Libertarians: this is why we have building codes. We don't need builders cutting corners and harming people years down the road, because profit convinced them that was the right thing to do for their own interests.
The cost of wiring up a hallway and putting in some outlets is only a small fraction of the cost of a new house but when you have dozens and dozens of these types of requirements, it does drive up the cost for a benefit that exists at a much lower level than when the requirements was added.
One of the suggestions was that if a homeowner didn't like the requirements, they could petition the authors of the International Residential Code for an amendment during the next release of the code manual in three years. This sounds reasonable to bureaucratic authoritarians but isn't something an individual should be required to go through just because they're not interested in living in a 1970s shag carpeted retro wonderland.
There is an opposite example to your hallway carpet example: many old bathrooms were not required to have outlets because there were not many mains powered bathing accessories, but now there have been multiple instances of people being electrocuted when running extension cords from other rooms into the bathroom to use.
Really, if we had outlets everywhere that met the best safety standards possible -- we'd prevent all of these issues, in any time. But we don't do this because people want to save money.
> Is this something that should be legally mandated for everyone? Especially since wall-to-wall carpeting has fallen out of fashion...
That's a bizarre argument. Anyone who knows about fashions knows that 1) what goes out of fashion, often comes back into fashion again, 2) fashions aren't universally followed. Unless building codes were changed to forbid carpeted hallways, I don't see any good rationale for eliminating the code requirements for them. America isn't Japan, it's quite reasonable to assume someone will likely put carpet in that hallway at a later date (anecdote: I personally know people who have pulled out carpet and found hardwood floors underneath).
Also you're focusing too much one one rationale. Those outlets are also very useful for night lights. Falling isn't usually a big deal for younger people, but it can be very serious for older people.
I'm not pointing this out to blame those people in any way, but it may be legitimately they can't afford better housing and this is the best they could do and the risk of dying in an earthquake was better than their alternatives. Maybe sturdier housing everywhere would mean some those people would have been dead long ago from exposure.
People can be tricked, be stupid, just have bad ideas, or similar. Building codes are a check against all that. And if they make a certain class of housing more expensive, there are always alternatives of other classes of housing.
See the market for lemons.
Can you please point out in the article where it states these occupants knowingly purchased/rented a structurally compromised home? Because the article I read does not state this.
Don't say foolish things before reading the article.
Non-libertarians: this is exactly why we never trust governments with our lives. Free markets would eventually find a cost-effective solution but governments will only manage to instill a false sense of security with promises and lies while happily taking our money with both hands.
The facts would seem to disagree with this assumption.
Yeah Norfolk Southern really showed the dang gubmint how it's done. Raise your glass of contaminated Ohio River water to private enterprise!
Does anybody know what they are?
Does anybody know if builders are required to follow them?
Here's a good place to start: https://codecheck.com/code-adoption-by-state/