Hacker News Reader

Comment by randerson | Hacker News Reader

There is still $5K more _economic_ value created, in that +$5K went to people who might otherwise be jobless. They'll in turn spend that money at businesses in the private sector, reaching more people, and so on. If the man with the septic tank runs a coffee shop, he will see extra value from more coffee sales.

The extra taxes paid by all will (theoretically) improve the schools, roads, military, and services. The regulations will (theoretically) decrease the risk of poisoning ground water and injuring someone, which adds even more value to the local community.

The distinction is just that the septic tank is twice as expensive in the developed country. But that money can lift people out of poverty. The exception is when the company owner is hoarding the majority of the money tax-free instead of paying it to people who will spend it.

View on HN

>There is still $5K more _economic_ value created, in that +$5K went to people who might otherwise be jobless. They'll in turn spend that money at businesses in the private sector, reaching more people, and so on. If the man with the septic tank runs a coffee shop, he will see extra value from more coffee sales.

That's the grade school analysis and in reality we are all poorer for it.

If ten people pay $5k to avoid getting a substandard service that has a 1/10 chance of happening and will cost $20k to remediate if it does that is a massive loss to the overall economy because that money otherwise would've been spent elsewhere else.

This isn't just septics, it's every widget and service. And it's not just a government and tax problem (though those cases are frequently most flagrant). Private industry requirements cause the same problems.

Ahh the bad high school maths take, which doesn't account for the risk.

People don't just build 1 thing for a house nor can they afford a $20k failure.

If you take Fred who saves up $10k for a major purchase for his house each year.

If there is a 10% chance of a failure, then Fred will have a 53% chance of bankruptcy in 7 years.

You can't run an economy where everyone is bankrupt.

Calling out people for “bad high school math” when you can’t even write a coherent sentence is pathetic.

A man saving 10K per year goes bankrupt if he doesn’t spend it productively? That’s what you’re trying to say?

And in some areas it's even worse than that - construction quality for housing can be very poor. You basically need an independent building inspection to not get scammed by poor quality construction.

So instead of a man with a backhoe we should instead hire 10 men with spoons?

The person who wanted the septic tank almost certainly would spend that $5k somewhere else if he had it. Except in that circumstance he would spend it on something that he thought provided him value, instead of overbearing regulation.

As someone with a septic tank, I'd rather spend more on a system that won't fail and won't kill anyone. I'd grumble while paying so much but I'd still do it. Just like I'd rather pay more for a car from the over-regulated EU than one for half the price from a country with no safety or quality regulations.

I realize I don't speak for the more cash strapped population, and I agree that overbearing regulation can be a problem. The problem is not regulations themselves, which save lives, but the perverse execution of new regulations in countries like the US (often written by market leaders to cement their moat, with the power of lobbying.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com