4 ms·
Not to sound callous but maybe they incorporate future expecting earnings of someone living in Flint, MI in their calculations somehow. EDIT: I know there is a
by arthurcolle 5y ago
Not to sound callous but maybe they incorporate future expecting earnings of someone living in Flint, MI in their calculations somehow.
EDIT: I know there is a rule against discussing downvotes, but this is a factual statement and the notion that this comment isn't relevant or doesn't enhance the conversation (for anyone who downvoted me) is an affront to any semblance of being capable of reasonable discourse in civil society - any downvoters should really reflect on what makes you feel like a statement made by a poster is actually what the poster thinks may or may not be right vs. your feelings of the post upsetting you.
- thebooktocome 5y agoWow, yeah, that sounds pretty callous.
- gruez 5y agoYeah, that's the point of the legal system. Even though the non-callous thing would be to treat life/health as priceless, you can't really be giving the victims infinity dollars for their suffering.
- dontbeevil1992 5y agosurely there's some middle ground between infinity and a paltry $3500. in our legal system there are concepts like damages, emotional damages, pain and suffering. it's not just about how much wages you missed out on. or does all that just go out the window because these are members of society who aren't paid a lot for their labor?
- loonster 5y agoThe problem is it's a class action against the government that the people elected. The victims are both the petitioner and the defendant. Regardless of the amount paid, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers.
- PascLeRasc 5y agoDid someone run on an agenda of making the water more acidic?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"Regardless of the amount paid, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers." If government destroyed your house through negligence, say military plane dropped a bomb on it, would you want to be made whole, or would you still believe that "the only beneficiaries are the lawyers"?
- tzs 5y agoI think you might be failing to take into account that the population of Flint (the ones getting paid) is slightly less than 1% of the population of Michigan (the ones paying). It is essentially equivalent to a retroactive insurance system. It is as if everyone in Michigan had been required to buy "State appointed manager mishandles water system causing lead poisoning" insurance, and Flint is now having a claim paid under that insurance.