4 ms·

That would be illegal, and "the public" is much larger than just the customers of a particular company. This is beside the point though. The government asks "wo

That would be illegal, and "the public" is much larger than just the customers of a particular company. This is beside the point though. The government asks "would the average person be willing to pay $x to lower their chance of death by y%". The corporate executive asks "would I be willing to pay >$0 to lower their chance of death by y%". "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make."

krisoft 2y ago
> That would be illegal What do you mean it would be illegal? Obviously the corporation prices in all the expected future recalls into their prices. Yes they won't charge you for the recall, but the future costumers will pay higher prices if in the corporation's calculation the chance of recalls (or the cost of doing them) is increased.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  > > That would be illegal > What do you mean it would be illegal? Obviously the corporation prices in all the expected future recalls into their prices. Yes they won't charge you for the recall, but the future costumers will pay higher prices if in the corporation's calculation the chance of recalls (or the cost of doing them) is increased. Why oh why do I have to read this on HN again and again? The price of a good does not primarily depend on the cost to make it. So no Boeing can't easily raise their future prices to account for the cost of saving lifes, because there are competitors.
  - Georgelemental 2y ago
    > because there are competitors Unfortunately, in Boeing's case there aren't very many competitors.
  - idontpost 2y ago
    [dead]
  - krisoft 2y ago
    Ok? Does that change the legality of what I described? I don't think so. And that is what I talked about. Raising their prices to cover the recall would not be illegal. Maybe it would be bad business for them, maybe not. I haven't said anything about that. > Why oh why do I have to read this on HN again and again? This is unnecessarily confrontational.
gruez 2y ago
>That would be illegal As the other commenter has mentioned, it's passed on via higher prices in the future. >This is beside the point though. The government asks "would the average person be willing to pay $x to lower their chance of death by y%". The corporate executive asks "would I be willing to pay >$0 to lower their chance of death by y%". "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make." Okay, but surely you don't agree that Boeing should spend infinite amounts of money making their planes safe? For instance we don't install backup engines on the off chance that all 2 engines fail. That's all I'm trying to argue, that the cold calculation/cost benefit analysis as mentioned in the OP isn't where Boeing went wrong, it's that they they undervalued the value of a human life. This was specifically mentioned in my original comment.
- burkaman 2y ago
  What I am trying to argue is that valuing a human life accurately doesn't matter if you're weighing it against your own profits. The correct comparison is against societal benefit, profit is completely morally irrelevant. I agree that the ceiling for how much money you could spend trying to make an airplane perfectly safe is infinite, so by definition they have to stop somewhere. However, I disagree that finding that line of where to stop has anything to do with the statistical value of a human life. For example, imagine the Boeing CEO says "we could spend $20 billion on R&D and manufacturing of a new safety system that would on average prevent 1 crash per year, but a 737 MAX carries 200 people, at $15M per life that's only $3 billion in value, so it's obviously better for us to skip it and pass that $20 billion on to shareholders". This would be criminal, and not because their value of a life is off and they got the math a little bit wrong. It's criminal because they are consciously choosing to kill people unnecessarily. If it is physically and financially possible to make your product safer, you do it, without any thought to how much a life is worth. If it is not possible, because you can't figure out how to solve a problem or it would be so expensive to fix that your business couldn't survive, then you sit down and think about whether it's worth selling your product at all. Are there safer alternatives available? Could a better-funded company fix the flaws you've found? If you determine that your product is important, there are no alternatives out there, and it cannot be made safer, only then do you start weighing the benefits to society against the deaths you expect to occur. I don't really think this is a financial decision involving the value of a life - if you expect your product to kill people then the expected benefits need to be so overwhelming that doing the financial math is unnecessary.

krisoft 2y ago

> That would be illegal What do you mean it would be illegal? Obviously the corporation prices in all the expected future recalls into their prices. Yes they won't charge you for the recall, but the future costumers will pay higher prices if in the corporation's calculation the chance of recalls (or the cost of doing them) is increased.

cycomanic 2y ago
> > That would be illegal > What do you mean it would be illegal? Obviously the corporation prices in all the expected future recalls into their prices. Yes they won't charge you for the recall, but the future costumers will pay higher prices if in the corporation's calculation the chance of recalls (or the cost of doing them) is increased. Why oh why do I have to read this on HN again and again? The price of a good does not primarily depend on the cost to make it. So no Boeing can't easily raise their future prices to account for the cost of saving lifes, because there are competitors.
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > because there are competitors Unfortunately, in Boeing's case there aren't very many competitors.
- idontpost 2y ago
  [dead]
- krisoft 2y ago
  Ok? Does that change the legality of what I described? I don't think so. And that is what I talked about. Raising their prices to cover the recall would not be illegal. Maybe it would be bad business for them, maybe not. I haven't said anything about that. > Why oh why do I have to read this on HN again and again? This is unnecessarily confrontational.

gruez 2y ago

>That would be illegal As the other commenter has mentioned, it's passed on via higher prices in the future. >This is beside the point though. The government asks "would the average person be willing to pay $x to lower their chance of death by y%". The corporate executive asks "would I be willing to pay >$0 to lower their chance of death by y%". "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make." Okay, but surely you don't agree that Boeing should spend infinite amounts of money making their planes safe? For instance we don't install backup engines on the off chance that all 2 engines fail. That's all I'm trying to argue, that the cold calculation/cost benefit analysis as mentioned in the OP isn't where Boeing went wrong, it's that they they undervalued the value of a human life. This was specifically mentioned in my original comment.

burkaman 2y ago
What I am trying to argue is that valuing a human life accurately doesn't matter if you're weighing it against your own profits. The correct comparison is against societal benefit, profit is completely morally irrelevant. I agree that the ceiling for how much money you could spend trying to make an airplane perfectly safe is infinite, so by definition they have to stop somewhere. However, I disagree that finding that line of where to stop has anything to do with the statistical value of a human life. For example, imagine the Boeing CEO says "we could spend $20 billion on R&D and manufacturing of a new safety system that would on average prevent 1 crash per year, but a 737 MAX carries 200 people, at $15M per life that's only $3 billion in value, so it's obviously better for us to skip it and pass that $20 billion on to shareholders". This would be criminal, and not because their value of a life is off and they got the math a little bit wrong. It's criminal because they are consciously choosing to kill people unnecessarily. If it is physically and financially possible to make your product safer, you do it, without any thought to how much a life is worth. If it is not possible, because you can't figure out how to solve a problem or it would be so expensive to fix that your business couldn't survive, then you sit down and think about whether it's worth selling your product at all. Are there safer alternatives available? Could a better-funded company fix the flaws you've found? If you determine that your product is important, there are no alternatives out there, and it cannot be made safer, only then do you start weighing the benefits to society against the deaths you expect to occur. I don't really think this is a financial decision involving the value of a life - if you expect your product to kill people then the expected benefits need to be so overwhelming that doing the financial math is unnecessary.