> Studies that estimate the monetary price we are willing to pay to save a life have long shown puzzlingly great variation across individuals and contexts. Perh

> Studies that estimate the monetary price we are willing to pay to save a life have long shown puzzlingly great variation across individuals and contexts. Perhaps in part because the topic is politically charged. Those who seek to justify higher safety spending, stronger regulations, or larger court damages re medicine, food, environmental, or job accidents tend to want higher estimates, while those who seek to justify less and weaker of such things tend to want lower estimates If lawmakers are deciding the price, then we're already wrong. Each person perceives the subjective value of their own life differently. There shouldn't be a unified "value of life". Each person should do their own cost-benefit analysis and decide how much they're willing to risk their own safety. The incentives should be placed in such a way that each person's decision doesn't directly impact other people's lives though. And maybe those that "want lower estimates" don't really want lower estimates, but they don't want any specific estimate to be shoven down their throats. In the same vein that those that want less safety regulations don't really "want more accidents", they want more agency and freedom of choice so that each person can make their own decision depending on their priorities.