"the ratio of the costs of the output to the costs of the physical inputs (drywall, lumber, concrete, etc.) is around 2. This is a very low ratio: it’s only slightly higher than the ratio we saw with various BMW i3 subassemblies." This sentence looks incorrect, or am i misunderstanding this section of the article? Aren't the i3 ratios labor/materials not output/materials? The optimized system is a materials/ labor ratio of 1 and construction has achieved it! There is no spread like Elon saw in rockets. This dramatically supports the whole point of the article.
That seems like quite a blanket statement that new houses are better than older houses. How old or how new do you mean? In what factors? Does it vary by region... And the "give a damn" of code enforcement?
"the ratio of the costs of the output to the costs of the physical inputs (drywall, lumber, concrete, etc.) is around 2. This is a very low ratio: it’s only slightly higher than the ratio we saw with various BMW i3 subassemblies." This sentence looks incorrect, or am i misunderstanding this section of the article? Aren't the i3 ratios labor/materials not output/materials? The optimized system is a materials/ labor ratio of 1 and construction has achieved it! There is no spread like Elon saw in rockets. This dramatically supports the whole point of the article.
A problem you are facing is that there exist continuous changes in the quality of what is built; new houses are much better than older houses.
That seems like quite a blanket statement that new houses are better than older houses. How old or how new do you mean? In what factors? Does it vary by region... And the "give a damn" of code enforcement?