3 ms·

Spending two million hours and three million dollars every few years, plus the cost of implementation and enforcement, on a program that won’t meaningfully affe

Spending two million hours and three million dollars every few years, plus the cost of implementation and enforcement, on a program that won’t meaningfully affect that statistic, isn’t reasonable. A pilot program testing effectiveness could have been, though.

gbear605 4y ago
The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the past research was accurate, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
- junofan 4y ago
  You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.
- joewadcan 4y ago
  In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  I appreciate the prompt but I read the article. The program hasn’t been pilot tested. The article referred to some studies and a meta study that CA is using to justify rolling out the entire program. The studies, in very brief summary, don’t actually find that these programs are effective, just that interventions are effective and education could theoretically lead to interventions. The studies also don’t show that these programs are bad, and in that middle state it’s better to do a real world test than to pass the bill or regulation using theoretical assumptions used to check off net impact calculations. Obviously this is tilting at windmills, given the state and the anti-drunk-driving optics in play.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> on a program that won’t meaningfully affect that statistic, Seems like quite an assumption. In my younger years I had several friends who became bartenders. There was a similar education campaign here that focused on the potential legal and financial implications of overserving customers or letting underage patrons in. Anecdotally, my friends became much more cautious about overserving people and much more careful about verifying IDs after that. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the training could have been reduced to 30 minutes instead of 2 hours.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Thanks; it’s good to hear your experience. Likewise anecdotally, I’ve seen a mix of responses to this kind of training. A confounding factor, even when bartenders and managers do change behavior, is shifting of alcohol consumption location and/or timing throughout the evening, in response to strict bartending.
zamadatix 4y ago
2 million hours (228 years) and 3 million dollars every 3 years doesn't take much to equalize out. Out of these 1 million bartenders if ~3 deaths/year were avoided as a result of this training that'd seem to about break even already and that's not even looking at any impact outside of death.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Thanks; I appreciate bringing in the statistical cost of a human life. There might not even be that improvement, and there might be a deleterious effect. Even in a positive scenario, the hours spent, and the opportunity cost on the legislative and bureaucratic side also have a cost in statistical human lives. So please keep that in mind, but you’re thinking about it in a helpful way.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I dont get how you got 2mil hours. There's 40m people in California. This seems to take 2 hours or less. Are you saying 1.25% of Californians are bartenders? Your accusation that this could hurt seem yet again wildly vastly hard to imagine. I dont appreciate this absurd anti-governance shade-casting, with seemingly totally bogus figures. I just dont get what drives this weird afactual spin.
    - zamadatix 4y ago
      The article is the source of the claim and as it points out it's not "bartenders" in the traditional sense of "a person working behind a bar" it's any employee which can takes order for/serves/delivers alcohol or checks IDs or who manages/supervisors those that could in one of the 56,000 establishments licensed to do so in California. I could definitely see that being ~1% of the population, or at least a significant fraction of it.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    They will have a cost as well but there is also a lot more to be saved than just statistical life saved by straight causal death too. In fact most of the cost is probably around that as dying can be much cheaper to society than longterm healthcare and loss of QALY. At best so far you seem to have placed a solid argument it could be possible it was not be worth the opportunity cost to implement and I'm not sure adding more waiting and more process is really the proposal to solve that type of concern. On the other hand in regards to why it's unreasonable to think the program will meaningfully affect the statistic you've only provided your opinion on it against the backing provided by the legislature. However weak that backing may seem it's still stronger than a counterclaim with no alternative backing at all.

gbear605 4y ago

The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the past research was accurate, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

junofan 4y ago
You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.
joewadcan 4y ago
In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  > $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.
1123581321 4y ago
I appreciate the prompt but I read the article. The program hasn’t been pilot tested. The article referred to some studies and a meta study that CA is using to justify rolling out the entire program. The studies, in very brief summary, don’t actually find that these programs are effective, just that interventions are effective and education could theoretically lead to interventions. The studies also don’t show that these programs are bad, and in that middle state it’s better to do a real world test than to pass the bill or regulation using theoretical assumptions used to check off net impact calculations. Obviously this is tilting at windmills, given the state and the anti-drunk-driving optics in play.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> on a program that won’t meaningfully affect that statistic, Seems like quite an assumption. In my younger years I had several friends who became bartenders. There was a similar education campaign here that focused on the potential legal and financial implications of overserving customers or letting underage patrons in. Anecdotally, my friends became much more cautious about overserving people and much more careful about verifying IDs after that. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the training could have been reduced to 30 minutes instead of 2 hours.

1123581321 4y ago
Thanks; it’s good to hear your experience. Likewise anecdotally, I’ve seen a mix of responses to this kind of training. A confounding factor, even when bartenders and managers do change behavior, is shifting of alcohol consumption location and/or timing throughout the evening, in response to strict bartending.

zamadatix 4y ago

2 million hours (228 years) and 3 million dollars every 3 years doesn't take much to equalize out. Out of these 1 million bartenders if ~3 deaths/year were avoided as a result of this training that'd seem to about break even already and that's not even looking at any impact outside of death.

1123581321 4y ago
Thanks; I appreciate bringing in the statistical cost of a human life. There might not even be that improvement, and there might be a deleterious effect. Even in a positive scenario, the hours spent, and the opportunity cost on the legislative and bureaucratic side also have a cost in statistical human lives. So please keep that in mind, but you’re thinking about it in a helpful way.
- rektide 4y ago
  I dont get how you got 2mil hours. There's 40m people in California. This seems to take 2 hours or less. Are you saying 1.25% of Californians are bartenders? Your accusation that this could hurt seem yet again wildly vastly hard to imagine. I dont appreciate this absurd anti-governance shade-casting, with seemingly totally bogus figures. I just dont get what drives this weird afactual spin.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    The article is the source of the claim and as it points out it's not "bartenders" in the traditional sense of "a person working behind a bar" it's any employee which can takes order for/serves/delivers alcohol or checks IDs or who manages/supervisors those that could in one of the 56,000 establishments licensed to do so in California. I could definitely see that being ~1% of the population, or at least a significant fraction of it.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  They will have a cost as well but there is also a lot more to be saved than just statistical life saved by straight causal death too. In fact most of the cost is probably around that as dying can be much cheaper to society than longterm healthcare and loss of QALY. At best so far you seem to have placed a solid argument it could be possible it was not be worth the opportunity cost to implement and I'm not sure adding more waiting and more process is really the proposal to solve that type of concern. On the other hand in regards to why it's unreasonable to think the program will meaningfully affect the statistic you've only provided your opinion on it against the backing provided by the legislature. However weak that backing may seem it's still stronger than a counterclaim with no alternative backing at all.