Interesting perspectives in the BBC on the demand for plumbers. Do we need more plumbers because the quality of the field is so low, or because of new growth? They suggest it is the latter.

Plumbing, like being a waiter or taxi driver, hasn’t become cheaper or more efficient over time because it can’t, says Tim Harford, a columnist at the Financial Times.

“In 50 years we won’t get robots doing the plumbing so what we find is if we looked at the economy 50 years ago, something like plumbing wouldn’t have really stood out. People didn’t really have much money.

“But now you can buy amazing televisions and cars that are cheaper and better than 20 years ago.

“All this amazing stuff and yet plumbing has not really changed and so it looms large as a problem, as something expensive.”

I disagree.

Taxi drivers are actually capable of being far more efficient now with GPS and if the automobile manufacturers would pull their heads out of their tailpipes taxis could be significantly cheaper (more fuel efficient).

While I really don’t get his “cars that are cheaper” evidence, the point about lowering costs through technology seems correct.

Plumbing has actually become cheaper and more efficient with plastic tubes that are connected with heat and instant glue like the Pex system. So if more plumbers aren’t needed because of quality problems, and the technology has improved, then why aren’t costs going down?

I think the real problem is the overhead of being a plumber has gone up and so plumbers tend to have to charge more to make a decent living. In other words, cars are in fact more expensive.

If they could lower their overhead, not just in terms of code and regulations but also the costs of materials, fuel and waste disposal, then there would be room for a more competitive (and secure) environment. Robots might never be cost-effective for the final fit and finish, but they certainly could help with the manufacturing and supply-chain costs.

Overall a very useful example for Information Security…