3 ms·
I find it pretty hard to believe "just letting workers die" was at all economically cheaper than having regulations in place to minimize that likelihood. The co
by wizofaus 4y ago
I find it pretty hard to believe "just letting workers die" was at all economically cheaper than having regulations in place to minimize that likelihood. The costs might be subsidised more heavily, but to just waste the years of training and effort that's put into ensuring we have skilled qualified workers (of any sort) is surely enormously expensive.
- mburee 4y agoI suppose the more experienced (and more valuable I guess) knew most dangers and pitfalls and were better able to navigate amongst them. Some people also seem to be inherently more clumsy/likely to misstep/hurt themselves and they'd get sorted out sooner. Not that that was any good, but I don't think enough builders died to make a difference in productivity.
- wizofaus 4y agoI'd argue you're not really considering the total $ cost of an adult human being. I'm guessing many of those who have died during poorly regulated construction projects were relatively young too, so having invested heavily in nurturing workers to that point, the potential to capitalise on decades of productivity is lost.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agoI'd argue that they are, but that Rockefeller era capitalists were fine replacing workers that died, to whom they likely gave little training back then perhaps you value workers more than they did? not that there's anything wrong with that
- wizofaus 4y agoThat's the mismatch though - the costs of raising/ educating/training them and most of the opportunity costs due to their premature death weren't borne by those responsible for their safety.