What's a human life worth?

[Pure]

Economists have worked on this question, with varying results, see the urls below.

One can look at government payouts for deaths, e.g. those in the 9-11 events: apparently each life was reimbursed to family surviving, at 1.8 million, on average. Stockbrokers worth more than cafeteria workers in terms of lost income to family.

(Other countries of course have different scales: A wrongfully killed iraqi, afaik, yields a payment to his family, by the US, of 3,000 dollars.)

Another question is whether older peoples lives have the same value. A young male in prime of life is sometimes assigned 6 million dollar value.

[ADDED] The cost of safety measures raises the same issue. How much would you vote to spend on a safety measure which saves lives. How much do you spend, yourself, for 'side air bags' on your car? Your actions should your answers to the question. See the third url, re safety.


Read the material, and vote!!


environmental protection measures and 'cost effectiveness.'
http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Coverage/2003/March/How-Much-Are-Human-Lives-and-Health-Worth.cfm

environment and safety measures. the value of a frog's life.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1787.htm


would you consent to be seriously injured, for 10 million dollars?
http://nymedicalmalpractice.blogspot.com/2008/03/medical-malpractice-what-is-your-life.html

costs of safety measures regarding automobile use
http://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/content/view/1048/260/

compensations for iraqi lives lost; compensation for 9-11 victims families
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51886/

 

[rgraham666]

The second a monetary value is assigned to a human being their status is changed to human resource, a much lesser thing.

But it is more rational and so appeals to the modern Western way of thinking.

 

[impressive]

It's worth whatever mine's worth. No more. No less.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

It depends on the human.

 

[Pure]

rg

so if a loved one is killed by a dr. in a botched operation, you would not seek damages?

 

[Pure]

imp,

have a look at this, from one url i posted:


http://nymedicalmalpractice.blogspot...your-life.html


"$10 MILLION DOLLARS FREE!" THE CLASSIFIED AD SAID

If you thought the ad was true, wouldn't you race out the door to be the first one in line asking for the promised money? What if the ad said that before you could get your "Free $10 Million Dollars" you first had be involved in a head-on car crash? How many people do you think would still wait in line for that free money? I'll bet you there would be some desperate people waiting for that money, regardless of what it took to get it.

What if there were more conditions that you had to meet before you could get that money?

Let's say in addition to getting hit by a car head-on, you had to have been ejected from your car, airlifted by helicopter to the nearest trauma center where you fractured your pelvis, both your legs, were on a respirator for 20 days, you needed surgery to put the broken bones back together with hardware, pins and screws, and were hospitalized for 4 weeks. How many people to you think would still be on line asking for that "Free $10 Million Dollars?" Not many. Yet I'm sure you'd still find a few very desperate souls willing to do most anything for that kind of money.

But wait! Suppose there were even more conditions before you could get your hands on that $10 Million Dollars. Suppose that in addition to the horrendous trauma, lengthy surgery, complications from surgery, being in a medically-induced coma and hospitalized for an entire month, you needed three weeks of rehabilitation therapy where you learned to walk again. Suppose you also couldn't return to your job earning $60,000 per year, and you couldn't play with your children because you could barely walk. Your six-year-old wonders why you can't play soccer and baseball with him, and your 11 year-old asks why you're home during the day instead of being at work.

You spend your days watching ridiculous daytime soap operas thinking how you'll support your family since you can't work. Suppose your doctor tells you that you'll never be able to play sports again, and you'll be lucky to walk without a limp. Your job at the loading dock required heavy lifting and there's no way you can lift more than ten pounds now. You doctor says that if you go back to the type of work you were doing before, there's a good chance you'll never walk again.

How many people, given those conditions do you think would stick around asking for that "Free $10 Million Dollars?" I don't think anyone would.

===
Pure: To the above, one might add that if 10 mill is not adequate for a serious, long-term injury, what would be the figure for your life? is it calculable, or does it go off scale (because you can't enjoy the benefits)? If you say the latter, I will stipulate that you get the money up front, for, say 5 years; THEN you have to undergo the fatal collision.

Supposing that benefits to others can be considered in the problem: Assuming your family was badly off, and needed hundreds of thousands of dollars (yearly) for medical expenses (on a continuing basis), AND you had a life insurance policy AND you could fool the ins. company about a suicide being an accident, for what death-benefit amount would you kill yourself? Would you do it to get your family, say, 1 million?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is just the kind of question I don't like to think about unless I absolutely have to. It's odious, unpleasant, unaesthetic, and degrading, like "how much money would you want for your eyesight?"

Sometimes we have to deal with problems like this, but until then, I'll leave it alone.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is just the kind of question I don't like to think about unless I absolutely have to. It's the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, the ultimate in nihilism. It's odious, unpleasant, unaesthetic, and degrading, like "how much money would you want for your eyesight?" "How much money would it take for you to eat a plate of shit?"

Sometimes we have to deal with problems like this, but until then, I'll leave it alone.

 

[Pure]

note to dr mabeuse:

we deal with problems like this, every day, doc.

as i believe the first article mentions, when a safety measure costs the gov't or industry X dollars, one considers the lives saved.

and, unfortunately and nililistically, some measures are considered 'worth it' (by most everyone) and some are not.

from the first article

Methylene chloride OSHA, $112 M; 8.8; $12.7 M ,

the first figure being the cost of the regulation, the second being lives saved per year, and the last number the cost per life, 12.7 mill.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a different question, though, Pure. or, it's a different approach than the one you've started with. You're talking about politics and Capitalism-- not, actually, the value of human life, which might be philosophy, even if its couched in economic terms.

My answer was; "don't know, don't care," although that isn't quite accurate for me.

Sorry Pure is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

 

[oggbashan]

No more than a penny less than 30 pieces of silver.

29 denarii = 12 pence or about 25 cents US.

Og

 

[Liar]

Question is, for whom?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Liar's right. We leave this kind of repugnant work to the lawyers, because they're the ones who are professionally trained to see human beings as commodities, which is precisely why they're despised so much. They can put a commodity price on a human life, but not an emotional price. How much is a human life worth, but how much is a son or daughter worth? How much is a mother or father or lover worth?

You can't put a price on that but they do, and no one is happy with the result. People finally turn away from it in disgust and revulsion. No one is happy with it. No one is satisfied. No one says justice has been done.

 

[fifty5]

How about turning this on it's head - how much would you pay to stay alive, without injury, disfigurement or pain?

How much could you pay?

I'm not even starting to suggest that that is a 'better' way to evaluate the dollar value of life, but I do find it at least somewhat interesting.


Hidden behind the comparison of Iraqi/Afghanistan lives with US ones is the value of talent.

So a guy (or girl) works in 'the finance industry'. They work with gazillions of dollars - and get paid a percentage of that. Compare with a teacher in the public sector... which one actually contributes more to the general welfare of their society? Compare again with the manual labourer who loads/unloads wagons/ships/whatever - or works on a building site.

Then think about the junior doctor who works long hours and does her/his best to reassure and comfort victims of stroke, heart attack or deep vein thrombosis, but due to fatigue and mortal fallibility makes a mistake? (Thank heaven that the only time I was in a vaguely similar position, no-one got damaged in a way that led to litigation!)

Or Pablo Picasso himself - if just one of his pictures has a market value of $5 million, what was he worth?


I do accept that safety measure legislation does imply - or is based upon - a dollar value for life, but that has to be just a guess. My driver in Karachi was paid £10 a month - and was respected in proportion to that. (Other members of the college faculty were happy to keep him until he'd missed his last bus home, so he had to sleep in 'our' car.)

$500 - or £250 - apparently over valued his life!

The Beatles line: "Money can't buy you love" says a small part of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

we deal with problems like this, every day, doc.

as i believe the first article mentions, when a safety measure costs the gov't or industry X dollars, one considers the lives saved.

and, unfortunately and nililistically, some measures are considered 'worth it' (by most everyone) and some are not.

from the first article

Methylene chloride OSHA, $112 M; 8.8; $12.7 M ,

the first figure being the cost of the regulation, the second being lives saved per year, and the last number the cost per life, 12.7 mill.

This might be misleading, because it only takes into account non-deaths. I'm sure there would be many who would become sick, maybe even incapacitated, if not for the safety measures. If you are going to do this kind of calculation, you have to factor that in too.

 

[slyc_willie]

It's an interesting question, Pure.

we deal with problems like this, every day, doc.

What we deal with, every day, are perceptions, based on personal political economics, mediated by the dictates of whatever agency or allegiance we have pledged ourselves to.

For instance, as a soldier, I was trained in a variety of fields. I believe the US military invested several million dollars in me. So, there is that sense of monetary worth. And, I have to admit, there were times in which I felt I needed to justify that investment. I was also aware that, despite my apparent monetary value, I was, ultimately, rather easily replaced. So despite my being worth millions to the military, my esoteric value was significantly less.

Human lives have no financial value, as far as I am concerned. It is pointless to try and determine a monetary value for human life, because that value inherently fluctuates when compared to whatever it is you expect from the individual. A counter person at Burger King would be worth much less than an inspiring author who motivates millions, despite the fact that both are composed of the same combination of elements. Yet it would take the same bullet, produced in a factory for less than a penny, to kill them both.

"Value," when applied to anything alive, is determined only by perception.

 

[Pure]

good points, slyc, fifty5,

the value of training, etc. your training was expensive. but the 'replacement value' issue. is it the same? does it cost X million to replace you? a hard question, since soldiers are "batch processed." i suppose if it costs Y million to produce 1000 new soldiers, you can divide Y by 1000 to get the cost.

here is a practical riddle: consider the cost of a better helmet. let's say it costs $1000. will the army spend the money? they have to consider lives lost, and head injuries; rehab costs etc. clearly besides the life, there are other costs, which might be more, since there are far more injuries than deaths, as box points out.

i believe this issue already arose: consider the costs of putting armor plating on the sides of cars, trucks, etc, in iraq. this was not done at all, in the beginning.

this relates to some points of fifty5. the US army has lots of resources, so they can invest the millions. the iraqi army has less, though it's funded by the US, and the shia militias even less.
====

NOTE: to those voting 'inestimable," and doc, the anti-nihilist:

a while ago i started a thread on better helmets for US soldiers. none of those saying "inestimable"--jaq, luke's, rg, Selena, sher, tricia--offered to contribute one nickel, so far as the evidence of postings goes. the doc, who says this issue is nihilistic and crass, likewise (apparently) offered zero.

those avoiding the question, by their actions, are often answering it. consider, hypothetically, a proposed bridge over a busy street, for school kids to use. say it costs $20,000. do they vote yes, or no? let's say one child dies per year. clearly those voting no, assign a value less than $20,000 to the life of the child, notwithstanding the gradiose talk they might give about inestimable values.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sorry Pure is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Please rectify this.

 

[oggbashan]

...those avoiding the question, by their actions, are often answering it. consider, hypothetically, a proposed bridge over a busy street, for school kids to use. say it costs $20,000. do they vote yes, or no? let's say one child dies per year. clearly those voting no, assign a value less than $20,000 to the life of the child, notwithstanding the grandiose talk they might give about inestimable values.

In Kent we have such a bridge.

A grandmother and a junior school child were killed crossing a major road. It was the only way to the girl's home from school.

People had been asking for a footbridge for years. The deaths increased the pressure on the local authority and the bridge was built although usage would be light because only about twenty people crossed each day.

The bridge, on the A249 in Kent at Detling Hill, is called "Jade's Crossing" and has silhouettes of her in a ballet pose on the sides of the bridge.

The cost? Over a million pounds.

But the campaign for the bridge had mobilised people across the whole county. By any normal standards of setting priorities the bridge should never have been built because it wasn't cost effective.

Now it is a permanent reminder of the unnecessary death of a young girl and the power that angry voters can wield on a single issue. Every time I drive under that bridge I remember Jade and her grandmother (not many remember the grandmother) and reflect that things can happen if enough people want it to happen and will not take "No" for an answer.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

Economists have worked on this question, with varying results, see the urls below.

One can look at government payouts for deaths, e.g. those in the 9-11 events: apparently each life was reimbursed to family surviving, at 1.8 million, on average. Stockbrokers worth more than cafeteria workers in terms of lost income to family.

(Other countries of course have different scales: A wrongfully killed iraqi, afaik, yields a payment to his family, by the US, of 3,000 dollars.)

Another question is whether older peoples lives have the same value. A young male in prime of life is sometimes assigned 6 million dollar value.

[ADDED] The cost of safety measures raises the same issue. How much would you vote to spend on a safety measure which saves lives. How much do you spend, yourself, for 'side air bags' on your car? Your actions should your answers to the question. See the third url, re safety.


Read the material, and vote!!


environmental protection measures and 'cost effectiveness.'
http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Coverage/2003/March/How-Much-Are-Human-Lives-and-Health-Worth.cfm

environment and safety measures. the value of a frog's life.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1787.htm


would you consent to be seriously injured, for 10 million dollars?
http://nymedicalmalpractice.blogspot.com/2008/03/medical-malpractice-what-is-your-life.html

costs of safety measures regarding automobile use
http://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/content/view/1048/260/

compensations for iraqi lives lost; compensation for 9-11 victims families
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51886/

All human life is of equal value to me. I cant quantify or qualify one life over another. I can only say that I believe that in death we are equal and we are (I HOPE), each of us, more important than a financial compensation in the end.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's an interesting question, Pure.



What we deal with, every day, are perceptions, based on personal political economics, mediated by the dictates of whatever agency or allegiance we have pledged ourselves to.

For instance, as a soldier, I was trained in a variety of fields. I believe the US military invested several million dollars in me. So, there is that sense of monetary worth. And, I have to admit, there were times in which I felt I needed to justify that investment. I was also aware that, despite my apparent monetary value, I was, ultimately, rather easily replaced. So despite my being worth millions to the military, my esoteric value was significantly less.

Human lives have no financial value, as far as I am concerned. It is pointless to try and determine a monetary value for human life, because that value inherently fluctuates when compared to whatever it is you expect from the individual. A counter person at Burger King would be worth much less than an inspiring author who motivates millions, despite the fact that both are composed of the same combination of elements. Yet it would take the same bullet, produced in a factory for less than a penny, to kill them both.

"Value," when applied to anything alive, is determined only by perception.

The several millions of dollars would have been the fully amortized costs, but the military is primarily concerned with the marginal costs. That would be the equipment and uniforms, etc. issued to you, the food you consumed, etc. The other costs, such as the depreciation of the barracks where you lived, the salaries of the training and support personnel, and similar expenses would have been incurred whether you were there or not.

ETA: I didn't vote on the poll because there is not enough information. If you can place a value on lives at all, some are worth more than others. The value of the life of an 80 year old man with advanced Alzeimers and congestive heart disease would be less than the value of the life of an intelligent, healthy 18 year old woman. What would be the value of the life of Charles Manson? I would say a negative amount, because the world would be a better place if he were to drop dead tomorrow.

 

[GratefulFred]

A human life is worth about $300,000 if you count the value of each of the reusable body parts for transplant purposes. If it's a subjective question, you can just get opinions.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A human life is worth about $300,000 if you count the value of each of the reusable body parts for transplant purposes. If it's a subjective question, you can just get opinions.

That wouldn't be the value of a life; that would be the value of a corpse of a healthy person who died in an accident or some other mishap. The body of the 80 year old man I mentioned earlier would not be worth anywhere near that. The body of Charles Manson might be.

 

[oggbashan]

A standard figure used in the UK for the calculating the cost of a fatal road accident is one million pounds for the emergency services and the subsequent investigation.

One dead or four dead - it's the same figure.

That figure excludes insurance payouts for the deaths and the property damage.

Og

 

[Pure]

note to ogg, and to the "inestimable" voters.

hice point, ogg,

In Kent we have such a bridge.

A grandmother and a junior school child were killed crossing a major road. It was the only way to the girl's home from school.

People had been asking for a footbridge for years. The deaths increased the pressure on the local authority and the bridge was built although usage would be light because only about twenty people crossed each day.

The bridge, on the A249 in Kent at Detling Hill, is called "Jade's Crossing" and has silhouettes of her in a ballet pose on the sides of the bridge.

The cost? Over a million pounds.

But the campaign for the bridge had mobilised people across the whole county. By any normal standards of setting priorities the bridge should never have been built because it wasn't cost effective.



===

Pure: well, ogg, based on the articles and some reading, i have question your 'cost effectiveness' comment.

clearly the value of the human life, is about about a million US dollars each [two were killed], and that's looking at a year only. the figure comports with those i've posted.

as box point out, on a similar matter, if the bridge lasts 50 years and saves a 100 lives, then clearly the amount per life is only about $20, 000. cheap.

_________________________

"Inestimable" ?


I have a simple proof that most of those saying "inestimable" do NOT in fact attach an infinite or even gigantic, out-of-the-ball-park value to human life.

I ask such a person: How much would you spend on side air bags for your car.

Let us say for the sake of argument that, in a year, there's 1 in 100,000 chance of a person dying in an auto collision from the side, which a side air bag would have prevented. This is based on about 40,000 traffic accident deaths per year in the US.

IF indeed, John Doe thinks a human life is worth, say, a trillion dollars, we do the math.

Value of Human Life times 'odds of dying' equals 'expected loss figure'.

This loss figure is what you should be willing to pay.


A trillion dollars times one hundred thousandth, is 10 million dollars:

10**12 x 10**-5 = 10**7

He should be willing to spend 10 million on side air bags.

IOW if the value of human life is immensely high (as claimed), then we must do extreme measures to preclude the tiniest of risks.

But this is not the case; no one will pay 10 million for side air bags. hence John does NOT assign anything like the value, one trillion dollars to human life.

What does he assign?

Returning to the question What would you spend on side air bags?

Assume he says "Additionally i would pay one thousand dollars." Let's use that figure and work back.

Value of human life times one in one hundred thousand equals one thousand dollars. in symbols:

VHL [value human life] x 10**-5 [odds of dying] = 10**3 [amount willing to pay]

Hence VHL is 10**8 or 100 million dollars.

(If he had said, "only 100 dollars for the air bags" then the value he assigns to human liife is one tenth that figure above, i.e. 10 million dollars.)

So John the fellow saying "Inestimable" and meaning 'immensely great' is fooling himself substantially. From the air bag question we see he probably assumes (without knowing it) that the value of a human life is between 10 and 100 million dollars. And the low figure, 10 mill, is only twice the highest ones cited in the articles.

A simple question, and others like it, shows that he assigns, as the value of human life, a figure which is hardly out of the ball park, and hardly "inestimable."

Oggs example has a similar point.