Poverty kills again

The collapse of the sports complex in St. Petersburg and the death of the worker from the point of view of the economist

The history of the catastrophic (a person died, this is a catastrophe) the collapse of the building of the sports and concert complex in St. Petersburg is incredibly indicative-at least insert into the economic theory textbook.

Something large and fundamental must be dismantled in an emergency order, and this can be done only by rewriting the battles on which it was held. A man went to sawing these battles, apparently not thinking about the consequences. And even if he thought, the opportunity to earn a few thousand rubles has outweighed all considerations about his own life here.

Is it possible to reproach a person for this choice? In my opinion, no. If the system puts a person in a situation where he is ready to risk his life in order to earn several thousand rubles a day, then something is very wrong with your system. You say - people risk life for a smaller amount, and are not always able to be aware of their actions. What then?

Then, economists say, you need to find someone who will have to think about someone else's life, and motivate it accordingly. There is even the “Economic Security theory”, created by Ronald Cowz and Gary Baker in the middle of the last century. It is very simple-when you are engaged in a risky business, be ready for colossal costs if something goes wrong. For example, if the compensation for the life of an employee who died during the dismantling of the building would be a million dollars, most likely he was at least given a long safety cable. Or maybe he would not have been sent to the roof at all.

Our authorities love to talk about the goodness of state intervention in any business - so, in front of you is the same situation where "you need to use power."

Why not oblige everyone who is ready to risk other people's lives to insure these lives for appropriate amounts? By millions. And not rubles.

To force the relevant authorities to responsible behavior. Ah, will it be expensive? Then let's look for other options. Less risky. Yes, poverty can make a person take risk, and kill him. But even if you cannot remove poverty, you are able to reduce the risk.

In general, this story, of course, shows what the whole “state machine” costs, when the business interests of a truly authoritative person are on its way. The construction industry is one of the most regulated. And suddenly it turns out that all these endless checks, tender commissions, control and supervisory authorities can do nothing with the desire of some respected person to eliminate the building that prevents him from no later than a certain date. And the fact that there is such a person can not doubt.

As the People’s People's Commissar of Railways loved to say at one time, Comrade Kaganovich, every accident has a surname, name and middle name. After all, not at his own request, the deceased worker climbed with a cutter in his hands on the roof of the SKK, or did he want to look from there to the panorama of St. Petersburg? No, they paid him. We paid the minimum amount for such work. But, if this amount was not the only earnings of a person, he would probably would not agree. And even if the worker did not understand the level of danger that threatens him, then the people who sent him to the roof could not help but know how the cutting of a dozen wantle on which a huge building could end.

And if you didn't know? But do you really want to say that the authorities entrusted the demolition of the UKC to people who do not even imagine not even that the basics of construction - but the basic laws of physics within an incomplete secondary school? Of course, they knew, understood, and sent a person to mortal risk. Because this risk of death was for a worker. And for his tenants, and those who instructed him to hire, and those who decided to demolish the building-the risks on each floor of this boss-business pyramid became less, less, and less. Until they disappeared at the tops, where on a personal business - you can’t reach the jet.

Speaking of business jets. As well as yachts, cars and mansions. Why are we extremely rarely heard about the troubles that happened with the habitat of important people?

Because this habitat is reliably protected. Because twice they will check the car into which the boss and his friend will sit. Because the house for them will be built in compliance with all technical requirements. Because the plane on which they fly will be made not "within the framework of the state program of import substantias." By the way, why do all important advocates of “import substitution” themselves use exclusively imported machines and mechanisms? Probably because people responsible for the safety of the authorities are professional, motivated and afraid to take risks.

And the last. What do you think, if not for the video shooting that captured the catastrophe, we would even know what exactly happened? Why do you think the authorities so disliked the Internet?