"Do more with less" is perfectly fine and rational.
"Do less with more and line my pockets along the way" is the problem.
If customers were _paying less_ for the substandard construction they're getting, okay that's one thing. But if customers are paying more, and they _think_ they're getting sturdy code-compliant construction, but contractors at one or more levels are skimming money and using substandard materials and techniques, then that's a corruption, enforcement, and auditing problem.
> "Do more with less" is perfectly fine and rational.
> ...
> If customers were _paying less_ for the substandard construction they're getting, okay that's one thing.
Not really. Customers are likely not in position to rationally make those kinds of trade-offs, and even if they were, there's a good chance they're not going to be the one to pay the price (e.g. they sell the home, and the purchaser N sales later dies because it collapsed due to the substandard construction).
Whether the buyers/victims are able to assess the situation or not don’t change the fact: they paid more for shoddier construction.
They might sell and move on but since this is a systemic issue, it’s very likely that their next residence has been built as shoddily and is just as dangerous.
> Whether the buyers/victims are able to assess the situation or not don’t change the fact: they paid more for shoddier construction.
I'm not disputing that's a problem, too. My only quibble is with the idea it's fine for people to knowingly choose substandard housing for some kind of discount.
"Do less with more and line my pockets along the way" is the problem.
If customers were _paying less_ for the substandard construction they're getting, okay that's one thing. But if customers are paying more, and they _think_ they're getting sturdy code-compliant construction, but contractors at one or more levels are skimming money and using substandard materials and techniques, then that's a corruption, enforcement, and auditing problem.