you, er, believe fire escapes were stupid and unnecessary? I don't understand.

I mean, I would personally decide to live in a building in NYC without a fire escape if I could get, say, 50% cheaper rents.

I’m sure many others would to. Maybe you wouldn’t, but then you don’t have to live there if you think the risks are too high, right? I would just like to choose the risks myself, instead of other people deciding for me.

That’s not unreasonable, don’t you think?

That is incredibly unreasonable, because

1) Fires tend to spread. Fire codes are not just for your own benefit, they're for the benefit of everyone around you.

2) If you live in a fire trap and it eventually catches on fire, firefighters will run unnecessary risks when they rush in to try to save you. It's not fair to them to put them in that situation.

3) You talk about choosing the risks yourself, but your life is connected to other peoples lives in countless ways. Your choice of how much risk to take on affects many more people than just you. That's why it's totally fine for society to insist on fire escapes.

But where is the line drawn? Clearly drinking or smoking or doing drugs has the same problem, should all those things really be illegal? How about abortion? Or deciding to name your child "Dick Head Jr."? Or having kids?

If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice.

The problem isn't that fire escapes are bad. It's that regulation slowly and surely just inches forward, consuming everything in its path.

If your first assumption about people is that they are too stupid to make choices for themselves, the natural conclusion is despotism. Do you think you're too stupid to make decisions yourself as well?

Would you be fine with someone telling you that maybe you are too stupid to have kids? Or maybe too stupid to drive a car? Or too stupid to decide what profession you want in life (you would write terrible code, so it's in the public interest that you become a janitor where your stupidity can't hurt anyone else)? Or maybe you're so stupid that we should just take you off the street?

OR, maybe, just maybe, you and the market should decide these things for yourself.

Edit: In regard to the fire fighter thing. Individuals could just pay insurance for fire protection. It naturally would be cheaper in places with fire escapes. There's no reason why public services like fire fighters or ambulances have to be public, they would probably just function more efficiently as private entities.

>If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice.

Your entire argument hinges on slippery slope fallacy. Implementation of a thing in a restricted doesn't necessarily lead to an unrestricted implementation of it.

Nobody is saying "you are too stupid to decide fire safety for yourself." We are saying "it is cheaper (more efficient) to have specialists decide fire safety guidelines and implement them universally, than it is to guarantee equal knowledge of fire safety for all citizens."

Because, a free market isn't free if it's unfair. Your libertarian argument requires perfect fairness, or it's immoral. And obviously, perfect fairness in a free market system is... a high barrier to cross.

So, regulation. Efficient, fair. Flawed, but not broken, and not nearly as exploitable as "the free market."

By the way - what happened before the fire safety regulations? People died, horribly, tragically. If you believe they deserved to die because they didn't educate themselves on fire safety, your expectations are far too high. Do you know how planes, electricity, your car, roads, clean water, sewer treatment, food safety (at the source, not cooking), radiological and chemical safety systems work? Do you know how to use a tomahawk missile to enforce your sovereign borders? No? Maybe you don't deserve the protections they offer then.

I think there's a big difference between "a society without any personal freedom or choice" and one where there are certain regulations for the public good. Some examples might be hate speech laws or food safety. Those do put concrete limits on the behaviours of individuals and corporate entities, but help guide society to grow and operate in a way considered healthier than if left alone.

I'm skeptical of the notion that regulation "slowly and surely just inches forward" naturally. Maybe you could explain a bit?

Along with the other stated reasons, this is in line with one of my original points: you don't have the sufficient education on fire safety to be making that decision in an informed way.

You, personally, may be a fire inspector, but you in the royal sense are not - the general population. Any given individual. It is far more burdensome to guarantee that everyone has enough knowledge about the risks and functions of fire, to make a fair and reasoned decision about fire safety in their buildings, than it is to just enforce a fire code.

I don't understand what is the uproar about regulation.

Regulations are there because companies will do whatever gives them more money, damn the impact on the environment/people/anything else.

That's the upside of regulation, yes. The downside of regulation is that it makes everything terrible in different ways. FRA regulations is why the U.S. can't buy ready-made trainsets from Europe for a fraction of the cost. Housing regulations increase prices and become a vehicle for propping up property values. A lot of the things hipster millennials care about (e.g. walkable cities dense neighborhoods, fiber internet, affordable housing, public transit) are directly prohibited by regulations.

There's actually a decent-sized group of people in queens that oppose Amazon moving in. Anecdotally I've known some people in queens who've had rents raised mid-lease and more that are looking for new places to move to. There's also concern about what's going to happen to the public housing in LIC.

As an aside, regulation is necessary, the trick is finding a balance. Regulation is very necessary, it's why if someone has wronged you, you're able to take them to court. It's why your medicine is likely to actually be what you purchased and reasonably effective (look at historic curealls for the alternatives) and why fires are relatively small nowadays (ie a house or two are burning down, not the whole district or city. Regulation has probably added 20 years to the average life. On a semi-related note, http://confreaks.tv/videos/devopsdaysnyc2018-the-history-of-... is extremely worth watching.

> Regulation has probably added 20 years to the average life.

The huge increases in life expectancy happened in the 19th century, not the 20th. There hasn't been much increase since the advent of heavy regulation.

>> I honestly believe that regulation is the root of all evil and most social ills

Well we can just end the conversation here then. "Regulations" are what prevent child labor. They're what help curb pollution. They're how we kept plaster of paris out of milk. The fact that you're somehow assuming that ALL regulation is evil shows a willful ignorance to the evils committed when they weren't in place.

There is good and bad regulation, just as there are all kinds of good and bad laws. You're going with a whole LOT of really terrible generalizations here.

It’s not that in the absence of regulation, companies are going to be scrupulous, it’s that the cure is worse than the disease in the first place. After all, many regulations are actually lobbied for by the big corporations themselves, to prevent small companies from competiting with them.

Good, that's a fantastic example of "regulatory capture," one of the downsides to the very existence of a government at all.

So, what's your alternative solution to regulation, that both prevents plaster of paris in milk but also regulatory capture?

I say we should publish blogs or whatnot about bad products, and then capitalism will figure it out. After all, without the government, only corporations that are providing value will continue to exist. The reason why many corporations today aren't providing real value is because of rent-seeking.

>I say we should publish blogs or whatnot about bad products,

1. With what piece of hardware will you write this post? What assurance do you have that the manufacturer will allow you to write negative blog posts about them or their partners?

2. Via what infrastructure will you connect to what network, upon which to publish? What assurance do you have that you will be allowed to use that infrastructure to publish negative content about that infrastructure owner or their partners? What about the owners of the network?

3. Upon what websites or domains will you publish these? How will you share them? What assurances do you have that they will remain visible and accessible?

>then capitalism will figure it out

"Hand wave" fallacy. There's no substance to your argument. This is a meaningless statement.

> After all, without the government, only corporations that are providing value will continue to exist.

Evidence for your claim? Supporting argument?

> The reason why many corporations today aren't providing real value is because of rent-seeking.

Evidence for your claim? Supporting argument?

Based on what you've said, why should I believe you have a better solution that regulatory status quo? Enacting change requires solid evidence, arguments, logic, and reasoning. Wouldn't you agree it would be foolish to undertake a new endeavor without a majority of the above?

So the best example of a free market here is from China...

Chinese companies made a bad product (in this case poisoned baby formula)... And so now there's a thriving market in buying formula in countries that have all the regulation and shipping it in at an even higher markup.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/abc-investigation-unc...

> onerous regulation about fire escapes

We live in a society. Societies have rules. One of the rules of our society is we don't move people into dangerous tenements where they're likely to burn to death because they're trapped and can't get out.

I for one, would like to make those decisions myself instead of the government deciding for me.

The implication that you are competent enough to accurately assess that threat and all others like it is so ridiculous that nobody should take you seriously.

You could say the same thing about having children, or deciding what to eat in the morning. Or deciding what to do with your life.

Could you explain to me how you would draw the line? People can't and shouldn't be protected from themselves.

A good example is that I got addicted to heroin. It was terrible, yet, I believe that drugs should be legal and that people need to make their own choices, regardless of the consequences.

That's an untenable position, for the following reasons.

First, I want to define "you" as follows:

Multi-usage identifier. "You" functions as stand-in for a hyper rich financier, an immigrant single mother of 2, a college kid working to fund education, a middle aged janitor, etc etc. Any given person existing in the USA.

I'll use "fire safety regulations" as the example.

Your argument is untenable:

1. Individually, you do not have the experience or education to make an informed decision regarding fire safety (be it, determining whether you want to work in a location given the fire safety mechanisms they have chosen, or, choosing to eat in a location given the fire safety mechanisms they have chosen, etc).

2. You probably don't have a choice in the fire safety mechanism implementations of where you eat, work, live. You more than likely are forced to make those decisions based on factors such as the need to have money to eat (place of employment), the need for a heated place to live in the winter (place of residence) that is within your budget, etc. Therefore, there is no "government choosing for you," there is no "you choosing for you," it is whoever owns the building.

3. As evidenced in rapidly developing nations, those that do have the power to make decisions regarding fire safety mechanisms will, deliberately or otherwise, make bad ones, without government regulation and enforcement.

http://iafss.org/publications/fss/8/353/view/fss_8-353.pdf

Don't forget that regulations aren't just an enforcement mechanism, they're a standards one. The government pooled our resources to find "the best" standard way to make fire safety in buildings acceptable. That allows builders and parts manufacturers to efficiently develop a standard set of fittings and equipment. It literally saves everyone money, while saving lives.

'You probably don't have a choice ...' is a reach. The rest is well-argued.

Anyway the most telling point is if OP gets his wish, then next time a bunch of people burn to death the public will clamor again for mandatory fire escapes, inevitably. We aren't the sort of people he wishes we were.

Suppose you had a car dealership. Cars were flying off the lot. No discounts or rebates needed. Google comes in and buys 10, Facebook takes another 10. Amazon then comes in and asks for 25 and wants a $5000 rebate for each car. You give it to them. That rebate was still in the margin of what you were making, but now all your other loyal customers that had no problem buying your product for the quality of what you sell now want concessions too. Yes you still "made money" but you devalued a premium product that was selling well for no good reason. The better move business wise would be to tell the person that wants a discount to go to someone willing to offer it. Amazon needs NYC as well.

If Google comes in with an order for 25 cars too, instead of 10, they can get the discount as well.

Quantity discounts are normal and commonplace, and do not result in single item prices being forced down to match.

Businessmen aren't fools.

I’ve never really heard a claim like this. What regulations lead to higher prescription drug costs and higher healthcare costs generally?

FDA approval process requires a ton of upfront R&D resources with zero guarantees. This is mostly a good thing but it's not black and white. Malpractice law is another example of regulations driving the price up, we can't get rid of malpractice law but the structure matters.

Wait are you serious or is this incredibly subtle sarcasm?

I don't agree with the poster above, but one common cited example is that emergency rooms are required to treat all patents regardless of their ability to pay. So they have to raise prices for everyone else in order to manage the risk that someone won't pay.

We can't import generics from Europe leading to shortages.

I always thought the high prices in the US was because of not having universal healthcare - when you are buying for millions of people, you can have lower prices? It's not like the US is the only country that regulates drugs?

For an extensive article on how regulation dramatically increases health care costs:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...

United Healthcare, a US insurer, covers 40M people. That's bigger than the entire population of Canada, but Canada has cheaper drugs.

Good point, thanks

For higher drug costs, see "Regulation and Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Peltzman, which shows through statistics that the 1962 FDA regulations have resulted in a large increase in drug costs with no net increase in safety. (While more bad drugs have been blocked, this is counterbalanced by good drugs taking much longer to be approved. Unknown is what drugs were never developed because of the much increased cost of the regulations.)

Here's an article if you're interested:

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healt...

>What’s wrong with tax breaks? It’s like people are under the impression that the government is actually paying Amazon.

What do you think a tax break is?

>If Amazon didn’t get any tax breaks, they would have gone somewhere else.

If the cost of upgrading the city infrastructure to handle the new influx of people (and other associated costs) is higher than the income from Amazon, it's a bad deal for the city.

Also: >If Amazon didn’t get any tax breaks, they would have gone somewhere else.

No. No they wouldn't. The tax breaks are only part of the equation. If it was only about money, other locations offered more. New York is arguable one of the 3 most important cities on the planet, and pretending that multinational business scoff at it unless they get paid to bring their businesses into town is laughable.

==No. No they wouldn’t==

You don’t know this to be true, at all. If the tax breaks didn’t matter and it was always going to be NYC, Amazon likely wouldn’t have conducted the whole dog and pony show in the first place. In reality, NYC has a huge talent base which is enticing to Amazon; they also offered significant tax incentives, which is enticing to Amazon. Both can be true.

Or one can be true and not the other. I will agree that neither of us know WTF was going on in the Amazon meetings that decided where to go. I will concede that I jumped the gun in speaking in an absolute.

It's entirely possible the tax breaks or lack there of would have affected their decision, but because NYC offers things very few other cities on the planet can offer in regards to both human capital as well as other amenities it's also possible that it was a cherry on top and not the sundae itself.

A tax break is Amazon paying less, not the government paying them.

That’s a pretty big distinction, don’t you think?