4 ms·

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 i

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.

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.