Hacker News Reader

Comment by spicyusername | Hacker News Reader

Building out of wood is cheap and perfectly strong for most areas.

Engineering is always a set of trade-offs.

Given the choice between earthquake-proof and fire-proof I'd go with earthquake-proof every single time since you can't run from an earthquake.

I don't get how can one put his own future in a cheaply built building you're one fire or thougher-than-usual natural event away from losing.

It's normal nobody wants to insure such risky assets, especially as nominal value of this wooden crap is stellar due to the skewed demand/offer ratio plaguing good parts of US.

In my life I've seen my and my family's real estate being hit by a tree, fire, floodings and I've never had to face anything close to a total loss.

Huge expenses? Sure. But never anything close to a loss.

The only thing that could put my real estate on a serious risk are earthquakes, I guess that's a scenario where lighter built houses would have instead an advantage.

Define "cheaply built". These houses are already hugely expensive, to the point that we cant even afford to build more.

This is less like "well, I could get the $10 pants and have to replace them in a few months, or the $70 pants and have them last a decade" sort of cheap, and more the "well, I've been saving a mortgage down-payment for 15 years in the top 30% of individual wage earners, and this is the best built house I can afford" kind.

The options are either pay more for this one thing than literally any other possession you or anyone you know will ever own, or live in a tent or worse.

I feel like criticizing people for pragmatism in the face of (literally) existential threats is some kind of next-level privilege.

It's mostly that there is virtually no one in America who knows how to build with concrete/bricks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com