Chronicles in West Coast Socialism - the strict California Energy Building Codes have failed

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Tell me about the wonders of Scandinavian socialism.

Given your straw man and your response, it would more sense to tell about a course in basic reasoning or the wonders of bittersweet chocolate ice cream.

I love it when you're backed into a corner and cannot respond the way you want.

 

[Togo]

And that has what to do with the idea that all regulations (unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence) are bad? Or is this just an anecdote break, so we can all go to the bathroom before carrying on with the thread? Do you perhaps labour under the misapprehension that if you can show one example of a bad regulation, it will demonstrate that all regulations are bad?

Your logic is broken.

The problem is you are assuming a binary state: that regulations are good or that regulations are bad.

What some of us are saying is that California goes too far with it's regulations.

Granted, but very few are saying that. What several are saying, such as Max or Jason, is that the regulations were a disaster. The only evidence for this comes from a paper that outlines, amongst other things, benefits that have come from the regulations, and specifically warns against any misreading of it that might try and indicate that the regulations are a bad thing overall.

I think the basic problem here is people announcing a conclusion that is contradicted by the evidence provided. Obviously people can have whatever political ideals they wish, but lets not mistreat the evidence in doing so.

 

[laughing dog]

Given your straw man and your response, it would more sense to tell about a course in basic reasoning or the wonders of bittersweet chocolate ice cream.

I love it when you're backed into a corner and cannot respond the way you want.

Keep on shoveling. You are only fooling yourself (which is not hard at all).

 

[Togo]

I love it when you're backed into a corner and cannot respond the way you want.

Keep on shoveling. You are only fooling yourself (which is not hard at all).

If that.

 

[scombrid]

The author did conclude that he was unable to control for behavior. It is entirely possible that less efficient behavior offsets more efficient equipment/dwellings.

Fuel is cheap or the car is efficient? People drive more.

People are probably getting more work per BTU in their houses on average. They're just leaving the lights on and turning down the thermostat.

I've got a 61 year old house in Florida. I'm retrofitting it for efficiency. But I've just started the project and it isn't very efficient so I've got my thermostat on 80F and I use fans to keep comfortable. My cooling bill is similar to a modern house in the same area that keeps its thermostat at 76F.

People in CA are probably getting more for their $BTU$.

Energy efficiency is often addressed well by the market. People will either retrofit old stuff to make it more efficient. Use stuff less if the stuff isn't efficient. Consumption adjusts to the cost because the user bares the cost directly. I just spent $3000 replacing old jalousie doors. Without changing habits I expect to recoup that money.

Where a market failure occurs here is if you are trying to mandate energy efficiency to reduce the externalized pollution cost associated with something like extracting coal from the ground and burning it. Your energy efficiency gains are likely to be offset by people simply doing more stuff so that their energy cost remains relatively fixed. So you make stuff more efficient but that gets offset by higher demand. So then you price the pollution into electricity rates. That screws over poor people just as much as the increased building costs associated with energy efficiency. Kind of damned do don't situation.

 

[fromderinside]

First the conservatives came and took away taxes, then they came and took away health care for the mentally challenged, then they took away education for the the young adult, then for the young period, now they want to remove protections for owners and buyers of residential property, yet California still grows, flourishes, admits immigrants, leads the nation in personal income, innovation, and opportunity all the while being a socialist den without what places like NY, NJ, Texas (gushers y'all), Alaska, have for their rich.

Is this all a case of grapes going sour because CA refuses to fail? BTW: Thanks Jerry.

 

[ronburgundy]

The OP study is all correlational data, employing highly limited efforts to account for the many confounds that make the comparisons uninterpretable.

Compare this to actual highly controlled experiments that definitively show the greater energy efficiency of the materials, appliances, and methods enforced in the regulations. I am going to trust the clear logical implications of real science in physics and chemistry over the psuedo-science that passes for research in Economics.

What is the OP trying to imply? Is it that their is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists whose work shows the greater energy efficiency of these things?

If not, then there are only 5 other possibilities that account for the results and none of imply that the regulations themselves are useless:

1) The research was done poorly and the results are invalid. This includes people in new buildings doing things that use more energy and the studies efforts to control for this confound being insufficient.
2) The corporations that manufacture the materials engage in criminal fraud and lie about meeting the regulations.
3) The corporations that do the construction engage in criminal fraud and lie about what materials and methods they use, skirting regulations wherever possible because the savings in worth any penalties when caught.
4) The construction corporations abide by regulation but then take advantage of every unregulated aspect of construction to build as shoddy and energy inefficient of buildings they can get away with. For example, the windows and insulation material are regulation, but every other aspect of the walls and roofing materials that isn't directly regulated is less energy efficient than it was 40 years ago.

Anyone in construction or with common sense knows that 3 & 4 do occur, and that especially in California, the new construction is as shoddy and made by unskilled cheap laborers as any in the developed world. #2 is also quite plausible. All of those reasons argue for more and stricter regulations and for company bankrupting penalties. Also, note the #4 means that without the regulations, energy efficiency would be far lower today than 40 years ago rather than breaking even.

My father was in construction is whole life and build complete homes by himself in CT. We moved to Southern CA in the 80's. His pay was cut in half because no company would pay for any foreman like him with actual skill and expertise. Any primate with hammer was hired for pennies, and every corner was cut. Things were deliberately done low quality so that failures and need for repair would start cropping up just outside the warrantee periods, and lawyers and accountants were paid to calculate immediate gains from the corner cutting against the costs of potential lawsuits. My ultra conservative anti-government dad was also a proud and skilled craftsman. He became so disgusted, he actually took a public sector job as a building inspector to go after all the corruption in his industry.

The homes my dad built in 40 years ago in CT are probably more energy efficient they the ones he built 20 years ago in CA. But that is not because the regulations are useless, but because the massive corporations doing large scale tract developments in CA are more corrupt and dishonest than the smaller independent contractors like him who built houses one at a time in CT 40 years ago.

 

[scombrid]

Yeah, and then there are the "Bluth" style housing developments.

 

[arkirk]

The OP study is all correlational data, employing highly limited efforts to account for the many confounds that make the comparisons uninterpretable.

Compare this to actual highly controlled experiments that definitively show the greater energy efficiency of the materials, appliances, and methods enforced in the regulations. I am going to trust the clear logical implications of real science in physics and chemistry over the psuedo-science that passes for research in Economics.

What is the OP trying to imply? Is it that their is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists whose work shows the greater energy efficiency of these things?

If not, then there are only 5 other possibilities that account for the results and none of imply that the regulations themselves are useless:

1) The research was done poorly and the results are invalid. This includes people in new buildings doing things that use more energy and the studies efforts to control for this confound being insufficient.
2) The corporations that manufacture the materials engage in criminal fraud and lie about meeting the regulations.
3) The corporations that do the construction engage in criminal fraud and lie about what materials and methods they use, skirting regulations wherever possible because the savings in worth any penalties when caught.
4) The construction corporations abide by regulation but then take advantage of every unregulated aspect of construction to build as shoddy and energy inefficient of buildings they can get away with. For example, the windows and insulation material are regulation, but every other aspect of the walls and roofing materials that isn't directly regulated is less energy efficient than it was 40 years ago.

Anyone in construction or with common sense knows that 3 & 4 do occur, and that especially in California, the new construction is as shoddy and made by unskilled cheap laborers as any in the developed world. #2 is also quite plausible. All of those reasons argue for more and stricter regulations and for company bankrupting penalties. Also, note the #4 means that without the regulations, energy efficiency would be far lower today than 40 years ago rather than breaking even.

My father was in construction is whole life and build complete homes by himself in CT. We moved to Southern CA in the 80's. His pay was cut in half because no company would pay for any foreman like him with actual skill and expertise. Any primate with hammer was hired for pennies, and every corner was cut. Things were deliberately done low quality so that failures and need for repair would start cropping up just outside the warrantee periods, and lawyers and accountants were paid to calculate immediate gains from the corner cutting against the costs of potential lawsuits. My ultra conservative anti-government dad was also a proud and skilled craftsman. He became so disgusted, he actually took a public sector job as a building inspector to go after all the corruption in his industry.

The homes my dad built in 40 years ago in CT are probably more energy efficient they the ones he built 20 years ago in CA. But that is not because the regulations are useless, but because the massive corporations doing large scale tract developments in CA are more corrupt and dishonest than the smaller independent contractors like him who built houses one at a time in CT 40 years ago.

You spelled it out pretty good. Everybody seems to want something for nothing...particularly outfits like K&B.

 

[Axulus]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

 

[bilby]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

Looking at buildings constructed prior to the introduction of building codes, we see that this lack of faith is fully justified.

I can see how it would be a problem if there wasn't any evidence that people build dangerous and inefficient structures unless compelled to do otherwise; but there is, so it isn't.

Your argument is as compelling as the anti-vaccine argument that measles is rare, so vaccination is needless. Poorly built structures are not rare because builders can be trusted to do a great job. They are rare because builders are forced to meet standards if they want to keep on being builders.

 

[Bomb#20]

Libertarianism rests on "natural rights". A completely incoherent argument. IMHO it's just as arbitrary as the state just seizing stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Socialism is only those government policies (and regulation) specifically put into place to alleviate the unfair advantages of the wealthier.

On what grounds do you call "natural rights" an incoherent argument, and then turn around and call the advantages of the wealthier "unfair"? What's the semantic difference between a socialist saying it's unfair for a rich guy to have an advantage over a poor guy, and saying the poor guy has a natural right not to be at a disadvantage? Conversely, when a nonsocialist says people have a natural right to property, in what substantive way is that different from saying that taking away people's stuff is unfair to them? You appear to be de facto judging moral judgment itself to be incoherent per se, except when you agree with it.

 

[Bomb#20]

(Red colored text are my comments within text of a quote)

"Socialism" means collective ownership of the means of production. A building code ain't it unless the code tells you what buildings to build and what the buildings have to be used for. [Those, and planning codes, do just that]

As far as a building code is concerned, if a builder wants to build a house she gets to. If she wants to build an apartment building she gets to. If she wants to build a restaurant or an office building or a factory or an arena, she gets to. If she wants to build on the north side of the city she gets to; if she wants to put her building on the south side she gets to. If she wants to sell it to Greenpeace she gets to and if she wants to sell it to the Koch brothers she gets to. The state telling her that regardless of what sort of building she wants and what purpose her buyer will use it for, she has to put in four-inch-thick insulation, does not mean the state owns her building supplies. You might as well claim the state owns your car even though it takes you where you want to go and not where the state wants you to go, because the state makes you maintain working taillights.

You might get a rhetorical advantage by labeling other things you oppose "socialism" when you're talking to a Tea Party audience, but that isn't your audience here. So I don't see what good you can accomplish for your cause by trying to cheapen the term. It just makes you look like a careless thinker.

At one time I would have agreed with you. But for better or ill, terms change (or "cheapen"). Just Google "what is the meaning of socialism" and you will see a variety of formal and informal meanings. For example, the first meaning supplied by google is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

But that's a weasel definition. Every community regulates the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Some heavily, some lightly; but all of them do it. People propose definitions like that one so they'll have an unfalsifiability engine they can use to classify whatever they feel like as socialism.

(PS you might also note that many forum defenders of Nordic systems also call them a form of socialism. In other words, the terms meaning has become more generic and less specific to merely "owning the means of production".)

And how many of the forum defenders of Nordic systems who also call them a form of socialism have you ever seen express any disagreement with collective ownership of the means of production? Socialists call Nordic systems "socialism" because Nordic systems are popularly approved of. Giving them the same name helps get some of that approval to rub off on collective ownership of the means of production in the minds of much of the public. Socialists are perpetrating an equivocation fallacy and deriving considerable traction from it in the marketplace of ideas. When you help them cheapen the term you're playing into their hands.

 

[arkirk]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

You are completely ignoring the democratic method of governmental planning. I suggest it is you that has a dim view of the potentials of the human species to act in a social and mutually beneficial manner. Good planning can be central...as in the central gathering place for a town hall meeting. Many good regulations come from consensus and while it may be a government function, it is my guess you have never participated in any governmental action in planning or in opposing a plan as part of a citizen group. Some building codes protect people from unsafe construction, from shoddy work etc. It is not all crap. I too can agree that some of the regulations are overly influenced by those who should be being regulated. That is because the average citizen just sits on his ass and bellyaches about unfair regulations. If you don't participate in comment periods and testimony on these issues, you really have no right to carp about their outcomes.

 

[Canard DuJour]

You might get a rhetorical advantage by labeling other things you oppose "socialism" when you're talking to a Tea Party audience, but that isn't your audience here. So I don't see what good you can accomplish for your cause by trying to cheapen the term. It just makes you look like a careless thinker.

At one time I would have agreed with you. But for better or ill, terms change (or "cheapen"). Just Google "what is the meaning of socialism" and you will see a variety of formal and informal meanings. For example, the first meaning supplied by google is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I somewhat agree. If it just meant nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation, it'd just be called nationalisation. But nationalisation is only part of the broader aim of democratising the economy, which doesn't necessarily mean nationalisation. There's nothing particularly unsocialist about manufacturers competing for consumer dollars; the socialism bit is democratic control of the conditions in which workers produce stuff.

Your problem, however, (as Bomb realises) is that "chronicles of success stories" in the kind of piecemeal socialism you're on about would be incredibly long. That's why more cautious capitalism groupies than you want to preserve the idea that socialism just means nationalisation, end of story, - an equivocation from which they've gained considerable traction in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[ksen]

Central planning is born of a dim view of the human species: "people are too dumb to know that they can save money with energy efficiency built into their buildings, they are too dumb to make sure their contractors are building their unit as specified, and they are too dumb to be allowed to choose what they want. I'm smart, so I'll force my brilliance on everyone else via building codes and inspections to make sure those codes are followed."

If central planning is so dumb then why is it the model used in 99.9% of corporations?

Man, corporations must have a dim view of the human species.

 

[maxparrish]

Unless such regulations are to prevent fraud or violence, they are. And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner, they are.

In any case, even if based on supposed goal of California's energy code, such regulations have failed to deliver.

This is a highly opinionated and uninformed view of regulation. It can occur democratically with consensus agreement. It does not have to dictate, but rather merely describe the desires of the electorate.

And your view misses the point. How and who dictates, be it a majority, or an insular heavy handed bureaucracy, or a "Dear Leader" is irrelevant - it is wrong for the state to dictate what a person can or must produce or consume or trade (absent fraud, theft, or violence). The state, under the color of "democracy", has no general moral right to dictate to adults what they may make and sell, be it beer, beets, or buildings.

You have these ideas because our democracy is broken and you think all government and democracy are broken and fatally flawed because it is done by people. The same flaws may be found in Capitalists..who are absolute dictators of their enterprises. Regulatory flaws can be eliminated in democratic government by referendum and by attempting to echo human desires and needs. You simply hate all government.

No, I hate most government and I like most businesses. My general relationship to government is one of obedience and involuntary taxes - to businesses it is one of having a choice of what I purchase, or if I choose to give them any money at all.

 

[fromderinside]

No, I hate most government and I like most businesses. My general relationship to government is one of obedience and involuntary taxes - to businesses it is one of having a choice of what I purchase, or if I choose to give them any money at all.

You have choices sir. You might choose a place like Coast Rico which is very friendly to landowners and the rich. Or, you can choose to stay in this place you hate because the common weal is other than that you prefer. Your argument is with the society in which you choose to live. That being said, it comes down to you just bitching. Bitching is no more than displacing air or type.

 

[Bomb#20]

I somewhat agree. If it just meant nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation, it'd just be called nationalisation. But nationalisation is only part of the broader aim of democratising the economy, which doesn't necessarily mean nationalisation. There's nothing particularly unsocialist about manufacturers competing for consumer dollars; the socialism bit is democratic control of the conditions in which workers produce stuff.

I said collective ownership, not nationalization.

"1.: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." -- Merriam-Webster

Things don't have to be nationalized to be collectively owned. For instance, Untermensche keeps arguing for requiring each factory to be owned by the workers in that factory. That's collective ownership without nationalization.

Your problem, however, (as Bomb realises) is that "chronicles of success stories" in the kind of piecemeal socialism you're on about would be incredibly long. That's why more cautious capitalism groupies than you want to preserve the idea that socialism just means nationalisation, end of story, - an equivocation from which they've gained considerable traction in the marketplace of ideas.

Excuse me? Exactly which two definitions are you accusing me of fallaciously treating as equivalent when I argue for sticking to a single definition?

 

[maxparrish]

And they are used to dictates the purchase and consumption habits of society to the subjective liking of the planner....

As far as a building code is concerned, if a builder wants to build a house...build an apartment building....a restaurant or an office building or a factory or an arena, she gets to...north side of the city she gets to...sell it to the Koch brothers she gets to. The state telling her that regardless of what sort of building she wants and what purpose her buyer will use it for, she has to put in four-inch-thick insulation, does not mean the state owns her building supplies. You might as well claim the state owns your car even though it takes you where you want to go and not where the state wants you to go, because the state makes you maintain working taillights.

That the state allows some of the rights of ownership to "her" is not the issue. It remains that the state dictates, via building and planning codes (and other regulatory processes), if she will be allowed to build and use a building in the place and manner of her choosing (if at all).. It may be her land, but she is only given limited rights of use depending on purpose, size, location, and neighbor approval. The state may zone it for specific uses (or non uses) whatever reason it chooses: from high density multi-unit to agriculture and/or "open space".

When its use is approved, it is only certain caveats and hefty fees paid to the local governments and the local state sanctioned utility monopolies.

I am sure you are aware of City General Plans, numerous zoning categories limiting development, urban limit lines, maximum building footprints, proximity to lot lines, height limits, parking requirements, restrictions on 2nd dwelling units, environmental impact studies, etc. Some communities even require hiring a soils engineer, structural engineer, licensed architect etc. for the simplest of construction.

Yes, not only does the state dictate IT also removes the rights of ownership at will, without just compensation. In the socialist regulatory state, the only "right" you might have is to a piece of paper to a block of land wherein its rights of use has been effectively removed.

You might get a rhetorical advantage by labeling other things you oppose "socialism" when you're talking to a Tea Party audience, but that isn't your audience here. So I don't see what good you can accomplish for your cause by trying to cheapen the term. It just makes you look like a careless thinker.

At one time I would have agreed with you. But for better or ill, terms change (or "cheapen"). Just Google "what is the meaning of socialism" and you will see a variety of formal and informal meanings. For example, the first meaning supplied by google is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

But that's a weasel definition. Every community regulates the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Some heavily, some lightly; but all of them do it. People propose definitions like that one so they'll have an unfalsifiability engine they can use to classify whatever they feel like as socialism.

It not a weasel definition, its the broadest definition among many other more specific meanings. Until recently I reserved the word for Marxist socialism, the sense used in totalitarian economic systems of the left. However, I now use it more broadly for two reasons: a) it seems to be commonly used in that manner and b) it conveys my belief that the difference between the left rulers of California (etc.) and Venezuela is not in kind, but degree. Their moral premise's justifying state dictates is identical.

(PS you might also note that many forum defenders of Nordic systems also call them a form of socialism. In other words, the terms meaning has become more generic and less specific to merely "owning the means of production".)

And how many of the forum defenders of Nordic systems who also call them a form of socialism have you ever seen express any disagreement with collective ownership of the means of production? Socialists call Nordic systems "socialism" because Nordic systems are popularly approved of. Giving them the same name helps get some of that approval to rub off on collective ownership of the means of production in the minds of much of the public. Socialists are perpetrating an equivocation fallacy and deriving considerable traction from it in the marketplace of ideas. When you help them cheapen the term you're playing into their hands.

Granted, calling Nordic systems socialism tends to make a false equivalency. The primary differences between formal Marxist socialism, Fabian socialism, democratic socialism, American left socialism, and barefoot socialism is in who holds formal title to the means of production and the use of regulation (rather than formal state ownership) as the mechanisms for takings, and the use of taxes and wage laws for redistribution.

But we are bounded by common usage, so the best that can be done is to use the generic word when applied to a general similarity; and to use specifics (e.g. Marxist socialism or Democratic Socialism or the Social Justice-Welfare state) when those differences matter.

When it comes to California, those differences are usually irrelevant.