Hello
DELAIR wrote:Yes ... that's why our state is getting poor!
That the small association of a few causes others to lose jobs and jobs and also resources for the State which is you, which is I who are all of us.
As bham remarks, what a strange reasoning. And totally wrong ...
First of all, self-construction does not cause anyone to lose anything, because most often such an approach is undertaken for lack of financial means. Clearly, this means that the people concerned could not buy a ready-made house. They are therefore not potential customers for professionals, and there are no lost jobs or state resources. Quite the contrary, since by self-construction, they will still have to buy a lot of things in commercial circuits, even in spare parts (plumbing, electricity, heating, paints, wallpapers ...). They will then participate in the increase in GDP and therefore in the financing of state expenses. And jobs will be created and maintained, unless it is imported naturally
. And once the house is built, they will also help finance the expenses of the various communities on which the house depends.
Certainly, the value of the auto-built house will not be taken into account in the calculation of the GDP. And yet, it exists, it is useful and it has really "enriched" the one who built it, and therefore the community. Isn't the "wealth" of each one part of the wealth of a community? And, if one day this house is sold, it will be sold at market price and the result of the transaction will then indeed be included in the GDP. And yet, nothing will have really changed, the house will remain the same, and except for the remuneration of possible intermediaries, this transaction will not have really increased the wealth of the country and no jobs will have been created. So, don't you think that GDP is something totally artificial, normative, not taking into account a real creation of wealth, and only presenting reality through the prism of a set of standards.
Let's take things from another angle. If you are on this forum, it is probably that you are looking to reduce your various consumption (electricity, heating ...), and even if I want to hope that the notion of ecology is taken into account in your approach, you also do it for the sake of economy. Shame on you
. Have you not thought of the unhappy workers and employees who will suffer from the reduction in your consumption. And maybe you have a house, with a small vegetable garden? And the peasants then
And you could undoubtedly find multiple illustrations of the consequences of your reasoning, and how much you are probably criticizable according to your own criteria.
So, perhaps it is necessary to think carefully about the reality and the correctness of the things on which we rely before having a judgment, especially if the latter is negative. There, the whole world would undoubtedly be better off.
DELAIR wrote:But if your job was to build houses, what would you think?
Would you be in the building trades? This might explain that
. For my part, I can tell you that I have always encouraged my clients to do what they can do themselves, and that I did well. and what's more, it's gratifying. I have never suffered from this, on the contrary, but I naturally adapted my services accordingly. I no longer intervened with my clients for what they mastered, and our joint work was much more constructive.
If I had good notions and a good experience in construction, and if I was not retired, the launch of an activity aiming to prepare and supervise steps of self construction would interest me, rather than stagnating in a traditional construction company. In my opinion, this is a branch in which there are certain possibilities and many needs. Clearly, a market that should be made solvent
.