3 ms·

Using value of statistical life figures of the federal government, and lives potentially saved by the shutdown, we are still saving much more in life $ value th

Using value of statistical life figures of the federal government, and lives potentially saved by the shutdown, we are still saving much more in life $ value than the cost of the shutdown on economic output. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 And, I might add, the situation isn't fully yet understood, so it's not like anyone making these calculations is doing so with the real known risk factored in.

logicchains 6y ago
Often public policy will use "quality-adjusted life years" saved as a more precise metric in decision-making, which allows for valuing e.g. an intervention that saves people 10 years of life on average more than one that saves 2 years of life on average. Using this metric, it's not clear that we're saving more in life $ value than the cost of the shutdown: https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-of-flattening-the-curve/ https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-o... .
Scarblac 6y ago
Just comparing the numbers is one thing, but there is an inherent unfairness: the risk of death is much higher in certain groups (mostly the elderly). And the economic damage is also distributed very unequally: some sectors are wiped out, some are barely hurt or even profit. So the cost is in one group and the benefit is in another. It can't be easily helped but it's extremely unfair.
luckylion 6y ago
"Life value" considers a life over the years, not life itself. The value isn't constant since the earning potential is a large part of that value. It should be obvious that it sinks with age, that is if you're 80, the projected earnings that you will achieve during the rest of your life is very different from the projected earnings of the same person at 20 years. If you wanted to take out an insurance that would pay you some sum for the rest of your life if you had an accident, that will also change dramatically if you're 20 vs if you're 80. Saying that the value is constant is a PR thing, not scientific, and it's not what "we" (as in governments, insurances, hospitals etc pp) do. We look at age. We'll prefer to give a new heart to a 20 year old vs a 89 year old.

logicchains 6y ago

Often public policy will use "quality-adjusted life years" saved as a more precise metric in decision-making, which allows for valuing e.g. an intervention that saves people 10 years of life on average more than one that saves 2 years of life on average. Using this metric, it's not clear that we're saving more in life $ value than the cost of the shutdown: https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-of-flattening-the-curve/ https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/economic-cost-o... .

Scarblac 6y ago

Just comparing the numbers is one thing, but there is an inherent unfairness: the risk of death is much higher in certain groups (mostly the elderly). And the economic damage is also distributed very unequally: some sectors are wiped out, some are barely hurt or even profit. So the cost is in one group and the benefit is in another. It can't be easily helped but it's extremely unfair.

luckylion 6y ago

"Life value" considers a life over the years, not life itself. The value isn't constant since the earning potential is a large part of that value. It should be obvious that it sinks with age, that is if you're 80, the projected earnings that you will achieve during the rest of your life is very different from the projected earnings of the same person at 20 years. If you wanted to take out an insurance that would pay you some sum for the rest of your life if you had an accident, that will also change dramatically if you're 20 vs if you're 80. Saying that the value is constant is a PR thing, not scientific, and it's not what "we" (as in governments, insurances, hospitals etc pp) do. We look at age. We'll prefer to give a new heart to a 20 year old vs a 89 year old.