Political Economy

All things political, economic and social justice-y

[afloweroutofstone]

The "value of a statistical life" is a wonky and heartless-sounding concept that's hard to explain to normal people, but sometimes you have to explain it, because if you don't then people won't notice it when something huge like this happens.

New York Times [no paywall version]:

...What is the value of a human life? Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the answer has been in the millions of dollars. The higher the value, the more the government has required businesses to spend on their operations to prevent a single death. But for the first time ever, at the Environmental Protection Agency the answer is effectively zero dollars. Last week, the E.P.A. stopped estimating the monetary value of lives saved when setting limits on two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone. Instead, the agency is calculating only the costs to companies of complying with pollution regulations. “The Trump administration is saying, literally, that they put zero value on human life,” Marshall Burke, an environmental economist at Stanford University, said in an email. “If your kid breathes in air pollution from a power plant or industrial source, E.P.A. is saying that they care only insofar as cleaning up that pollution would cost the emitter.” ...[the change] appears to shelve a powerful tool, known as the value of a statistical life, that agencies have used for decades in the cost-benefit analyses that justify new regulations.

To estimate the effects of a policy, analysts conduct a cost-benefit analysis, a model used to weigh the policy's pros and cons against one another. In order to do that, you have to have an estimate of how much a human life is worth.

Many people object to this morally under the premise that human life is infinitely valuable, but that's an unworkable assumption. If every life is worth infinite dollars, then the appropriate maximum speed limit for drivers would be zero. Every unit you raise the speed limit by trades the additional benefits of driving that fast (mobility, economic value, reduced time costs) against the additional costs of the lives lost by new auto accidents. If the value of a human life is truly infinite, then it would be unacceptable to allow any road deaths, meaning that driving should be illegal at any speed. A society which does not allow for any risk of human death is one which cannot reasonably function.

We already make implicit assumptions about the value of human life when discussing our policy preferences, we just keeping this value vague in our heads rather than setting an actual dollar amount out loud. The Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) is a concept that turns our implicit assumptions explicit, attaching a specific dollar value to a life to allow for the calculation of cost-benefit analyses.

The higher you set the VSL, the more likely it is to suggest that regulations are worthwhile. The costs of a safety rule might outweigh the benefits when you assume a VSL of $1 million, while the opposite would be true if you had a VSL of $5 million.

For this reason, the exact benchmark for VSL is highly contested. In fact, different government agencies often adopt different standards in different contexts. The HHS guidelines from 2024 provide a range of VSL values from $6.1 million to $19.9 million for that year.

The EPA formerly valued a statistical human life at about $11.7 million. Under this estimate, clean air regulations have benefits that massively outweigh their costs (NYT offers a ratio of 30-1). But by setting the VSL to $0, practically all life-saving government regulations at the EPA are now unjustifiable. By taking the largest benefits out of the equation and counting only costs, virtually all regulations will appear inefficient. It doesn't matter if a rule costs businesses only $1 to save 100 lives, that $1 in costs will be enough to reject the regulation (unless other benefits are sufficiently large).

So long as this policy remains under the second Trump administration, regulatory rulemaking at the EPA will be heavily biased in favor of big business while entirely ignoring the value of human life.

[depsidase]

[morsking]

[synchodai]

Convenience isn't bad because of some inherent value in toil or it rots your soul. Convenience is bad because it often comes at the cost of an exploited underclass. I don't care if someone wants to taxi their meal to their house instead of making it themselves or even driving to the restaurant themselves. I care that meal delivery apps underpay their workers (they don't even consider them their workers), provide no workplace protections, and prey on their desperation.

The desire for convenience is a morally neutral thing (no matter how many capitalists want their workers to see unproductivity or aversion to the "grind" as a moral failing). Companies that sell you only convenience by making it worse for yourself and for others are not.

[liberalsarecool]

Let's have the conversation about UBI.

Let the actual data and facts end the bad faith arguments.

[wizardshark]

I was a participant of the now cancelled UBI pilot in Ontario Canada. I was happier, safer, was able to move and work at better jobs.

And oops there it is. Better jobs.

Better jobs

It's a class barrier. They need a poverty class to function

[teratocybernetics]

#people being able to leave jobs that maltreat them is a threat to capitalism

[kyraneko]

Being able to force every last job in existence to make itself sufficiently respectful, acceptable, and worthwhile to the worker that someone will choose to do it when NOT goaded by the threat of starvation is probably both the greatest positive effect UBI would accomplish AND the real reason it faces so much opposition.

[vilkalizer]

#people being able to leave jobs that maltreat them is a threat to capitalism

[swimmingblue]

and there it is.

Capitalism needs an underclass. It's not that these jobs are less valuable - in fact, many of them are necessary for society to function. (thank you, sanitation workers!) It's more that capitalism needs these jobs to be seen as less-than so that they can get away with treating these people like shit - bad wages, bad treatment, etc.

If everyone got UBI, a lot of jobs would stand empty. Not because people don't want to do them, but people don't want the bad treatment that comes with them. Employers would be forced to change their methods if they wanted to hire and retain staff, and they don't want to do it.

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

#honestly you could probably hire retail workers at like $5 an hour under UBI#but you wouldn't be able to schedule them for a clopen on a weekend and threaten their livelihood if they're five minutes late#would that be worth it? probably to like normal people. megacorps... well.

[mysharona1987]

[o-blivia]

If you're wondering why there's so much resistance to the idea of a 4-day work week, or why automation hasn't actually led to people working less like it was supposed to...

[left-reminders]

[sunshine-tattoo]

"Wealth isn't "stuff", its the social relationship of command."

Oh fuck thats an amazing point.

[depsidase]

[hasufin]

You know, treating this seriously, people don't get what was wrong with the Soviet Union.

It wasn't the fucking Communism. Now, maybe Communism doesn't work. Maybe it inevitably leads to a failure, or eventually becomes capitalism in all but name. Maybe. We don't really know, because every economic failure in the Soviet Union could be attributed to two factors:

Economic Isolation: The USSR was blocked from the wealthiest parts of the world. Part of that was Soviet choices, but a big chunk was also the USA sabotaging them at every opportunity. The Soviet economy didn't have access to markets, couldn't grow industry effectively, and was unable to implement technological improvements.

Authoritarianism: This is the big one. The authoritarianism in the Soviet Union elevated incompetent toadies who didn't know anything about their jobs, and who implemented disastrous policies which ignored science in favor of ideology. People like Lysenko, or RFK jr. At the same time, it also forced out and punished people for not telling the leadership what they wanted to hear, so there was no chance to correct mistakes.

And the thing about these issues is, they're not unique to Communism. And they are just as disastrous in any economic system.

But people have been trained to fixate on "Communism", and thus have eagerly embraced the economic isolation and authoritarianism which were always the real problems.

[biokitty]

The capitalist's ideal isn't based in reality and we all need to start acknowledging that.

In the capitalist ideal, every corporation has all employees except the c-suite farmed out to AI. The corporation, shareholders, and c-suite pay nothing in taxes while the government provides subsidies for everything the corporation could possibly need. They have almost no overhead costs because they have no employees to pay benefits for, no slave wages to pay. No unions to worry about. This ideal allows for the maximum profit possible (and it still won't be enough) while not having to deal with any of the sticky shit the comes with employing human beings: no lunch breaks, no required breaks, hell you don't even need to build bathrooms anymore.

But what this ideal ignores is that if most corporations manage to do this none of the people buying their product/service will have any money to actually buy their shit. And it applies to everything across the board. First it will be luxury items like coffee, movies, new clothing, cars, etc. Once people can't afford even a single luxury you'll see the basics starting to get cut, people will shop less at grocery stores, evictions will go up, people will stop buying their medications, gasoline, etc. There will be no middle class, it will only be millionaires and everyone else needs SNAP/bread lines and housing subsidies/homeless shelters.

You literally can't run a business if you suck your entire consumer base dry by not providing jobs, paying taxes, or a livable wage. But this is truly the ideal for a capitalist, they just don't think about or care about the consequences of what this ideal would mean, what it would lead to.

[encodedincommotion-deactivated2]

it's crazy how plausible all the shit the corporations do in the murderbot diaries is. that one scene when murderbot was talking to those humans who had signed a 20 year corporate work contract and it asked them if the contract specified 20 years by the standard local calendar or by a proprietary calendar created by the company was downright unsettling 😬 if the ceos of modern earth companies read these books they would probably start crying because the government won't let them do most of this in real life.

[radioorpheus]

hey fun fact this has absolutely happened before. part of the push to standardize time/timezones was because factory employers had clocks set to the pace of their machinery. meaning of the workers were not doing enough, time would run slower until they had reached their goal. there is historical precedent.

[duckbunny]

[guerrillatech]

[lierdumoa]

"If stuff was just handed to me I'd have no motivation to do anything! That's human nature!" No, babe, that's depression. Psychologically healthy people are still motivated to do things even when their survival isn't being actively threatened.

[dramaticowl]

[Image description: tweet by Roxi Horror @roxiqt on March 30, 2022 at 11:13 AM: “’Oh, so you think everyone should just be handed enough money to live?’ lol. lmao. yeah.”]

[ruinedrainbowpooka]

okay so like, we all know that housekeeping in a hotel is a Shit Job, right?

I worked with a woman who was independently wealthy. But she liked working housekeeping. So she did. And if the manager got bitchy with her, she’d just shrug and be like “Okay, I can quit.”

Like the manager treated her like a human being because she knew she had to because otherwise she’d lose one of her best workers.

Yes, everyone should be just handed the money to live.

[actualaster]

I worked with a lady who’s husband made more than enough to support them both.  She just did the retail to have something to do with herself part-time.

There’s a lot of people who’d happily do the same sort of thing.  Honestly?  A lot of the jobs we consider “shitty” jobs?  Are shitty because the employees are treated like garbage.

If employees weren’t being screwed over by people higher up the chain constantly or being forced to kiss the asses of customers currently shitting all over them, those jobs would by and large be a whole lot more bearable, and appealing to more people!!

[amuseoffyre]

Plus rich people are just handed a lot of money, whether they earn it or not, and no one questions that. Only poor people getting money gets interrogated over and over and over again.

[giantgayratthatmakesalltherules]

I’d like to add a footnote to this thread that the US gives more money (by way of the income tax reduction) to homeowners than it does to poor people who need subsidized housing.

[hulking-godless-child-beast]

My best teacher in high school was the guy who had previously made a ton of money that he could’ve retired at like 30. Man just wanted to teach teenagers.

If people as a whole were handed enough money to live on, maybe more people like him wouldn’t be put off by the poor salary teachers make. (also teachers should be paid a lot more)

[atopfourthwall]

There's also this assumption that if people were just handed enough money to live that they'd do absolutely nothing, as if they'd be satisfied being completely bored all the time. They'd still buy food. They'd still buy video games. They'd still go out and get coffee and put money into the economy even if they didn't want to work because they still want to LIVE. They'd buy movies. They'd go DO stuff. I review comic books on the internet and I love doing it, but I often have to compromise on some things because I just can't afford to do otherwise and I stress out about stuff because I need to earn money.

[largeplateofstromboli]

[cryscal]

"Psychologically healthy people are still motivated to do things even when their survival isn't being actively threatened."

Speaking for myself, I would be even MORE motivated to do things if my basic needs were guaranteed met. IJS

[nimona-antifa]

👆🏾👆🏾👆🏾👆🏾👆🏾

[depsidase]

[ivy-michaels]

This website sometimes seems to think that leftism is when you can buy cheap things, and the cheaper they are, the more leftist it is. I really don't know how to explain the world to people like that.

[ivy-michaels]

I made a post a few weeks back about how electronics should be big, expensive, and repairable. A lot of people responded that they agreed with big and repairable, but it should be cheap too.

Here's the problem with that, cheap and well-constructed are mutually exclusive. They simply are. As long as you have an economy where people are paid for work, even with a robust safety net or even universal income, all costs eventually boil down to labor.

Yes, there's raw materials and such, but those are then converted into usable materials using, can anyone give me the answer? That's right, labor.

Simply put, money is a physical representation of labor. This isn't a controversial stance, this is extremely basic baby's first Marxism. Like, you say you go here, but you don't seem to understand this.

The reason things like LCD panels and disposable LED lights and hard disks are so cheap is because their production has been opitmized to produce the most of a specific item in the least amount of time. An electron tube for a radio takes a skilled technician an hour or so to make and costs you $30. Transistors can be made by the thousands on a fully automated production line in the same time and cost you less than a buck each.

If you want a laptop computer that you can service, repair, and upgrade, you have to engineer it to be serviceable, repairable, and upgradeable. That means someone has to be paid to do that. You have to use more materials in order to make it large enough that you can access the servicable parts, which means you have to pay for more materials. You have to provide quality control for all the various extra connections that make servicability possible, someone has to be paid for that. You have to be willing to reject products that make it to final assembly and do not check out for quality control, which is incredibly expensive.

So no, you can't just make things "Big, Cheap, and Repairable." Being cheap and well-made are completely orthogonal to each other.

[ivy-michaels]

#if everyone is being compensated fairly#nearly everything 'big' in your life should cost you a lot of money (buying it from someone who made it or at the end of the supply chain)#or a lot of time (making it yourself from scratch or base materials)#and it should last a LONG time and receive maintenance and repair over its lifetime#furniture clothes technology tools curtains quilts toys instruments#etc

[justalittlesolarpunk]

This. Also, in a world where people are being fairly compensated for their labour, you will also be getting paid enough to afford these things once in a while.

[existennialmemes]

Thinking about how when the Oceangate sub imploded, the coastguard picked it up on their radar and knew from the moment it happened that everyone on board was already gone, and yet there was still a five day manhunt.

And how like a week before that, a refugee ship sank off the coast of Greece, whose officials knew this was happening and had ships within reach, but intentionally did nothing.

And how there was like the most expansive manhunt in recent history to find a suspect in the UHC shooting. In a city known for its unsolved crimes. How Briana Boston was arrested for a vaguely perceived threat to a CEO she wasn't even speaking to nor mentioned, while internet stalkers are never addressed unless they hurt someone, and then it's a maybe

And just how there is always money to perform for the rich, even when they can't actually be helped. And there is never money to help the poor, no matter how easy they would be to save.

And for some reason it's considered "dangerous and extreme" to want a world where our lives aren't just fodder at the whims of the rich.

[heedra]

it’s legitimately so fucked up and heartbreaking that in this society the ability to just like…relax and have fun with friends and loved ones is like…considered something you have to earn or make time at your own expense for. it should be regarded as one of the inalienable cornerstones of being human. i’m not joking, like the fact that having fun and chilling with your buds is considered an expendable frivolity instead of a vital core need is heartbreaking. not that capitalist society has ANY vital core needs that it’s not prepared to gate behind a monetary cost though lmao.

[depsidase]

[depsidase]