This was one of my favorite Planet Money episodes. Great to see it converted to a fun video short. Now go listen to the full Planet Money episode if you haven't.
Well Done home-grown, eloquently presented for 5-500 age audiences. Beautifully rendered reminders of my public education and 70+ years. Kudos to yous.
The brick cordless (or maybe even mobile phone?) was brilliant. Reminds me of that mobile phone in 'Hot Tub Time Machine'. I would be interested in how they evaluate that number now. The premise is that less dangerous occupations typically pay less than the more dangerous occupations (when dealing with toxic elements). Was the comparison made across all occupations that didn't have any interaction with toxic chemicals (like someone that cleans crime scenes, works in oil fields, etc...compared against your generic office worker), or was it strictly against occupations that handle at least some form of toxic chemical (asbestos) or element (lead, radioactive substances, etc...), at least once in their day-to-day routine? I'm curious as the greater an economy leans towards service sector and away from manufacturing, one could assume that valuation becoming less and less centered on the amount of money yielded simply by their increased economic compensation derived by those occupations that aren't put into such danger, but more so the total economic impact of their cost of death, but also including loss of economic activity they would have generated, along with loss of economic activity potentially generated by their theoretical offspring (or actual if they already have offspring). I think this would yield a number even greater than 14 billion as you're taking into consideration total economic contribution loss. I suppose either way, it's probably still enough to validate the labels being more than worth it regarding warning workers about toxic material they could be handling. However, the number *could be* useful in that it would have a greater legitimacy in proposing stricter environmental protections whenever "economic cost" is argued as a factor to not implement a new regulation, renew an existing one, or even update regulations (which is probably more helpful than simply creating a new one).
areamusicale they are talking about the average person. Maybe you are exceptional, maybe you are worthless. Just kidding btw. Everyone is born worthless but i am sure you are valuable in many ways ( if not now then eventually).
If they were really serious about valuing human life, they'd integrate over the value people set on their life at different times. How much money do some people spend at the end of their lives to get an extra 3-6 months? It's a lot more per day of life than what someone is willing to spend when they're younger, perhaps $500k or more per year.
So if every person in the country is worth $10M and $10/40-50 years for a career is $200-$250k a year then that means most Americans are vastly underpaid.
Sounds eerily similar to the formula implemented by the insurance company that the main character of that movie that we aren't allowed to mention the name (the fraternal order dedicated to fighting...) works for. A + B = c if c is less than the cost of a recall we just quietly pay the wrongful death lawsuits knowing we still saved a bunch of money.
Go tell it on a Mountain. You stabbed out some digit Analog, that is, through the symbolic ‘key’ (analog again) physical constructions- that then (casual gesture) converted to electrons crossing a keystroke gate under your analog fingertip. Nuff said?
I didn’t know OSHA was run by the older teen sister in a late 80’s kids movie ! Now I’m willing to suspend disbelief and ignore that obvious OLED screen posing as a CRT monitor 📺, but there is no way you’re going to get me to believe that guy was using a TI-83 ... in NINETEEN eighty-three !
@@JaySantanaofficial kek I said union as in trade union, Not the armed forces. No one's risking their lives on a union job anymore unless they want to risk getting laid off. Insurance premiums are too damn high
Utter garbage (both the math, and the video production). First, if you wanted to know how much people value their own lives, you can look at how much life insurance they buy. Hint: nobody insures themselves for millions of dollars. Second, you're not taking into account other motivations government has. They may want to save lives, but they also want to appear compassionate, control larger bureaucracies, spend public funds, deter citizen complaints, avoid lawsuits, etc... Third, in the example given, government doesn't print the labels, they are printed by the chemical makers, shippers, and users. The government is assigning a cost to be born by others. How much money would they spend if the money came from their own budgets? Hint: it's less. I could go on, but this video made me sleepy.
