You Choose: Recession or 9/11?

Economics

I am fascinated by a recent study showing that highway fatalities in 2008 were down 9.1% over the previous year, and how it puts death statistics in perspective.

Preliminary figures being released by the government Monday show that 37,313 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year. That’s 9.1 percent lower than the year before, when 41,059 died, and the fewest since 1961, when there were 36,285 deaths.

That’s more lives saved than the number of people that died in the terrorist attacks “man-made disasters” on 9/11/01, which started our War on Terror “overseas contingency operations.” Think about that for a second. We have been in a recession for over a year, but it has saved 3,746 lives in the process. Suppose somebody were to come to you on 9/10/01 and say that you had a choice to make: save 3,000 lives or go into a recession where 5 million people will lose their jobs (that’s the change in employment since this recession began). What choice would you make? Is the employment of 1,666 people worth one person’s life? Is it worth devastating one family to make 1,666 other families not have to worry about losing their homes or feeding their children? If not, how much is a life worth? What about 1 million families? There has to be a number there somewhere, one which probably differs for each person. These are all difficult questions that economists have to deal with sometimes, as when after 9/11 the government decided to give money to the families of the victims. Families were compensated based on a complex algorithm that included the deceased’s age, employment and earning potential. Bond traders at Cantor Fitzgerald were paid more than dishwashers at Windows on the World. Is that fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it really makes you think about what’s “fair,” doesn’t it?

On a related note, there are over 50,000 people currently waiting for a kidney transplant in this country (statistics vary from 55,000 to 70,000), and over 3,000 of them die every year waiting for a transplant. That’s one 9/11 every year. It’s not as graphic or as visible, but the numbers are the same. It is illegal to sell a kidney in this country because, if it were legal, the poor would apparently be exploited and the myth of the person waking up in a bathtub full of ice with a kidney missing would come true; or so that’s what we are told. If selling a kidney were legal, the overwhelming majority of those lives would be saved. To everyone who has been saying lately that the government should legalize marijuana because it will help the economy and increase tax revenues, I say this: legalize kidney sales, as it will prevent the equivalent of one 9/11 every year. What’s more important: getting high or saving lives? Where are your priorities?

P.S. Make sure you’re an organ donor and that your family members know this.

6 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Suzi  •  Apr 6, 2009 @12:46 pm

    No matter what sector you look at, it seems that someone is “playing God.” Actuaries determine whether there is a cost benefit to anything from recalling defective cars to paying for expensive medical tests. I shudder to think about what “data” government analysts use to fashion our foreign policy.

    Now doctors must come up with reasonable ways to determine who deserves organs for transplant. I believe that now it’s based on a first come/first served waiting list, but it wasn’t always this way. Check out this article about the “God Committee,” I’d love to hear your thoughts…

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28156/pub_detail.asp

  2. ProfSwitzer  •  Apr 6, 2009 @1:19 pm

    That’s a great article, Suzi. We economists deal in scarcity, but usually it’s not life-and-death issues, so if someone doesn’t get a HDTV, it’s not the end of the world. But in cases where supply is fixed and anyone who doesn’t get the good dies, you have the dilemma faced by this board. It poses some VERY interesting ethical questions.

  3. Benjamin Seghers  •  Apr 6, 2009 @2:41 pm

    Some will say life is incommensurable, that you cannot compare one person’s life to another, or that it is impossible to quantitatively measure a person’s life or its value. (Is the life of a rural farmer in China of less value than the stock broker’s in New York?) Within the utilitarian context, they say it is possible to measure one’s ability to produce utility, and that the maximization of such is morally obligatory. Deontological perspectives doubt this notion, or consider it immoral to do so. Furthermore, is it just human life that has intrinsic value, or do we say other life should also be considered in decision making? The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value is important here. Those economists and others who put prices on human lives value it merely as a tool or instrument, as a means to accomplish some thing. You should ask yourself whether this is truly the best model for perceiving human life.

  4. ProfSwitzer  •  Apr 6, 2009 @3:05 pm

    “Those economists and others who put prices on human lives” are doing so because they are required to do so. They have to find some way of valuing life for compensatory purposes. It might not be the “best model for perceiving human life,” but what other model would you use? As much as we want to say that every life has infinite value, that’s nonsensical when it comes to making decisions in legal cases, for example, where a family must be compensated for a family member’s death. So what value do you place on a life? Part of what I was pointing out in my post is the difficulty inherent in valuing life, in part because of your extrinsic/intrinsic comparison (a point which I do appreciate you explaining). Are we all equally valuable? I think there are some reasons to say yes and to apply that standard to public policy. I also think there are some reasons to say no, and to apply different monetary values to different people — just as the board mentioned in Suzi’s comment did. But even if you say all human life is equally valuable, what is that dollar value? This ultimately is the question I was getting at with this post, comparing the value of these saved lives with the impact of the recession.

    P.S. Benjamin, I wasn’t sure if the “You” in “You should ask yourself whether this is truly the best model for perceiving human life” was referring to me specifically or was intended for anyone reading the comment. I wasn’t taking it personally, but still thought a reply was warranted.

  5. Benjamin Seghers  •  Apr 6, 2009 @3:47 pm

    You, as in the reader. In fact, everyone ought to consider whether humans merely have extrinsic value or whether they have intrinsic value, or, as you propose, have both.

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply