4 ms·

> I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. My favorite example of this is the "childr

> I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. My favorite example of this is the "children under 2 don't need their own airline seat". The idea was that if you required a separate seat, more people would drive. That in turn would lead to more fatalities as the fatality/mile in cars is so much higher than in planes. I would also point out that if someone has purchased life insurance, they have explicitly made a decision about the cost of a life when they choose the amount of insurance they are willing to take on.

bamfly 3y ago
> I would also point out that if someone has purchased life insurance, they have explicitly made a decision about the cost of a life when they choose the amount of insurance they are willing to take on. This doesn't follow. It's not as if you're only allowed to purchase life insurance if it somehow accounts for the entire "cost of your life", whatever that is. I doubt most policies and policy-buyers attempt to achieve that, though some might. [EDIT] To expand a bit, I'm pretty sure a lot of policies are purchased with goal-oriented thinking, and that goal's usually not "account for the cost of the life": for an older person, it might be "ensure end-of-life expenses are covered". For a younger one, it might be "make sure my family's OK until they can recover from the loss, which I guesstimate to require $X" or "make sure my family can afford to remain where they are at least until the kids are out of school"
- bombcar 3y ago
  Most planners would tell you that you that you need insurance to replace your expected income (or the cost of replacing a non-working spouse's childcare). That amount will often be much less than you'd pay not to die.
8note 3y ago
> I would also point out that if someone has purchased life insurance, they have explicitly made a decision about the cost of a life when they choose the amount of insurance they are willing to take on. Isn't that the amount they can afford, rather than the value? Their wage is roughly irrelevant to their value
andrewaylett 3y ago
I have a term decreasing life insurance policy, which means that the amount my estate gets will drop to zero by the end of the policy. It's not the value of my life that it's covering but the value of my mortgage.
- alexpotato 3y ago
  I didn't realize this was a thing. Will check it out.

bamfly 3y ago

> I would also point out that if someone has purchased life insurance, they have explicitly made a decision about the cost of a life when they choose the amount of insurance they are willing to take on. This doesn't follow. It's not as if you're only allowed to purchase life insurance if it somehow accounts for the entire "cost of your life", whatever that is. I doubt most policies and policy-buyers attempt to achieve that, though some might. [EDIT] To expand a bit, I'm pretty sure a lot of policies are purchased with goal-oriented thinking, and that goal's usually not "account for the cost of the life": for an older person, it might be "ensure end-of-life expenses are covered". For a younger one, it might be "make sure my family's OK until they can recover from the loss, which I guesstimate to require $X" or "make sure my family can afford to remain where they are at least until the kids are out of school"

bombcar 3y ago
Most planners would tell you that you that you need insurance to replace your expected income (or the cost of replacing a non-working spouse's childcare). That amount will often be much less than you'd pay not to die.

8note 3y ago

andrewaylett 3y ago

I have a term decreasing life insurance policy, which means that the amount my estate gets will drop to zero by the end of the policy. It's not the value of my life that it's covering but the value of my mortgage.

alexpotato 3y ago
I didn't realize this was a thing. Will check it out.