4 ms·
>A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million. A
by jsprogrammer 11y ago
>A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million. And then pass a law that the compensation for families of the victims is limited to what's in the fund.
What exactly is the "viaduct problem"?
- civilian 11y agoIt's going to collapse in the next big earthquake. //edit: and here's a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c
- jsprogrammer 11y agoThat's what I assumed, but I didn't (and still don't) see how setting up a limited liability fund for future victims would prevent what is shown in that simulation.
- jasonshen 11y agoThe more cynical/realistic problem is "dealing with the aftermath of the collapse", and the fund helps keep some of the costs from overrunning.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoYou could do the same after the fact.
- emodendroket 11y agoIt's a harder sell politically to cap compensation to what's in the fund after the fact.
- Yen 11y agoI don't know if this is what the MBA was going for, but the idea might be - Setting up the compensation fund cements the idea that the disaster is a 'when', not 'if'. Putting a small cap on compensation signals to people - if you're a victim, you might only get this amount of money. The overall effect being that people are actually motivated to vote for measures to fix the problem. e.g., I know I'll only get compensated for a small amount, thus, I want to make sure it's less likely I'm victimized.
- sharkweek 11y agoWell there goes my favorite hotdog stand...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]