Hacker News Reader

Comment by diego | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure every day in the US there are many, many reports of structures with damage that needs to be fixed immediately (my house was one of them). Almost all of them don't collapse. Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building.

Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. Care to explain where you disagree? If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously) then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.

View on HN

That could be a bad assumption. In some circumstances, inspectors with ties to construction companies may have incentives to add to the sales funnel, but I believe, anecdotally, that inspection companies tend to have no ties with construction companies to avoid the optics of exactly what you are describing.

Anyone that's ever gone to a mechanic knows getting inspection come from the place that's supposed to do the work is a crap shoot.

While I understand your concern your viewpoint is naive. Civil engineering is a relatively close knit field (as are many fields). Possibility for kickbacks is definitely there.

Something that has really put me off of license requirements is the relish that I have seen inspectors take in telling people they're going to need tens of thousands in renovations to bring a home up to code. Some of these items are things like "window sill does not go far enough inside."

You're supposition and your anecdote don't tell the same story. Overly restrictive codes and under the table kick backs are two entirely different issues. They may stem from the same pot, but one is legal red tape and the other is clearly illegal.

That being said, you may be right, but I don't see anything that supports the parent comment's assertion about it being widespread enough to affect decisions around making repairs, especially in situations where the building is structurally not sound.

I worked for a civil engineering firm. You are typically hired by and owner to draw up plans. You put jobs out for bid but the contracts are between the owner and the construction company.

Insurance and the threat of lawsuits keep the engineering part of the business pretty clean.

I think your conflating them with city inspectors which come by and make sure construction is up to code.

I didn't downvote you, but I'm pretty sure it's this sentence that got you the downvotes:

> Obviously there is a problem with the credibility of the reports because of conflicting incentives. Inspectors are usually from construction companies who want to get work, so they will always find something wrong with a building.

Responding for myself: I have read many such reports, met inspectors, and never ever had the perception which you label an "obvious problem." In my experience, HN doesn't take well to aspersions cast without supporting evidence, much less unsubstantiated aspersions qualified as "obvious."

Hope that helps.

You could just as easily argue that the owners of the building must be at fault because they have a financial incentive not to repair structural damage for as long as possible.

We can also look at this from the lens of outcomes if we lean too far one way or the other with our approach to safety standards - too strict, and we allocate money poorly. Too lax, and people die.

This was an independent report done on behalf of the condominium by an engineering firm they chose to do the report.

That does not contradict at all what I said. Why the downvote? Also, have you read the report?

>Also, have you read the report?

Yes, it's publicly available and even linked to in this thread.

That’s why I asked. I just read it myself and it doesn’t say that a catastrophe is imminent. It looks relatively mundane.

The report is signed and stamped by the principal PE (professional engineer) not a construction company. These PEs are licensed by the state.

It’s linked in the thread and is very readable.

The report is rather matter of fact and lays out on page 7 what the problem was and what needs to happen to fix. This was 2018. Because a lot is unknowable these reports don’t tend to give a timeline for structural failure, but it does give some serious warnings.

Your premise:

> If thousands of daily reports warn of damage that must be fixed immediately and most are of no consequences (obviously)

is correct, but your conclusion:

> then the problem is that the reports don't accurately reflect the severity of the damage and the consequences of ignoring it.

does not follow. To put this in probabilistic terms, you need to consider the expected value of the consequences, not just the probability.

Here one of the terms in that equation is the negative cost of killing 150 people. That cost is so high that even a fractional percent chance of building collapse means that the recommendation to fix immediately is credible, correct, and does accurately reflect the consequences of ignoring it.

I didn’t downvote, but … this is just some claims and assertions with no reason to believe them. It’s fine that you think these things I guess, but it’s not a useful comment cause it’s just speculation and frankly it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about previous experiences with inspectors. Are there really “thousand of daily reports” like this, or is that just a feeling you have? Is the threshold of “urgently fix this for safety reasons” too low due to bad incentives? I don’t know, and though you think that, you haven’t backed it up so the comment is low quality and the downvotes are helpful imo.

I guarantee you, all houses and alertments will Eventually collapse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com