4 ms·

The government puts a specific dollar figure on human life all the time. It's not afraid to do that. I disagree with that, at least with regards to the USA. D

by ansible 11y ago

The government puts a specific dollar figure on human life all the time. It's not afraid to do that. I disagree with that, at least with regards to the USA. Does Congress pass a resolution every year that dictates what a human life is worth? Something that is applied across the board for all legislation, rather than buried deep in the implications of whatever law they're talking about now?

bronson 11y ago
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/administration/pdf/Value_of_Statistical_Life-2009_Dollars.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/administration/pdf/Value_of...
- hyperpape 11y ago
  Based off that, you ought to be willing to spend $1.543 billion to save those 245 lives. The railroads are claiming that they've spent billions attempting to prepare this technology. If they're accurately representing the costs (big if!), this doesn't sound like it meets the government's own cost-benefit standards, so I'd like to hear more about the rationale behind requiring this technology.
rayiner 11y ago
Different agencies use different approaches applicable to their circumstances. For example: http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE%5Cepa%5Ceed.nsf/webpages/MortalityRiskValuation.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE%5Cepa%5Ceed.nsf/webpages/Mortalit... "The EPA does not place a dollar value on individual lives. Rather, when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution." "In the scientific literature, these estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often referred to as the "value of a statistical life.” This is because these values are typically reported in units that match the aggregate dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, such that we would expect one fewer death among the group during that year on average." "EPA recommends that the central estimate of $7.4 million ($2006), updated to the year of the analysis, be used in all benefits analyses that seek to quantify mortality risk reduction benefits regardless of the age, income, or other population characteristics of the affected population."
- SilasX 11y ago
  "We would never dream of placing a dollar value on human life. Therefore, we don't call it that!" (FWIW, placing a dollar value on life is absolutely necessary in order for any kind of sane optimization, so I completely sympathize with having to use the clever packaging.)

by ansible 11y ago

bronson 11y ago

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/administration/pdf/Value_of_Statistical_Life-2009_Dollars.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/administration/pdf/Value_of...

hyperpape 11y ago
Based off that, you ought to be willing to spend $1.543 billion to save those 245 lives. The railroads are claiming that they've spent billions attempting to prepare this technology. If they're accurately representing the costs (big if!), this doesn't sound like it meets the government's own cost-benefit standards, so I'd like to hear more about the rationale behind requiring this technology.

rayiner 11y ago

Different agencies use different approaches applicable to their circumstances. For example: http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE%5Cepa%5Ceed.nsf/webpages/MortalityRiskValuation.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE%5Cepa%5Ceed.nsf/webpages/Mortalit... "The EPA does not place a dollar value on individual lives. Rather, when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution." "In the scientific literature, these estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often referred to as the "value of a statistical life.” This is because these values are typically reported in units that match the aggregate dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, such that we would expect one fewer death among the group during that year on average." "EPA recommends that the central estimate of $7.4 million ($2006), updated to the year of the analysis, be used in all benefits analyses that seek to quantify mortality risk reduction benefits regardless of the age, income, or other population characteristics of the affected population."

SilasX 11y ago
"We would never dream of placing a dollar value on human life. Therefore, we don't call it that!" (FWIW, placing a dollar value on life is absolutely necessary in order for any kind of sane optimization, so I completely sympathize with having to use the clever packaging.)