Live data from Hacker News

The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

bloomberg.com

431–440 of 564 posts

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not here labor is almost always our largest cost by far and away. Labor costs are typically 4 or more multiples of profit for most of our work.

It labor's like 80% of marginal costs 1/4 of it would be tremendous profit margins matched by exceptions like google and pharma. You can see why I'm probing. Can you disclose the typical industry margin? Are your costs Hawaii costs as the username suggests?

Yes, Honolulu County.

We are typically lucky to make 10 to 15% profit on Prevailing Wage Work, (Federal or State).

We do occasionally but it's generally luck coupled with good management and having the ideal crew on the job.

https://labor.hawaii.gov/rs/files/2012/12/WRS489.pdf

Prevailing Wage Schedule for Hawaii for Public Works. New York localities are even higher.

We do laborer classification work, with some small percentage of "Operators". The skilled trades are even higher.

The next bump for Laborer 1 (what we pay the workers when they are performing asbestos removal) occurs in September 2017. At that point they will be making $55.66 an hour.

We pay the entire Base wage and Fringe to the workers, as opposed to union shops.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a large number of people all have to go in the same direction at a similar time, isn't that what public transit is for? Cars are more useful when people need to go to random places at indeterminate times.

I don't even understand the need of physically being at the same place, for information workers at least (until remote surgery and hairdressing catch up). Working remotely is good for the environment! I like cars, but I'd never want to use one for commuting. Random places at indiscriminate times — this is what cars are for indeed.

I recently wrote a lengthy counterpoint to that:

https://likewise.am/2017/05/19/in-response-to-the-cult-of-re...

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal Highways in the US are designed to increase national security. The best example is certain bridges are in certain places so that their destruction would cut off the easy path for mobilized enemy armor. They're designed to be easily blown up on purpose.

You got any credible sources on that? It sounds like one of those urban legends that people like to repeat. The Eisenhower interstate system was built in a post-nuclear world, and in a post-nuclear world it's hard to imagine there ever being a mainland invasion of the United States. The bombs would be flying before that, and there wouldn't be anything left worth invading (on any side in the conflict). Being able to u…

The military purpose of the interstate is moving friendly troops around (logistics).

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#434
post #158

This article from 2011 ( http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2011/more-b... ) makes a compelling case that, after decades of cutting government jobs and creeping privatization, we simply don't have enough bureaucrats to organize and run large, complex projects anymore. These other countries having success with infra projects still do. Thus the issue.

I've been following and advocating for the Green Line Extension, a major transit expansion in the Boston area. I've been working on this for about 7 years now, through three different project teams, and I can say for certain that lack of effective management is a HUGE issue with the repeated failure of this project.

(This is the third reboot of this project... or maybe fourth. I've lost count.)

Not only does the local transit agency have _nobody_ who can manage the project, but the government doesn't even have the capability to assess contractors who might do that job. So they are totally at the mercy of commercial firms, who get paid whether they deliver or not.

The latest move is to hire a project manager for about $400k/yr (on a contract basis, naturally) to try to "save" the project, which has already spent $1 billion, yet has not put a shovel in the ground. (Ok they did fix up one bridge, woo hoo.)

Unfortunately, this PM is only one guy, and he's being assisted mostly by (you guessed it) more contractors. Even more comically, the contractors who are assisting him are the exact same ones who blew the first billion dollars.

Needless to say I don't have a lot of confidence that the incentives are aligned with me ever riding on this line.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#436

I thought about this when I visited the Hoover Dam. The audacity of the thing and sheer impossibility of doing anything remotely like it in today's America makes it seem like a relic from an ancient civilization. It felt like visiting the pyramids in Egypt.

My father worked on that dam.

One of my favorite photos looks down on him running a small horizontal drill rig into a cliff while suspended on a rope several hundred feet above the river. Just a rope knotted around his waist, no harness.

Definitely would not pass today's construction safety regulations.

I agree about the relic-feeling. I guess there were giants in those days.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#437
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're reading too much into our comments. From your parent comment: > most service industry workers Those are folks that predominantly need to be physically present. We weren't assuming anything about your membership in a privileged elite, just pointing out that lots of people still need to transport themselves to work. Good luck with your writing! I agree that we need better business models to reward it.

You are confused. That is not from any of my comments.

It is from the comment you were replying to when I originally replied to you.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#438
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confused. That is not from any of my comments.

It is from the comment you were replying to when I originally replied to you.

I know exactly where you got it. But you referred to the comment as "your" parent comment. Perhaps you meant something different by that from what that sounds like to me.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already changing in statistically significant ways: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-d...

>It turns out that Millennial behavior during the recession—living in the basement rather than driving to work, and biking and sharing rides elsewhere—did not reflect a preferred lifestyle so much as an accommodation to the longest recession and slowest recovery in modern U.S. history. >By year-end 2016 road travel had hit an all-time high, north of 3.2 trillion vehicle-miles. Gasoline demand has followed apace, also…

That's an interesting article. It didn't gel with my experience of people's motivations for buying cars in the UK, so I had a skim anyway, because what the fuck do I know about America (answer: I went there on holiday once), and ended up clicking on the link about how millenials prefer SUVs: http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ and finding a list of the top 10 used cars that millenials buy.

Now look at that list of used cars.

No, seriously. Just look. Then come back here, because I want your upvote. Now here's s 3 of them to refresh your memory. 3 out of 10. That's 30%. Nearly a third.

    3. Subaru WRX — 26.4% share
    5. Volkswagen R32 — 25.7% share
    7. Nissan GT-R — 25.4% share
What the fuck is this.

These are not normal people cars. Practicality? Is that what millenials like? That's what the article claims! But judging by this list, all I can say is: my arse. The R32 has a fucking V6. In a hatchback. Are we mocking millenials here? Because if so, let me join the queue. If you want practical, you can find something better. Or are we mocking the article? Well, am I allowed to join two queues? Because count me in if so! These are not practical cars.

Or are we mocking the theory that millenials are buying cars. Well, let me join that queue as well, and frankly I don't care if that's not permitted. Because if the VW R32 is the 5th most popular car sold to millenials, and the 3rd is the Subaru WRX, and the 7th is the Nissan GT-R, then I'll bet that your average ordinary normal millenial is probably not, on average, buying a car. Because these are stupid cars that car people buy. They are not cars that average ordinary normal people go for.

Also: check carsalesbase.com! Total USA sales for WRX+STi were around 100,000 since 2010. The market for second hand examples is probably not very large. The Nissan GT-R? Never sold more than 2,000 per year. There's, like, less than 20,000 in the entire country. And that's the 7th most popular second hand car buy for millenials.

The explanation of course may just be that the snake people are buying a huge amount of Dodge Magna and Chrysler Pacificas. That would make sense - these two cars do indeed look relatively practical. Or maybe that they're buying a lot of new cars, since this is a table of used car purchases. And that would make sense too, since new cars, while a bit expensive, do probably have good fuel economy, good in-car functionality (iPod, Bluetooth, etc.), and don't require much in the way of upkeep.

But as evidence that millenials are buying a lot of SUVs, I do dare to claim that this is bullshit.

(And if you call me out on that, then I will downgrade that to merely saying that it does not follow from the evidence provided - which, in my opinion, is the same thing.)

(One of the other links - http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/RETAIL/302279963/th... - has a section entitled "Need, not want", which fits better with what seems to me to be the general trend. And over time this will probably result in greater sales for SUVs and family-friendly cars and the like, I suppose, for obvious reasons. But I still suspect there's something of a change here, and that people will be purchasing what 15-20 years ago might have been an aspirational-type vehicle with a minivan-/estate-type mindset. Which, of course, just as how you today think nothing of having the equivalent of a 1980s Cray supercomputer in your pocket, running off battery power, is evidence of progress.)

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#440
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abusive relationship love-affair is the best explanation I've ever heard of cars in the USA. Just like a an abusive relationship, the car love affair still produces some good things. It's not all dark and dreary. "I hate that he comes home drunk and hits me, but he's so loving and apologetic the next morning." "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the…

Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where you don't need a car — I am genuinely happy for you, as well as envious. But it is not necessary or helpful for someone to bang on about it in every single thread that has anything to do with building stuff. It doesn't help anything, and it just annoys people wh…

Many people don't just "happen" to be in a situation where they don't need a car, they actively put themselves in that situation by making many lifestyle choices.

I changed jobs (twice) to move closer to home. I used to have a job with a 45 - 60 minute car commute (the train was over 2 hours due to the need to make 2 connections), then took a job that was only about 10 miles away (just under an hour by bike, 12 - 30 minutes by car depending on traffic). I took a bit of a pay cut for that job, but it was worth it for saving about an hour/day commuting.

Then I moved to a job that was 2 miles away (10 minutes by bike or by car). My job also happens to be close to shops, restaurants, etc -- everything I need for daily living. And I get around 1.5 hours/day of my life back compared to when I had the original, longer commute.

But I didn't just "happen" to end up living where I don't need a car, I actively sought it out.

Post reply on HN