Source analyzed: "Dramat przedsiębiorcy: Niemal straciłem dom. Wyzysk w branży budowlanej trwa od lat", with the summary:
Summary of the Story
- Claim: Exploitation of Subcontractors Is Widespread and Systemic
- Evidence: Belina asserts he knows no subcontractor who hasn’t faced fraud, citing a 2020 parliamentary commission where claims for road infrastructure alone reached 1.3 billion PLN. He scales this to 10 billion PLN across all construction sectors.
- Analysis: The claim of universality (“no subcontractor untouched”) is testable but lacks statistical backing here. The 1.3 billion PLN figure is specific and credible, tied to a documented event, but the leap to 10 billion PLN is an estimate—plausible given the industry’s size (350 billion PLN market, per the article), but unverified. The article doesn’t cite independent data or reports beyond Belina’s and two named researchers’ (Miąsko and Turliński) work, which weakens its rigor. Still, recurring anecdotes of nonpayment and bankruptcy align with a pattern of illegal behavior, not mere “controversial” practices.
- Claim: General Contractors Deliberately Cheat Subcontractors
- Evidence: Belina lists tactics: delaying work acceptance, refusing payment for extra work, inventing penalties, and falsifying documentation (e.g., his case of a staged electrocution incident).
- Analysis: These are specific allegations of fraud, not mismanagement. The electrocution example is striking—Belina claims he disproved it with evidence (no hospital record, intact safety measures), yet the legal system failed him. This suggests intent, not incompetence, by general contractors. However, the article offers only Belina’s perspective; without counterarguments from accused firms or legal outcomes, it’s one-sided. The broader conclusion—that this is standard practice—rests on his experience and unnamed others, risking oversimplification of a complex industry.
- Claim: The System Enables Exploitation
- Evidence: Belina criticizes Poland’s legal framework, noting the “freedom of contract” principle leaves subcontractors powerless, as they must sign one-sided deals. He says prosecution is ineffective (his case was dropped by a military prosecutor), and political will is absent.
- Analysis: The legal argument holds weight—Polish contract law does prioritize autonomy, potentially leaving smaller firms vulnerable. His prosecution story, while anecdotal, points to real inefficiencies: a military prosecutor handling an economic case is odd and suggests misrouting or disinterest. The “absolute lawlessness” hyperbole, however, overreaches without data on case dismissal rates or industry-wide enforcement trends. The lack of political action is plausible but untested here beyond Belina’s frustration.
- Claim: Personal and Social Fallout Is Devastating
- Evidence: Belina’s cancer, his wife’s miscarriage, and near loss of their home are tied to financial ruin. He cites two suicides linked to similar nonpayment by the same firm.
- Analysis: The personal toll is undeniable and humanizes the issue, but causation is tricky. Stress from business failure can trigger health crises, yet tying cancer or miscarriage directly to this requires medical corroboration, absent here. The suicides are compelling but anecdotal—without names or records, they’re hard to verify. The broader implication—that this is a common outcome—needs more than three examples to avoid cherry-picking.
- Claim: Solutions Exist but Are Ignored
- Evidence: Belina proposes 25 reforms (e.g., realistic budgets, recorded meetings, payment verification) and plans protests in Brussels, accusing firms of misusing EU funds.
- Analysis: The solutions sound practical—shorter payment cycles and transparency could curb fraud—but their feasibility isn’t explored (e.g., cost, enforcement). The EU angle is intriguing; if funds are misreported, it’s a crime, but no specifics (projects, amounts) are provided. The protest threat signals desperation, not a plan’s strength. Claims of ignored solutions imply intent, yet no evidence shows these were formally rejected by policymakers.
Analysis, ChatGPT - Capitalism is to blame:
The phenomenon you’re describing—industries racing to the bottom—is a systemic failure driven by the internal logic of capitalism itself. It’s not an accident or an anomaly; it's an inherent consequence of competitive market forces, regulatory arbitrage, and the relentless pursuit of profit maximization. Let’s break this down into key structural drivers.
1. The Logic of Hypercompetition: When the Market Becomes a Prison
Capitalism demands competition, but competition is not a static condition—it escalates. When one company finds a way to cut costs (by reducing wages, externalizing environmental damage, or automating jobs), others must follow or risk obsolescence. The result is a downward spiral where businesses must continuously squeeze more efficiency out of workers and resources to survive.
In an idealized market theory, competition should produce better outcomes for consumers—lower prices, better services. But when industries mature, competition often stops being about product quality and turns into a battle of cost-cutting, offloading risks, and minimizing worker protections. Firms locked in this cycle cannot afford to act ethically without suffering competitive disadvantages. This is the "prisoner's dilemma" of capitalism: even if all firms recognize the long-term harm of a race to the bottom, none can unilaterally opt out without being crushed.
2. Regulatory Arbitrage: The Global Loophole Game
Governments set regulations to curb exploitation, but capital is mobile in a way that workers are not. Companies can relocate production to jurisdictions with fewer protections, lower wages, or weaker unions. This is why industries have systematically offshored labor to countries where wages are lower and regulations are lax—whether it was American textile jobs moving to Mexico, then to China, then to Vietnam and Bangladesh, or the gig economy bypassing labor protections by classifying workers as "independent contractors."
This is not just a feature of globalization; it's the logical outcome of allowing capital to flow freely while restricting the movement of labor. Capitalists pit different regions against each other, forcing governments to compete by lowering corporate taxes, reducing labor protections, and offering subsidies. The race to the bottom is not just among corporations but also among governments desperate to attract investment.
3. Financialization: When Profits Serve Investors, Not Workers
As industries become more financialized, companies prioritize short-term stock prices and shareholder value over long-term sustainability. Activist investors, hedge funds, and private equity firms push for aggressive cost-cutting, mass layoffs, and debt-driven expansion, all of which contribute to the deterioration of industry conditions.
For example, the airline industry used to focus on customer experience and reliability. But after financialization, airlines slashed legroom, introduced hidden fees, and outsourced maintenance to low-wage contractors. Private equity buyouts have done the same in healthcare, retail, and media, leading to mass closures, lower wages, and an erosion of service quality.
The shift from "making products" to "maximizing quarterly returns" means that companies now see their own workers as a cost to be minimized rather than an asset to be invested in.
4. Monopoly Power: When Competition Dies, Exploitation Thrives
A race to the bottom paradoxically leads to market consolidation. Initially, cutthroat competition drives down costs, but as weaker firms collapse or are acquired, the surviving giants gain monopoly or oligopoly control. Once competition is eliminated, these dominant firms extract even greater profits—not by reinvesting in workers or innovation, but by squeezing consumers (higher prices, worse service) and workers (stagnant wages, precarious employment).
Take Amazon as an example. Its early years were a classic race to the bottom: offering cheap goods, undercutting competitors, and aggressively cutting logistics costs. Now, as a near-monopoly in e-commerce, it can raise fees for sellers, demand more from workers, and degrade conditions without fear of losing market share. The initial race to the bottom was merely a bridge to monopolization.
5. Technological Disruption as an Excuse for Degeneration
Technology is often framed as the great equalizer, but in practice, it has been a key driver of the race to the bottom. Automation and AI have not primarily been used to reduce worker hours and improve quality of life; instead, they are leveraged to eliminate jobs, increase surveillance, and intensify workloads.
The gig economy is a perfect example. Companies like Uber and DoorDash exploit loopholes in labor laws, using technology to fragment work into precarious, on-demand gigs. Workers bear all the risk—no benefits, no job security—while the platform extracts value. This isn’t technological progress; it’s a repackaging of 19th-century piecework labor under the illusion of “flexibility.”
6. Erosion of Worker Power: The Union Decline
Industries once had built-in resistance to the race to the bottom through organized labor. Strong unions fought for fair wages, benefits, and safe conditions, setting a floor below which companies couldn’t sink. But systematic attacks on labor power—from anti-union laws to corporate union-busting tactics—have weakened this resistance.
When workers have no leverage, companies impose more extreme cost-cutting measures, knowing they won’t face significant pushback. This dynamic has played out in manufacturing, retail, journalism, and even white-collar tech jobs, where unionization efforts are met with intense corporate resistance.
7. Consumer Complicity and False Choices
There’s an ideological aspect to the race to the bottom: the belief that cheapness is always good. The relentless drive for low prices, often disguised as “consumer empowerment,” hides the real cost—sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, and degraded service. But when wages stagnate, consumers have little choice but to seek the cheapest option, reinforcing the cycle.
Amazon, Walmart, and fast fashion brands don’t thrive solely because they offer convenience; they thrive because most people can’t afford to shop ethically. The economic system forces both consumers and workers into positions where they must accept the very conditions that harm them.
Conclusion: The Race to the Bottom Is Not a Flaw—It’s the Design
The race to the bottom is not an accident, nor is it a temporary crisis. It is the natural endpoint of an economic system that prioritizes profits over people. Every stage of this process—hypercompetition, regulatory arbitrage, financialization, monopoly formation, technological exploitation, union suppression, and consumer dependence—reinforces the next, creating an inescapable feedback loop.
This is why reform efforts often fail. The problem isn’t just individual greed or corporate misconduct; it’s the structure itself. Any industry left to market forces alone will eventually degenerate into a race to the bottom unless external forces—strong labor movements, government intervention, or radical economic restructuring—intervene to break the cycle.
The real question is not why industries race to the bottom. The real question is: How long will we accept a system where that is the inevitable outcome?
Final advice, after some discussion:
Grok AI:
- What: Force general contractors to deposit project funds into third-party escrow accounts before work starts. Subcontractors get paid directly from this pool upon verified completion (e.g., signed-off milestones), not reliant on the contractor’s goodwill.
- Why: Cuts out nonpayment games—Belina’s firm did 90% of the work and got stiffed because the money was in the contractor’s hands. Escrow locks it away, so they can’t steal or “delay” it for profit.
- How: Law mandates it for all contracts above a threshold (say, 1 million PLN). Independent auditors oversee disbursements. Penalties (fines, contract bans) for bypassing it.
- Upside: Keeps cash flowing to small firms, preserves their liquidity. Market stays free—contractors still bid—but they can’t weaponize payment.
- Challenge: Adds upfront cost and bureaucracy. Big firms will scream “red tape,” but they’re the ones cheating now.
- What: Require all project documentation—contracts, progress reports, payment records—to be logged in a public, blockchain-style database. Anyone (subcontractors, regulators, even competitors) can see who’s paid, who’s not, and why.
- Why: Shines a light on fraud like Belina’s fake electrocution or invented delays. If general contractors know their lies are exposed instantly, they’re less likely to try.
- How: Government sets up the platform (low cost, digital), mandates its use for public and private jobs. Falsifying entries triggers automatic audits and fines.
- Upside: Accountability without state ownership—market players self-police under scrutiny. Subcontractors can call out cheats publicly, shifting power.
- Challenge: Tech adoption lags in some firms; privacy gripes from contractors. But transparency’s worth it.
- What: Create specialized, lean courts for construction disputes (or any industry prone to this). Cases—nonpayment, contract breaches—get rulings in 30-60 days, not years.
- Why: Belina’s prosecution dragged on, letting cheats win by default. Slow justice is no justice—subcontractors bankrupt while waiting. Speed levels the field.
- How: Fund it with a small industry tax (e.g., 0.5% of contract value). Limit paperwork, use expert judges, enforce rulings with liens or asset seizures.
- Upside: Deters fraud—contractors know they can’t outlast victims. Keeps it market-driven, not state-run.
- Challenge: Needs competent judges and corruption-proofing. Bad execution could clog worse than now.
- What: General contractors post bonds (e.g., 10% of project value) that subcontractors can tap if payments are late or disputed, refundable if all’s fair.
- Why: Flips the risk—now contractors lose cash for stalling, not subcontractors for trusting. Belina’s firm could’ve survived with this safety net.
- How: Mandatory for bids on public projects; optional but incentivized (tax breaks) for private ones. Subcontractors file claims with proof; bond pays out pending resolution.
- Upside: Forces honesty without banning profit. Small firms gain bargaining power.
- Challenge: Raises bidding costs—contractors will pass it to clients. Could shrink job volume short-term.
- What: Set minimum bid thresholds for projects based on realistic costs (labor, materials, overhead), barring unrealistically low offers that fuel corner-cutting.
- Why: Poland’s “lowest bidder wins” system pushes contractors to cheat subcontractors to break even. A floor stops the underbid-then-exploit cycle.
- How: Industry boards (not government) calculate regional cost baselines annually, adjusted for inflation. Bids below get rejected; violators lose licenses.
- Upside: Competition stays—firms vie on efficiency, not starvation tactics. Quality rises.
- Challenge: Risks collusion if floors creep too high. Needs sharp oversight.
- What: Hit firms with proven fraud (e.g., nonpayment, fake penalties) with steep tax hikes—say, double corporate rates for five years—on top of fines.
- Why: Greed drives this—make it cost more than it gains. Belina’s tormentors profited because penalties were a slap. Tax pain shifts the math.
- How: Tie it to court or audit findings. Revenue funds dispute courts or subcontractor relief. Public shaming via tax lists adds sting.
- Upside: Market still rules—cheat if you dare, but pay dearly. Deters without micromanaging.
- Challenge: Firms might dodge via shell companies. Needs tight tracking.
- Market-Friendly: No state ownership or central planning—just rules to make competition honest. Firms still chase profit, but not by stealing.
- Power Shift: Subcontractors gain tools (escrows, bonds, courts) to fight back, reducing the big-firm bully advantage.
- Self-Regulating: Transparency and penalties let the system police itself, minimizing bureaucracy.
- Scalable: Works for construction, manufacturing, gig work—anywhere the race festers.
- Cost: Higher bids and taxes might slow growth or scare off some players. Short-term pain for long-term health.
- Pushback: Big firms will lobby hard—cry “unfair” while hiding their own theft. Tough political will needed.
- Execution: Corruption or incompetence could gut these—Poland’s “lawlessness” hints at that risk. Implementation’s the bottleneck.
- The Scheme:
- 50M Contract: General contractor lands a big project—plausible, given Poland’s 350 billion PLN construction market.
- 5 Subs at 10M Each: Subcontractors handle chunks (e.g., concrete, electrical)—standard practice, per Belina’s story.
- Cheap Materials: They buy 20% cheaper goods (8M instead of 10M), subbing in junk for spec’d quality—saves 2M per sub, 10M total.
- Kickbacks: Inspector gets “a few percent” (say, 5% of 10M = 0.5M), leaving 9.5M for “swojaków” (cronies)—split among subs and maybe the general.
- The Quote: Cynical wisdom—everyone’s dirty; success is navigating the racket, not stopping it.
- Evidence from the Article
- Fraud’s Rampant: Belina claims “no subcontractor avoids fraud”—this fits a world where subs cheat on materials to survive or profit. His own tale—fake electrocution, invented delays—shows generals game the system; subs cutting corners mirrors that hustle.
- Weak Oversight: “Absolute lawlessness” and stalled prosecutions (Belina’s case) suggest inspectors could be bribed—0.5M to look away isn’t a stretch when accountability’s a joke.
- Cash Squeeze: Generals not paying (Belina’s 90% done, zero paid) could force subs to skimp—buy cheap to cover costs, then fudge it. Or, if paid, they pocket the delta, as here.
- Plausibility in Practice
- Material Swaps: Happens globally—US contractors have subbed MDF for hardwood, or thin rebar for thick. In Poland, with loose enforcement, swapping 10M-grade steel for 8M-grade junk is doable—20% savings tracks with bulk discounts or knockoffs.
- Kickbacks: “A few percent” to an inspector (0.5M) aligns with corruption norms—small enough to bribe, big enough to matter. Poland ranks 45th on Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Index (mid-tier), so payoffs aren’t wild speculation.
- Crony Split: “Swojaków” implies a tight circle—subs, general, maybe site bosses. Divvying 9.5M (1.9M each if five players) is tidy math for insiders. Belina’s tormentors profiting off nonpayment hints at similar self-dealing.
- Experience Angle
- Cynical Tone: The “experienced engineer” bit oozes burnout—someone’s seen this grind firsthand. Construction’s a rough trade; decades in it could breed this “everyone steals” view.
- Precision: Specific numbers (50M, 10M, 20%) suggest either real insight or a made-up example to sound legit. Either way, it’s not random—feels like a distilled pattern.
- Very Real Chance: This scheme’s credible—maybe not every job, but frequent enough. The article’s “daily fraud” vibe, Belina’s woes, and Poland’s shaky rule of law back it. Subs cutting corners to offset nonpayment (car2fill’s ecru paint gripe) or colluding with generals for profit both fit. Kickbacks to inspectors seal the loop—common in lax systems (e.g., Russia’s construction scandals).
- Scale Question: 50M jobs with 10M subs are big—more typical of highways or towers than small builds. Smaller gigs (5M, 1M subs) might scale down the take but keep the pattern. The 20% material skim’s a reasonable guess—big enough to profit, small enough to dodge casual checks.
- Not Universal: Car2fill’s “honest subs work decades” counters this—some play straight. But the cynic’s view doesn’t need every firm; a chunk doing this drags the industry down.
- Feasible: Technically, yes—buying cheaper steel, concrete, or wiring happens. Inspectors missing it (or taking cash) tracks with weak oversight. Splitting millions among “swojaków” is just greed plus trust—Poland’s clannish business culture could sustain it.
- Risks: Detection’s the hitch—20% cheaper materials might fail tests or collapse later (e.g., Turkey’s 2023 quake-exposed shoddy builds). But if inspectors are in, and courts lag, risk’s low short-term.
- Experience-Based? Likely—this isn’t armchair ranting. The numbers and “who steals how much” quip smell like insider grit, not fiction.
- Bad Drives Out Good: In Poland, generals who stiff subs (Belina’s 90%) or skimp materials (lord_of_cinder’s 20% dodge) win bids—cheap and dirty beats fair and solid. Honest subs like Belina go bust or quit, leaving the field to cheats. Serbia’s roof collapse—shoddy work killed 15—shows the same: bad builders thrive, good ones vanish.
- Fragmentation Then: Pre-modern money was a mess—kings debased coins, merchants hoarded gold, banks issued wild notes. No trust, endless scams. Sounds like Poland’s 700K firms or Serbia’s subs—disconnected, preyed on, no standard.
- Money’s Fix: Centralized currencies, banks, and rules (e.g., gold standard, central banks) restored faith—bad coins got melted, good ones stayed. Bank runs faded with deposit insurance (FDIC, 1933); hyperinflation’s rare where regulators bite.
- Standardize the “Currency” (Contractor Credibility)
- Money Lesson: Coins got uniform value—debased ones were outlawed or re-minted. Trust came from consistency.
- Construction Fix: Mandate a public contractor rating system—like a “coin stamp” for generals. Every firm gets a score (0-100) based on payment history, project quality, and compliance, audited by independents (Deloitte, locals—your pick). Poland’s platform could list: “Contractor X: 40, late pays”; Serbia’s: “Contractor Y: 20, roof killer.”
- Why: Subs see who’s “good money” (pays on time, builds solid) vs. “bad” (stiffs, skimps). Honest firms shine; cheats get exposed.
- “Melt” Bad Actors (Punish and Remove)
- Money Lesson: Gresham’s fix was yanking debased coins—England’s 1560 recoinage under Elizabeth purged trash currency, restoring faith.
- Construction Fix: Low scores trigger bans—say, below 50, no public tenders for 3 years; below 30, private clients get tax penalties for hiring you. Poland could bar Belina’s general; Serbia could ditch the roof flops.
- Why: Bad fish can’t swim—subs won’t bid, clients won’t risk. Good subs (higher scores) outlast, shifting the pool.
- Guarantee the “Good” (Protect Subs)
- Money Lesson: Deposit insurance (e.g., FDIC) stopped bank runs—people trusted “good money” wouldn’t vanish. Central banks backstopped value.
- Construction Fix: Subcontractor “payment insurance”—government or industry pool (funded by a 1% contract tax) auto-pays subs if generals default (Belina’s 90% unpaid). Pair with escrow (my idea)—funds locked, released on milestones.
- Why: Subs stay solvent, don’t hoard or quit like Gresham’s gold. Honest work circulates; bad generals starve without labor.
- Central “Mint” (Trade Body or Platform)
- Money Lesson: Central banks (Fed, ECB) standardized rules—fragmented banks and coins bowed to one authority.
- Construction Fix: Empower a trade body (Belina’s association in Poland, a Serbian equivalent) or public platform as the “mint”—tracks scores, enforces bans, runs escrow. Subs report nonpayment or fraud (aneczka69’s 300 PLN, Novi Sad’s collapse); body verifies, adjusts ratings.
- Why: Fragments unite under one roof—700K firms don’t need to agree, just check the list. Bad fish get culled systematically.
- Poland Fit: The 350B PLN market’s big enough for a ratings system—Belina’s case could kickstart it. Escrow and bans hit nonpayers where it hurts. Subs gain trust, bid smarter. But “lawlessness”—corrupt officials, slow courts—could stall enforcement. Needs a crisis (Serbia-style collapse) to force it.
- Serbia Edge: Novi Sad’s 15 dead and protests are the spark—public demands could birth a “safe contractor” stamp. Foreign cash might balk, but local jobs could bend. Corruption’s the snag—ratings get bought unless the body’s ironclad.
- Global Echo: India’s construction could mimic—ratings expose skimpers, insurance saves subs. Nigeria’s too chaotic—platform dies without power. Mexico’s cartels laugh it off. Works best where rules can stick.
- Money’s Glue: States had skin in the game—kings needed stable coins for taxes, wars. Central banks had muscle. Construction’s a side hustle—Poland’s government shrugs, Serbia’s takes bribes. No “king” cares enough.
- Fragmentation Depth: Coins were physical—melt and re-mint. Subs are people—700K firms, 1M workers—herding them’s tougher than metal. Banks unified; subs compete.
- Enforcement Gap: FDIC had teeth—banks feared audits. Poland’s courts lag; Serbia’s elites dodge. Bad contractors rebrand (shell firms) like debased coins never could.
ChatGPT:
In theory, smaller subcontractors could band together to fight back—creating informal blacklists, coordinating bids, or even forming alliances to push for better payment terms. But in practice, this is extremely difficult due to three major structural barriers:
1. Fragmentation and Competition Among Small Players
- Subcontractors are desperate for work, often bidding against each other for survival.
- If one firm tries to hold out against an exploitative general contractor (GW), another struggling firm will take the job for less, undercutting any attempt at collective action.
- The nature of the industry ensures low trust and high turnover—subcontractors don’t have a stable, union-like structure to coordinate long-term strategies.
2. Fear of Retaliation and Legal Weakness
- Blacklists against abusive general contractors already exist informally, but they work in a whisper network, not as a structured, enforceable tool.
- The problem? If a group of small subcontractors formally blacklist a big general contractor, the contractor can simply use other desperate firms or switch to shell companies to disguise their involvement.
- Worse, if the blacklist becomes public, subcontractors could be sued for defamation or accused of cartel-like behavior (which authorities take more seriously than wage theft).
3. Regulatory Capture and the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Dynamic
- The biggest firms have cozy relationships with politicians, meaning that even if they’re exposed for bad practices, they’re rarely punished.
- Public procurement laws often favor large, “reputable” firms that have the legal and financial muscle to win contracts, no matter how they treat their subcontractors.
- Even when scandals erupt (e.g., Grenfell in the UK, real estate corruption in Serbia, Polish construction fraud cases), the consequences rarely dismantle the power structures that created them.
Is There Any Hope for the Smaller Fish?
Yes, but it requires indirect methods that don’t rely solely on small firms organizing from the bottom up:
-
Expose the Big Fish:
- Instead of an informal blacklist, smaller firms could leak evidence of wage theft and corruption to investigative journalists or whistleblower networks.
- A well-documented scandal can damage a contractor’s reputation enough to hurt them in public bids.
-
Turn the Bureaucracy Against Them:
- If small firms weaponize bureaucracy—constantly reporting violations, delays, safety breaches, and non-payments—they can slow down corrupt contractors through administrative headaches.
- This requires patience and persistence, but when well-documented, it can force authorities to act.
-
Exploit Tech for Transparency:
- Some industries have begun rating contractors publicly (like Glassdoor for employers).
- A system where subcontractors rate general contractors anonymously could create soft pressure by warning others before taking jobs.
-
Find External Allies:
- Unions (even if weak in construction) sometimes step in if they see worker abuse tied to subcontractor non-payment.
- Political groups with an interest in anti-corruption might help if the issue can be framed as a broader public scandal rather than a niche business dispute.
Conclusion: The Pyramid Holds, but Can Be Eroded
The power structure in construction is intentionally designed to keep the bottom fragmented, making mass resistance unlikely. However, targeted, strategic disruptions—whether through media, bureaucratic pressure, or technology—can create cracks in the system. The key isn’t to fight it head-on, but to make exploitation riskier, more costly, and harder to hide.
Version 1.0
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do consider considering first...