Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 272 posts

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#201

Post by joe_the_user »

InTheArena wrote: post #35

This misses a fundamental point - the goal of this is not to fund infrastructure - it's to fund people who vote for people who vote for infrastructure. There is zero incentive to run on time and on-budget, and every incentive to milk more government cash, so that people in power can get election contributions, that stay in power. If you also deny money to people who didn't vote for you, then all the better as well. S…

It's sad to see a constructive HN thread derailed by a polarized rant like this.

Notably, the OP only mentions the current infrastructure bill, it isn't about that, whatever your opinion on that.

I, too, am against the permanent government. But this is just invitation to unconstructive engagement.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#202

Post by wolverine876 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #182
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? It's important, because it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good j…

> can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? Corruption doesn't have a party. What matters is the candidates. Rand Paul and Liz Cheney are in the same party, but they're not the same. Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff are in the same party, but they're not the same.

> Corruption doesn't have a party.

It's a broad statement, but with no evidence. If you mean 'no party is perfectly clean', that's not meaningful, like saying 'nobody is perfectly honest': some people are far more honest than others. If you don't hold the parties to account for their organized behavior, then they have no incentive to stop.

Some parties tolerate or use corruption more than others, and by far the worst I've seen in the US is the current and recent GOP, following its de facto current leader. That doesn't make the Dems pure, and we do need to focus on individual candidates too. But if you elect members of party A, then party A gets more power, especially if they control a legislative house or executive branch, and especially elected GOP representatives vote almost strictly party line, regardless of the candidates.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#203

Post by m0llusk »

asdff wrote: post #60
m0llusk wrote: post #41

This article is toxic garbage. The best example of this is how the NYC Second Avenue subway project is cited as an example of costs out of control. This project was initially proposed around a hundred years ago and over time was repeatedly rejected as being far too expensive to ever make sense and then raised again and again for consideration. At the time the work started there was a hundred years of literature going…

Replace the second avenue subway with any other major passenger rail line built in the US in the last ten years, look at the costs per mile of track laid, and see that this is not some unique geological issue with manhattan but a national issue with the ability to cheaply and quickly construct capital improvements.

That makes no sense. Most subways are built with cut and cover. The Second Avenue was only made possible with the very latest in tunneling technology. And that meant a path being dug carefully around multiple existing subways, lots of other infrastructure, and the relatively delicate foundations of old buildings.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the extreme impracticality of the Second Avenue subway was documented starting from the first proposal around a hundred years ago which was rejected as being too expensive to make sense. And that was the first of many such studies. Yes, we need to figure out infrastructure and have some problems, but a project that was known to be essentially impossible for a hundred years is being used as a way to bump the averages here. It is not possible to effectively or reasonably generalize based on the most extreme exception available.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#204

Post by wolverine876 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #167
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? It's important, because it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good j…

One slightly supporting evidence is a higher correlation for budget percentage being road infastructure as opposed to other areas. Not causing it but likely because it is easier to slip corruption and kick backs in those budgets than say education budgets, so it winds up inflated for worse results.

Interesting, but I see other reasons for it: in an era where thins are much more politicized - health research, education, etc. etc. - roads are so far apolitical.

Also, is it more prone to corruption? I don't know. What about military budgets, for example?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#205

Post by wolverine876 »

chlee wrote: post #154
GhettoComputers wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changed? Locally you can see Democrats who would be considered Republicans or Republicans who act like Democrats. Bob Dole did many “democratic” things: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/us/politics/bob-dole-dead... and Clinton was a copy of a republican. > Russell Republicans approached Mr. Dole in 1950 to run for the Kansas State Legislature — they saw the hometown war hero as an easy sell. But he had not yet…

Politics has become increasingly hyper-partisan since the 90s [0]. It has become been more about your team vs my team + purity testes and less about politician's policies. As a result, conservative democrats and moderate/progressive republicans of the yesteryear are becoming increasingly rare nowadays. For example, 13 house republicans voted for the infrastructure bill b'c their constituents will benefit from the bil…

Both-sides-are-the-same is lazy analsysis that avoids the difficult and essential question: Where is the problem?

Moderate Democrats dominate the party, as can be seen in the people in the White House, leading and controlling Congress, and even the next mayor of NY. In the GOP, arguably the most radical candidate ever was elected to the White House and dominates the party, with much of the party at the national and state level taking unprecendeted, radical steps to gain power, such as attempting to overthrow the will of the people: Most Republicans in Congress voted to overturn election results. You won't find both sides doing these things.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#206

Post by coredog64 »

ska wrote: post #43
davidw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all things, but they're things in other countries, too. France has strong unions and subcontractors and bureaucrats and all of that. And yet it costs less there.

I think it's a mistake to think of european unions and american unions as "the same thing". Relationships with unions in the US seem much more adversarial than there, on average. As you say, there are politics, labor relations, etc. in europe too - I wonder if they are just better at cooperating on this sort of project for some reason?

US unions are that way as a consequence of racism. No, really. There was a US union that wasn’t doing its duty to represent African-American members. So it goes all the way to the USSC and the gist is that unions have to represent every member or be decertified.

In contrast, in a country like Germany, the union and management can agree that Hans is a fuckup and it’s in everyone’s best interest that he finds a new job.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#207

Post by bradlys »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #182
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? It's important, because it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good j…

> can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? Corruption doesn't have a party. What matters is the candidates. Rand Paul and Liz Cheney are in the same party, but they're not the same. Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff are in the same party, but they're not the same.

Bernie is an independent.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#208

Post by jjj123 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #87
InTheArena wrote: post #35

This misses a fundamental point - the goal of this is not to fund infrastructure - it's to fund people who vote for people who vote for infrastructure. There is zero incentive to run on time and on-budget, and every incentive to milk more government cash, so that people in power can get election contributions, that stay in power. If you also deny money to people who didn't vote for you, then all the better as well. S…

I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? It's important, because it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good j…

I don’t think arguing both parties are corrupt disarms us. Instead, I see it as a rallying cry to either upend the system or to work outside of it.

Some examples of political action (that work!) outside of the party system:

- participating in a climate strike

- unionizing your workplace

- voting for local candidates that aren’t tied to the 2 party system

- voting for candidates that the mainstream (ie: rich donors) of the party largely reject.

I hear what you’re saying that it sounds cynical on a surface level, maybe we need to do better on the messaging for what actions to take _after_ you’ve decided everyone in power is beholden to capital.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#209

Post by [deleted] »

wolverine876 wrote: post #205
chlee wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics has become increasingly hyper-partisan since the 90s [0]. It has become been more about your team vs my team + purity testes and less about politician's policies. As a result, conservative democrats and moderate/progressive republicans of the yesteryear are becoming increasingly rare nowadays. For example, 13 house republicans voted for the infrastructure bill b'c their constituents will benefit from the bil…

Both-sides-are-the-same is lazy analsysis that avoids the difficult and essential question: Where is the problem? Moderate Democrats dominate the party, as can be seen in the people in the White House, leading and controlling Congress, and even the next mayor of NY. In the GOP, arguably the most radical candidate ever was elected to the White House and dominates the party, with much of the party at the national and s…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#210

Post by aught »

wolverine876 wrote: post #202
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? Corruption doesn't have a party. What matters is the candidates. Rand Paul and Liz Cheney are in the same party, but they're not the same. Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff are in the same party, but they're not the same.

> Corruption doesn't have a party. It's a broad statement, but with no evidence. If you mean 'no party is perfectly clean', that's not meaningful, like saying 'nobody is perfectly honest': some people are far more honest than others. If you don't hold the parties to account for their organized behavior, then they have no incentive to stop. Some parties tolerate or use corruption more than others, and by far the worst…

I think you missed Mouse’s point and reframed his statement in terms of false deductions and the statement structures are entirely different; laterally but missed the dart board.

You both have entirely different points here, both valid but for very different reasons.

Post reply on HN