|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > February 2007 > Why won't builders build what people want?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why won't builders build what people want?
|
|
| JohnV@nn 2007-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
Presumably, the movement away from ranch houses is due to the ever-
shrinking lot size. I remember when a quarter acre was a postage
stamp. Now a quarter is considered a "large lot" by the builders. A
lot size of 0.11 acre is quickly becoming the defacto standard around
here. And for obvious reasons, you can't build much of a house on
that unless it's multi-level.
And presumably, they don't like to build basements because the
basement adds nothing to the heated living area, and when they're
figuring their profits, they have to figure price per square foot of
HLA. So to maximize profit, they simply don't build basements.
I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
want to build.
| |
| Matt Whiting 2007-02-08, 8:25 pm |
| JohnV@nn wrote:
> In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
> like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
> houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
> slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
> that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
> survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
> Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
> The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
>
> Presumably, the movement away from ranch houses is due to the ever-
> shrinking lot size. I remember when a quarter acre was a postage
> stamp. Now a quarter is considered a "large lot" by the builders. A
> lot size of 0.11 acre is quickly becoming the defacto standard around
> here. And for obvious reasons, you can't build much of a house on
> that unless it's multi-level.
>
> And presumably, they don't like to build basements because the
> basement adds nothing to the heated living area, and when they're
> figuring their profits, they have to figure price per square foot of
> HLA. So to maximize profit, they simply don't build basements.
>
> I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
> problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
> seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
> want to build.
>
No, they build what sells. You can take all of the surveys you want,
but all that matters in the end is what people actually buy. Trust me,
if what is being built stops selling, then it will stop being built very
quickly.
And if you have a house built, you can spec it any way you want. That
is what I did.
Matt
| |
|
|
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:tkQyh.2577$Oc.157403@news1.epix.net...
> JohnV@nn wrote:
>
>
> No, they build what sells. You can take all of the surveys you want, but
> all that matters in the end is what people actually buy. Trust me, if
> what is being built stops selling, then it will stop being built very
> quickly.
>
> And if you have a house built, you can spec it any way you want. That is
> what I did.
>
> Matt
As long as you have a signed contract. This is very important. And if you
have a professional architect / structural engineer and express your desire
to match the home as designed with no changes unless your professional
designer gets your permission from you to make the change.
CID...
| |
| longshot 2007-02-09, 9:25 am |
| I live in central Indiana & most houses are 2 story on slab. The reasoning
is simple. Its very difficult to put in DRY basements when the water level
is almost at grade. Frost is only 30" so footers are no where near basement
elevation like further north where you have to dig 54" anyway. the added
cost is substantial. You could get a 2 story for 20 grand less than the
ranch with the basement, & no headaches to deal with when it starts to leak.
| |
| Matt Whiting 2007-02-09, 9:25 am |
| Chuck wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:tkQyh.2577$Oc.157403@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>
> As long as you have a signed contract. This is very important. And if you
> have a professional architect / structural engineer and express your desire
> to match the home as designed with no changes unless your professional
> designer gets your permission from you to make the change.
> CID...
Well, if you engage a builder and don't have a signed contract, then you
aren't smart enough to even own a house. However, if you don't have a
contract, then if you don't like the house you don't have to pay for it.
Matt
| |
| Matt Whiting 2007-02-09, 9:25 am |
| longshot wrote:
> I live in central Indiana & most houses are 2 story on slab. The reasoning
> is simple. Its very difficult to put in DRY basements when the water level
> is almost at grade. Frost is only 30" so footers are no where near basement
> elevation like further north where you have to dig 54" anyway. the added
> cost is substantial. You could get a 2 story for 20 grand less than the
> ranch with the basement, & no headaches to deal with when it starts to leak.
>
>
>
Where do you hide when the tornado comes through?
Matt
| |
| longshot 2007-02-09, 9:25 am |
|
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:yDYyh.2584$Oc.157300@news1.epix.net...
> longshot wrote:
>
>
> Where do you hide when the tornado comes through?
>
> Matt
we don't hide we go outside to see what all that noise is. It's a Darwin
thing. :-)
| |
| Lawrence 2007-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 8, 7:31 pm, "JohnV@nn" <jmvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
> like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
> houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
> slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
> that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
> survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
> Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
> The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
>
I learned in a Soils class that many soild are simply not well suited
for a basement due to the soil conditions. People will build the
basements anyway, of course. This leads to a lot of problems
including wet basements, shifting foundations, and the damage that
goes along with those things. Could be the reason local builder don't
like basements is because their soil engineers and lawyers don't like
them.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-09, 1:25 pm |
| > No, they build what sells.
Well, what they can build CHEAP.
> You can take all of the surveys you want, but all that matters in the end
> is what people actually buy.
People buy based more on location that what the house actually is. In days
past, they were homes, now there merely crash pads that people expect to
occupy for no more than three years. Hell, notice how many people without
basements park a $40,000 car in the driveway and store all their crap in the
garage.
> Trust me, if what is being built stops selling, then it will stop being
> built very quickly.
That mindset work for the "Big Three" automakers for a generation or so,
then when it petered out, Japan cleaned their clocks.
People are so inured to the cookie-cutter homes, they'd buy anything that's
new. I've seen some real verge-of-falling-down crap that was scarfed up like
a shark frenzy.
I'm appalled by the builders of $300K+ home that use Wal-Mart quality
fixtures.
Matt Barrow
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"Lawrence" <lwhaley@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:1171035146.973557.281800@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 7:31 pm, "JohnV@nn" <jmvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I learned in a Soils class that many soild are simply not well suited
> for a basement due to the soil conditions. People will build the
> basements anyway, of course. This leads to a lot of problems
> including wet basements, shifting foundations, and the damage that
> goes along with those things. Could be the reason local builder don't
> like basements is because their soil engineers and lawyers don't like
> them.
That's only a factor in a (very?) few areas.
| |
| Lawrence 2007-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 9, 9:44 am, "Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@site_fill.com> wrote:
> "Lawrence" <lwha...@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171035146.973557.281800@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's only a factor in a (very?) few areas.-
What we learned it that it is widespread at least in Minnesota. Very
few of our soils are qualified to have a basement according to the
soil scientists. Almost all older homes are build with basements
anyway since no soil test is required for a basement to be built.
Sump pums and dry wells are routine.
A basement is desireable for a house in a cold climate for obvious
reasons. A basement can be built anywhere and waterproofing has
improved a lot. That does not mean that a soil scientist will agree
or approve. There are few dry basements in Minnesota in older houses
and I suspect newer houses will leak given enough time.
I will agree that a specialist in soils is likely to have a rather
conservative view when asked to put his reputation on the line. That
does not make their opinions less valid just conservative.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| "Lawrence" <lwhaley@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:1171050521.508096.150850@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What we learned it that it is widespread at least in Minnesota.
Okay..do you comprehend what "a few areas" means?
| |
| Chi' Minh Jr. 2007-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| Builders need to make money too. In the lower end 2-story-and-slap
subdivisions, they have to cut corners to make money. Basement and
large lots are the first things to go, followed by cheap materials and
sloppy work. :-)
What people want is one thing. What they can afford is another.
For people who can afford it, yes, there are subdivisions with large
lot, basement, and one-story.
JohnV@nn wrote:
> In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
> like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
> houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
> slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
> that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
> survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
> Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
> The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
>
> Presumably, the movement away from ranch houses is due to the ever-
> shrinking lot size. I remember when a quarter acre was a postage
> stamp. Now a quarter is considered a "large lot" by the builders. A
> lot size of 0.11 acre is quickly becoming the defacto standard around
> here. And for obvious reasons, you can't build much of a house on
> that unless it's multi-level.
>
> And presumably, they don't like to build basements because the
> basement adds nothing to the heated living area, and when they're
> figuring their profits, they have to figure price per square foot of
> HLA. So to maximize profit, they simply don't build basements.
>
> I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
> problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
> seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
> want to build.
>
| |
| Matt Whiting 2007-02-09, 5:25 pm |
| Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Well, what they can build CHEAP.
>
>
>
>
> People buy based more on location that what the house actually is. In days
> past, they were homes, now there merely crash pads that people expect to
> occupy for no more than three years. Hell, notice how many people without
> basements park a $40,000 car in the driveway and store all their crap in the
> garage.
>
>
>
>
> That mindset work for the "Big Three" automakers for a generation or so,
> then when it petered out, Japan cleaned their clocks.
>
> People are so inured to the cookie-cutter homes, they'd buy anything that's
> new. I've seen some real verge-of-falling-down crap that was scarfed up like
> a shark frenzy.
>
> I'm appalled by the builders of $300K+ home that use Wal-Mart quality
> fixtures.
Say what you want, but the bottom line is that it is not the builder's
fault; it is the consumer's fault. If a builder doesn't build what
people want to buy, somebody else will and the market will shift. If
the market in a given area is staying with cheaply constructed homes,
then it is because the area has people who are willing to buy cheaply
constructed homes. And, no, I'm not a builder, but I know a little bit
about economics.
Matt
| |
| DAvid Norris 2007-02-09, 8:25 pm |
| Chi' Minh Jr. wrote:[color=darkred]
> Builders need to make money too. In the lower end 2-story-and-slap
> subdivisions, they have to cut corners to make money. Basement and
> large lots are the first things to go, followed by cheap materials and
> sloppy work. :-)
>
> What people want is one thing. What they can afford is another.
>
> For people who can afford it, yes, there are subdivisions with large
> lot, basement, and one-story.
>
> JohnV@nn wrote:
I've built quite a few buildings in Indianapolis and they won't leak
when built and waterproofed properly such as the 30' square tunnel that
runs under lilly's corporate center, dry as a bone building 47 is
totally underground with 8' of dirt on top with trees planted on top of
a 10" concrete lid
| |
|
| Matt Whiting wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
>
> Say what you want, but the bottom line is that it is not the builder's
> fault; it is the consumer's fault. If a builder doesn't build what
> people want to buy, somebody else will and the market will shift. If
> the market in a given area is staying with cheaply constructed homes,
> then it is because the area has people who are willing to buy cheaply
> constructed homes. And, no, I'm not a builder, but I know a little bit
> about economics.
>
> Matt
Balogna,
The average consumer adjust their wants very quickly to what is
available. They quickly become drones who openly think they ARE actually
buying quality and equally try to deny the repercussions of their
actions with a litany of retorts. As posted in this thread, and others,
this is clear by they boom of Wal-Mart type stores and big box home
centers. It is brutally clear in our political process where the current
mantra (post bush) is "stay on message" because eventually you will
"drill" it into the masses heads and they _will_ begin to follow. It is
a proven method for success. People, in a short period of time, become
numb to what is actually quality and what is not. No different than feed
lot cattle, they eat what they are fed, period. Show me a cow in a field
who will stroll up to a dead cow and start munching, it will never
happen. Yet when some vunderkind came up with rendering, vualah.
The masses are no different, and Matt, you are _not_ an average
consumer. Thinking because you took a class or two in college and know a
bit about economics means you have seen inside the minds, or are in
touch with, the masses is utterly naive. I have personally been working
in the homes of the "average consumer" daily for almost 20 years now. I
see first hand the way they raise their children. The way they
rationalize minor and major purchases. I often times see first hand why
they actually make the buying decisions they make. It is often times for
far different reasons than any they would outwardly confess in a poll or
in social circles. I also see, with them, first hand the repercussions
of their actions on a regular basis.
This is not solely a consumer driven problem and if you think it is you
owe it to yourself to witness it first hand for a few months out of the
year. Start a small business doing something in the average consumers home.
I too assign a major portion of the blame to the consumer however the
average consumer is not the sole problem. I would say it is moreso the
fault of the middle-high end consumer. The one who knows better but does
it anyway.
It is a joint problem of those who dish out the food and those who
consume it. A fat child is not responsible for their fatness when the
mother continually feeds them french fries because of her own reasons.
Personally I would say in today's climate the blame is steadily
shifting towards those who dish out the food rather than those who eat
it meaning less consumer more retailer. There could easily be an
economic revolution causing a reawakening of consumers forcing builders
into a return to quality but I dont know what that would entail.
Mark
| |
| Matt Whiting 2007-02-09, 9:25 pm |
| M&S wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
> Balogna,
> The average consumer adjust their wants very quickly to what is
> available. They quickly become drones who openly think they ARE actually
> buying quality and equally try to deny the repercussions of their
> actions with a litany of retorts. As posted in this thread, and others,
> this is clear by they boom of Wal-Mart type stores and big box home
> centers. It is brutally clear in our political process where the current
> mantra (post bush) is "stay on message" because eventually you will
> "drill" it into the masses heads and they _will_ begin to follow. It is
> a proven method for success. People, in a short period of time, become
> numb to what is actually quality and what is not. No different than feed
> lot cattle, they eat what they are fed, period. Show me a cow in a field
> who will stroll up to a dead cow and start munching, it will never
> happen. Yet when some vunderkind came up with rendering, vualah.
You need to move to a place with smarter people. :-)
Matt
| |
| Timothy Lange 2007-02-09, 9:25 pm |
| Yes, I know, our thoughts too a few years ago. After talking to other
people in the market they agreed with us, we wanted to see more single
levels with basements. Evidently a lot of people thought that way, that
is all they are building in our area now. The last builder expo/open
house had 12 of 16 being ranches with basements!
Tim.
JohnV@nn wrote:
> In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
> like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
> houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
> slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
> that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
> survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
> Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
> The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
>
> Presumably, the movement away from ranch houses is due to the ever-
> shrinking lot size. I remember when a quarter acre was a postage
> stamp. Now a quarter is considered a "large lot" by the builders. A
> lot size of 0.11 acre is quickly becoming the defacto standard around
> here. And for obvious reasons, you can't build much of a house on
> that unless it's multi-level.
>
> And presumably, they don't like to build basements because the
> basement adds nothing to the heated living area, and when they're
> figuring their profits, they have to figure price per square foot of
> HLA. So to maximize profit, they simply don't build basements.
>
> I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
> problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
> seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
> want to build.
>
| |
| Fred P 2007-02-10, 3:25 am |
| In article <MD0zh.283$0y4.140@newsfe14.phx>, mbarrow@site_fill.com
says...
>
> Well, what they can build CHEAP.
Big snip
> I'm appalled by the builders of $300K+ home that use Wal-Mart quality
> fixtures.
Builders use "Wal-Mart quality fixtures" because the "Wal-Mart quality
buyer" will not pay another penny for better fixtures.
On the other hand the Rodeo Drive Buyer will pay 10K for a warmer toilet
seat.
Successful Builders sell what the Buyers in their market want to buy.
| |
|
|
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:UCYyh.2583$Oc.157313@news1.epix.net...
> Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Well, if you engage a builder and don't have a signed contract, then you
> aren't smart enough to even own a house. However, if you don't have a
> contract, then if you don't like the house you don't have to pay for it.
>
> Matt
That is not easy to do. If you don't have contract I think that you really
don't have any control over the construction of the house anyway so you
can't dictate anything related to the house construction or the
architectural elements and plan layout.
CID....
| |
| Joseph Newman 2007-02-10, 5:25 pm |
|
"JohnV@nn" wrote in message
> I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
> problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
> seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
> want to build.
Quit looking at tract homes, and find a custom home builder. Even a tract
home, you can get upgrades on.
If you can't afford to build a custom home, you have no one to blame,
except yourself.
| |
|
| Matt Whiting wrote:
> M&S wrote:
>
>
>
> You need to move to a place with smarter people. :-)
>
> Matt
Heh, perhaps.
I have lived/worked in the land of Harvard, Yale, MIT, cash galore, and
now live in the land of many who did not even get their diploma's and
now farm, raise cattle, hunt for food, and do whatever they can for a
living. Oddly, its very much the same in both locations.
You can see in the media regularly "Jennifer Aniston seen shopping at
Wal-Mart". It is not an issue of wealth or location. Its greed and human
nature. Although those two things are virtually one in the same.
Mark
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-11, 5:25 pm |
| "M&S" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:0%szh.23230$yx6.7450@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> Heh, perhaps.
>
> I have lived/worked in the land of Harvard, Yale, MIT, cash galore, and
> now live in the land of many who did not even get their diploma's and now
> farm, raise cattle, hunt for food, and do whatever they can for a living.
> Oddly, its very much the same in both locations.
>
> You can see in the media regularly "Jennifer Aniston seen shopping at
> Wal-Mart". It is not an issue of wealth or location. Its greed and human
> nature. Although those two things are virtually one in the same.
Think: demographics, now and a generation ago.
A generation ago, people bought a house expecting to live there for 10, 20
years or more. Today it more like 2-3 years. In a way, a basement is for
long term storage, and moving things in and out every couple years is not
desirable.
In many areas of the southwest, garages are a recent feature. Prior to about
the 1980's, carports were considered adequate.
Surveys show people want basements, but they also show people are unwilling
to pay the premium required to build them. This is more a matter of tastes
and demographics than any form of "greed".
In short, people pay less attention to the WHAT of a home, than the WHERE
(closer to work, schools) and basements are wayyyy down on the list.
Build a house with a basement and, say, 1800 sqft for $340K, and a house for
$300K, and 2000sf, and the $300K house will sell first, often by weeks or
months, especially in the dense cookie-cutter developments.
Custom homes are quite different.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-11, 5:25 pm |
|
"Joseph Newman" <none@att.net> wrote in message
news:45ce2c97$0$4935$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "JohnV@nn" wrote in message
>
>
> Quit looking at tract homes, and find a custom home builder. Even a tract
> home, you can get upgrades on.
>
> If you can't afford to build a custom home, you have no one to blame,
> except yourself.
>
People used to speak of it as Cadillac tastes with a Chevy budget.
Note: AKA champagne tastes and a beer budget, but premium beer costs as much
as some champagne these days :~(
| |
| frippletoot@hotmail.com 2007-02-12, 5:25 pm |
| Basements require proper techniques to keep them dry and many builders
won't go to those lengths and/or don't have skilled crews to do the
work. If you look at older homes, it seems some got the basement
right and some didn't. A common complaint in new homes now is water
in the basement. There are many products that seem designed to keep
it out temporarily, but long term, it comes down to a building co's
skill and attention to detail.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-15, 9:25 am |
| "M&S" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:0%szh.23230$yx6.7450@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Heh, perhaps.
>
> I have lived/worked in the land of Harvard, Yale, MIT, cash galore, and
> now live in the land of many who did not even get their diploma's and now
> farm, raise cattle, hunt for food, and do whatever they can for a living.
> Oddly, its very much the same in both locations.
>
> You can see in the media regularly "Jennifer Aniston seen shopping at
> Wal-Mart". It is not an issue of wealth or location. Its greed and human
> nature. Although those two things are virtually one in the same.
>
"Greed" being defined as, what?, people getting the most bang for their
buck?
BTW, why is someone WORKING to make a better/more secure life "greedy", but
politicians and parasites demanding more in taxes "benevolent public
interest"?
| |
|
| Matt Barrow wrote:
> "M&S" <no@no.com> wrote in message
> news:0%szh.23230$yx6.7450@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Greed" being defined as, what?, people getting the most bang for their
> buck?
>
> BTW, why is someone WORKING to make a better/more secure life "greedy",
> but politicians and parasites demanding more in taxes "benevolent public
> interest"?
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: greed
Pronunciation: 'grEd
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than
is needed
In the context of my my posts this would mean throuh greed people are
solely looking to pay as little as possible regardless of the total
costs. These are mostly people who know full well there are serious
short, long, global, and local, negative consequences linked directly to
their actions yet they do it anyway for personal benefit. Its called a
lack of social conscience but it is manifsted through greed.
Sticking with the Wal-Mart/Anniston model, many who shop there are not
ignorant to Wal-Mart's well established business model with regards to
human resources, employee compensation, global market practices, vendor
practices, its in the news daily. Yet people like Jennifer Aniston, who
by far has the resources to shop at far more conciencious outlets, shops
there by choice.
With her bajillion dollars in the bank she smiles cutely at the cashier
as she hands the cashier her gold card knowing full well that the
cashier likely has no paid vacation, no paid sick days, may full well be
intentionally held at weekly hours _just below_ full time in an well
publicized effort by Wal-Mart to not pay full time benefits, barely
exists on their wages, on and on. Forget about the global ramifications
of Wal-Mart bankrolling manufacturing overseas where they dump waste
straight into the river, in holes in the ground, child labor, and the
like. For 20 years now we have been bickering back and forth that what
other countries do to their country side should be no concern of ours.
Yet now atmospheric studies are showing clearly that the waste plume
leaves Chinese air space within hours and is over the west coast of the
US in days. Western China has, and will continue to have, some of the
cleanest air on the planet. Ironic that the very waste plume from our
low cost goods is actually raining back down on the rockies. So much for
the outa sight outa mind philosophy.
The Jennifer Aniston's of the world, and the vast majority of the rest
of us, are well aware of these issues and have the means to shop
elsewhere but choose not to. Forget about the fact that the consumer is
willing to accept low quality (or dilludes themselves into thinking it
is quality), thats fine. You can buy junk all you want. Where will the
the social conscience of the worlds major retailers, and the customers
who gobbled up the low cost goods, be for the numerous cancer pods
50,000 strong and more each caused by effluent outflows from
manufacturing facilities constructed to feed our greed for more.
Multiply China by what 20, 30, or so other countries where we are doing
the same thing? We already did all this to our own country and have been
cleaning it up for 75 years. Now, because lord knows we cant act
responsibly and learn from our mistakes, we are doing it elsewhere but
we sleep soundly because we arent actually "doing it", they are doing it
to themselves.
These are the exact reasons why the very politicians and taxes you whine
about exist, because we are too selfish, greedy, and irresponsible, to
police ourselves and behave in a responsible manner. We cant even manage
that locally, forget about globally. You are the very reason these laws
and taxes exist, we all are. Its why there are laws about beating your
children, chaining your dog, speed limits, drugs, dumping trash, murder,
j-walking, sending your children to school. Christ! We have to make it
_a law_ to send your children to school! People have to be TOLD to send
their children to school and you are wondering why we have politicians
and laws?!?! Hell, there ARE people out there who believe(d) that
chaining your children in the basement should be an acceptable form of
punishment. These people have to be told otherwise by the government and
the laws it creates. After that vast amounts of taxes need to be
collected to pay the dog officer, cops, EPA, DHS, DHHR, BATF, NEA, and
so on.
Its very simple, if you want less government just make the EPA go away.
Companies should have been smarter and not polluted rivers, lands, and
air. The EPA wouldnt even exist if we were a responsible lot. There
would be no need for the EPA. But greed makes people dump into the river
rather than go through the expense of proper disposal hence an
enforcement agency is born out of the citizens irresponsibility. The
same for Unions, OSHA, Labor Laws, Corporate laws, NEA/Education, DHHR,
on and on. Dont force miners into the mines without safety equipment and
a law wont have to be created that mandates it for you. But greed
prevails. It always does. Its human nature. Laws, and taxes to enforce
them, soon follow.
Mark
| |
|
| On Feb 8, 5:31 pm, "JohnV@nn" <jmvan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the town where I live (and the surrounding area), builders do not
> like to build basements. They also don't like to build one-level
> houses. Apparently, the most profit is to be had from a 2-story on a
> slab foundation. Because that's all they want to build. Never mind
> that a couple of years ago, the local newspaper conducted a large
> survey of home buyers to find out what it is they want in a house.
> Overwhelmingly, the answer was "a one-level house with a basement."
> The two-story on a slab was not even on the radar.
>
> Presumably, the movement away from ranch houses is due to the ever-
> shrinking lot size. I remember when a quarter acre was a postage
> stamp. Now a quarter is considered a "large lot" by the builders. A
> lot size of 0.11 acre is quickly becoming the defacto standard around
> here. And for obvious reasons, you can't build much of a house on
> that unless it's multi-level.
>
> And presumably, they don't like to build basements because the
> basement adds nothing to the heated living area, and when they're
> figuring their profits, they have to figure price per square foot of
> HLA. So to maximize profit, they simply don't build basements.
>
> I sure looks like like home building has become simply an optimization
> problem. It's disappointing that builders (at least in my town) don't
> seem to care what home buyers actually want. They build what they
> want to build.
I had a realestate agent come to look over my property, not for
immediate sale, but because I wanted to make sure the changes I make
don't divert too radically from the marketplace. The problem with the
industry is that everything is reduced to a "national market" where
everyone is presummed to have the same tastes and preferences. All
buyer personalities are reduced to a uniform corporate mold. Also,
the realestate computer listing system seems to favor new homes and
recently developed neighborhoods. The search criteria is really
crude, and so property values favor the newer over the old, it seems
to me. The realestate agent doesn't seem to have professional skills
in terms of matching buyers with sellers, really, it seems from my
observation. Builders do their best to reduce costs, which means a
slab foundation, 2 story building, on a tiny lot. I agree with you
though, none of these things are what I want in my house. I like a
raised foundation, single story, and large lot. In the long run, I'm
pretty sure my tastes will better the average marketplace profit, as
we have purchased a large lot on the waterfront with deep water
access, and a single story ranch style house, which I'm currently
fixing up. One thing is for sure though, now is NOT the time to sell.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2007-02-18, 3:25 am |
| "M&S" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:4bLBh.2619$x74.942@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> From www.m-w.com:
>
> Main Entry: greed
> Pronunciation: 'grEd
> Function: noun
> Etymology: back-formation from greedy
> : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is
> needed
>
> In the context of my my posts this would mean throuh greed people are
> solely looking to pay as little as possible regardless of the total costs.
> These are mostly people who know full well there are serious short, long,
> global, and local, negative consequences linked directly to their actions
> yet they do it anyway for personal benefit. Its called a lack of social
> conscience but it is manifsted through greed.
>
Take that elitist/collectivist "social conscience" crap and stick it where
the sun don't shine.
[rest of PC blather snipped to prevent someone losing their lunch]
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
|
|
|
|
|