01 Recently, when I was discussing some current affairs with some friends, I often asked questions like this by some people: "Does money matter or life matter?" "If life is gone, what money will you make?" "Anyway, for me, saving your life is the most important thing" and so on..

1

Recently, when I was discussing some current affairs with some friends, I often chatted with them and asked questions like this by some people:

"Money is important or life is important?"

"I'm gone, what else can I make?"

htt ml1 "Anyway, for me, saving my life is the most important thing"

etc...

Although this question is very similar to when you walk at night, a kidnapper suddenly pops up and asks you "want money? Or do you want death?" But it is undeniable that the argument conforms to a very simple but seemingly natural thinking habit that is born to humans: Life is priceless. In order to save lives, it is worth spending much money, and in order to prevent life from being threatened by death, it is also worth it to earn less.

Of course, from an individual perspective, it is difficult for us to say that this view is wrong. Although you go to the hospital to see that most ordinary families need large amounts of treatment when they encounter their relatives suffering from terminal illnesses, and they cannot completely lose their money, sell their houses and land, and continue their lives for one or two days for their relatives at all costs. But we can say the least, the concept of "human life is priceless" is at least an ideal for individuals that we have always hoped to achieve.

However, when we raise our perspective to the social level, you will find that the concept of "life is priceless" becomes debatable and even a bit dangerous. In many cases, a society must give everyone a valuation of their lives in order to maintain the healthy operation of society and avoid greater tragedies.

Here are two books to recommend to you, "How to Prize Human Life" by American scholar Howard Steven Friedman.

Friedman is an economist, but he is not an ordinary economist. He is "Health economist " - Due to the research direction, this person has been invited to participate in the discussion and decision-making of public health issues in the United States for a long time.

According to Friedman himself, the essence of this decision is actually to estimate the price of life in .

Because even if it is as wealthy as the United States, the funds it can invest in public health are limited. The same amount of money is spent a little more in this direction. To prevent the risk of this disease, it will inevitably spend less in that direction, leading to the intensification of another public health risk.

You ask, since life is priceless, then we will do everything possible to fully fill all public health investment? But that means the government needs to increase medical fiscal appropriations and then increase taxes. However, if the taxes are too high, it will damage the economy and put more people in poverty, which will significantly increase the public's security risks.

After all, you have always heard that sentence?

There is only one disease in this world - the poor disease.

So, this dilemma forces health economists like Friedman to come up with a reasonable set of formulas to calculate how much investment in a certain public medical measure is worth it.

The algorithm is generally as follows: the reasonable investment of a public policy is equal to the probability of losing a life by the public safety risk it guards against (Pr) multiplied by the total number of people facing this risk (Q) times the estimated value of each life (V). That is:

M=Pr·Q·V

After listing this equation, we found that both probability and quantity are actually easy to count, and the only problem is how to estimate lives.

is influenced by ethics, religion, social emotions and other issues. Human life seems to be an impossible valuation, but in order to ensure the maximization of public interests.This valuation must be completed again.

This is difficult for economists who study this problem. At least US economic scholars have been arguing about this issue for decades, and many very intriguing repeated games have emerged.

Only after understanding them can you understand what principles many public safety decisions in the United States are based on today.

Let's try to talk about a few.

2

Today, there are distinct warning signs printed on all hazardous chemicals.

But do you know? Before the 1980s, the United States had no federal regulations on labeling warning labels on dangerous goods. For this reason, the United States has an average of 4,750 people died every year due to accidents.

So in 1982, someone suggested: Can we make a federal warning sign regulation to prevent so many people from losing their lives?

However, this reasonable and simple proposal was rejected by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), which manages the matter.

Because they calculated that it would cost an additional $2.6 billion per year to implement this plan, put this tag on each dangerous goods barrel and do corresponding publicity.

The United States federal estimate of life at that time was based on the average income in the United States multiplied by the average working years, which was about .

Then OSHA starts to calculate: multiplying 300,000 US dollars by an average of 4,750 people die each year, the total social cost of this risk is about 1.4 billion US dollars per year! But putting the toxic label across the United States costs $2.6 billion a year, and it cannot guarantee that the accident will be completely eliminated. Then isn’t this transaction cost-effective for the country? We are not as good as quiet as we move, so we won’t post this mark! After the decision of

, of course, it caused an uproar in public opinion because of its abnormal knowledge. Many people think this decision to take human life is ridiculous and full of righteous indignation. But the one who really explained the truth clearly and changed OSHA was an economist named W. Kip Viscusi.

Viscus's "strategy" is unique. He did not criticize the federal government for cold-blooded life calculations, but criticized them for miscalculating the price of life.

Viscus asked the public a very interesting thought question: If the price of each life is just the money he can earn in his life. If there is a person who doesn’t earn a penny in his life, will his life be worthless?

This is obviously ridiculous. So Vescus said that there is something wrong with this kind of human fortune algorithm and a new computing model must be developed.

Viscus's new algorithm is like this. He first raised a question: the technical content of labor of the builder who moves bricks on high-rise construction sites and the ticket seller who buys tickets in the amusement park is actually almost the same. But why in the United States, the wages of construction workers are much higher than those of amusement park ticket sellers (the average annual salary was $300-400 higher at that time)?

Viscus asked and answered himself and said that This is because construction workers face greater life risks than ticket sellers.

In the United States at that time, the average annual accident disability or mortality rate of construction workers was about one in ten thousand, which means that among the ten thousand construction workers, one person would ruin his life or his health for his work every year. Then the part of the salary that the construction site boss is willing to pay is essentially his "life-buying money" to convince the workers to take this risk.

So what is the "life-buying money" formed in this free business game?

is multiplied by US$300-400 by 10,000, and the price obtained is million-4 million .

Viscus said that this 3 million or 4 million is the price that every American's life should be worth.

Then multiplying 3 million by 4750, the "life and economic loss" obtained should be US$14 billion per year. This loss is too great. Now if you only spend US$2.6 billion per year to prevent this loss (even if it is only partially)? Why don't we do it?

So Vescus won the lawsuit with OSHA, promoting the standardization of spiking of toxic chemicals across the United States.

3

Obviously, Vescus's "trial" this time is great, and its significance is actually far greater than this case. Because he proposed a new set of life calculation standards, it was passed through the United States after obtaining the endorsement of the federal court.

Therefore, many security precautions indicators that were previously considered "unworthy" have therefore been legislative provisions. Cusves used his calculation to save countless people.

Today we see that the public health and labor security system in the United States still have an overall valuation of each life under (the standards of each department are different, but the overall fluctuation is within the range of 5-8 million US dollars per person). If you calculate the factor of inflation over the past 40 years, you will find that it is still based on Vescus's "new algorithm" back then.

But equally, Vescus's "protecting" method this time is even more thought-provoking - in the face of OSHA's inaction of "disregarding human lives", he did not blindly shout "human lives are priceless" like many white leftists. As a rational economist, he knew that the concept of "life is priceless" is something that must not be said randomly in public affairs decision-making. If you believe that "life is priceless", then theoretically speaking, it seems worth it to drag into infinite social resources in order to prevent an extremely small public security risk.

Because infinite (priceless) is the devil in mathematics, it is still infinite even if it is multiplied by 0.0000001%! This will make any investment in risk prevention a bottomless pit that cannot be filled and crushed the entire public system.

In 2005, the then-ruling Bush administration fought a "car roof" lawsuit with opposition Democrats. This is the issue that both sides argue.

At that time, the Democratic Party passed a bill that required the implementation of new testing standards, allowing automakers across the United States to double the strength of their roofs. Because according to research and calculation, if this is done, the United States can die 135 less lives in various car accidents every year. At that time, many of the promoters of this bill were just like this - that was 135 lives, If you die of the elderly and children in your family, would you be willing?

After they said this, many Americans were really convinced.

But strangely, under the raging group discussion, the Bush administration was stunned and refused to sign the bill.

Of course, some conspiracy theory says that this is because car companies such as Ford are the big investors of Bush .

But it has to be said that the reasons why the Bush administration opposed the bill are also justified.

The economic adviser of the Bush administration at the time was Stephen Friedman. Friedman asked the promoters of the bill a question:

You are now asking the government and American car companies to do such a top reinforcement that is too advanced and costly at all costs.So who will bear the losses that car companies will cause? What should I do if a large number of employees in upstream and downstream industries have dropped their salaries or even lost their jobs?

Yes, on the surface, this bill passed and 135 people could die less each year. However, how many people will die indirectly caused by the decline of the automobile industry, the practitioners went bankrupt, unemployed, and poverty?

In addition, technology is developing. Today, you force car companies to force double the strength of the roof, which means that the cost of companies investing in new technology research and development will be reduced. In the future, the possibility of American car companies producing more and safer cars in a cheaper way will disappear. How many people's lives should have been saved, but were ruined?

Therefore, the government cannot raise standards and increase investment in an infinite way for the slogan that seems to be absolutely politically correct, which is an abuse of limited social resources. It seems correct and kind, but in fact it will ruin the lives of more people who can be saved.

So, after repeated games between the Bush administration and bill promoters, the president finally signed a weakened version of the "compromise case". This compromise case is very interesting because on average, this compromise case can reduce the deaths of more than 40 people in the accident every year. On average, the US government will spend $9 million to "buy" each of the lives - although Friedman still feels that the deal is a loss, the price is higher than the average life estimate in public decisions in the United States at that time.

But how to say it? At least it's within an acceptable range. After serious discussion, this decision was at least reasonable.

4

Yes, unlike in individual events, we should emphasize that "life is priceless", in public decision-making, making "valuation" for human lives is a necessary calculation. Because only by performing this calculation can we avoid inappropriate allocation of limited public resources, and ultimately choose the correct answers that are most appropriate among the many options that can directly or indirectly save and continue more people's lives. So it is a valuation of life and a calm assessment and calculation of various risks. This seems to be cold-blooded and ruthless, but in fact it is the true kindness of the "economic world".

Of course, if you have to say: You say that these mathematics and economy are too complicated, I just want to shout slogans, believing in fundamentalism's "life is priceless", or saying that "saving life is important." Is that okay?

yes!

But this cost is often very huge.

There has been such a lesson in history.

"A man who does not farm, may suffer from hunger; a woman who does not weave may suffer from cold." This statement may be familiar to anyone who has read a little ancient Chinese books. Because it is considered a basic creed of "Confucian economics", ancient Confucian scholars in my country talked about economy and had a characteristic that was passed down since the time of Master Meng - they did not count. The so-called "A house with five acres is made of mulberry trees, and those who are fifty can wear silk. The animals with chickens, pigs, dogs, and pigs will be lost without losing their time, and those who are seventy can eat meat..." These statements are likely to be taken for granted by Mencius .

Because there is no quantitative calculation analysis, when ancient Confucian scholars talked about economy, in most cases, they could only make a directional, extreme, and one-size-fits-all choice - such as "one man does not farm, or he may suffer from hunger; a woman does not weave, or he may suffer from cold." The idea of ​​emphasizing agriculture and suppressing commerce is reflected. For example, Sima Guang uses the sentence "Don't compete with the people for profit" and it will be eliminated regardless of whether it is good or bad.

And under the influence of this one-size-fits-all thinking and the ancient imperial power-bureaucratic system, the social decisions of ancient dynasties can often only be one-dimensional.For example, the general policy of the court was to "focus on agriculture and suppress commerce", and most dynasties wanted to suppress all commercial activities to a minimum. The result of this seems to be in line with the purpose of "a man who does not farm, may suffer from hunger; a woman who does not weave, may suffer from cold." - let the people farm and weave cloth, so that everyone can eat and wear warmth?

However, every time we reach the end of the dynasty, with the "growth of life and prosperity" conflicts between people and land and the tension in the supply and demand of food, society will inevitably fall into turmoil and troubled times. And whenever this comes, ordinary people sell their daughters or even eat their children, and their lives are as cheap as grass.

Why does the entire Classical era pay close attention to the value of human existence most, and dream of letting the people live a life of "clothing, silk, eating meat" Confucian ideal. Will this kind of practice fail again and again?

The reason may be that it regards human life as priceless at the public level, and in practice, it calls on everyone to focus on agriculture and commerce in order to prevent "or" from starving and freezing, and even wish that the whole people would come to farm and weave cloth. As a result, many possible development opportunities (such as commercialization and industrialization) were missed and cancelled. In the end, the entire society fell into a dead end due to this one-dimensional emphasis and investment, and then fell into an inevitable collapse.

And in the midst of collapse, the state of being as cheap as grass is essentially a counter to the excessive ideal of "life is priceless" - just like the laws of nature, economic laws cannot be violated. Once you artificially set a price too high, sooner or later, the market will retaliate against such overvalued valuations with collapsed depreciation. This is the same even for human lives.

5

Of course, I know that even if I have said so much, there will still be friends who will find it difficult to accept it. They will say:

"Xiaoxi, even if you are right, human life must be valued at the social level, but my life and my family's life are priceless to me! If a society thinks that it is not cost-effective to use too high costs to resist lower risks after a certain assessment, it decides to let the public bear this risk. But what if, myself or my family become that? That is ten thousand for my family!"

You see, the question seems to return to the choking question: " You are dead, you are old and child, are you willing? "

But my answer to this question is this - living in modern society, we have actually been taking this risk, not to mention that only when a society has made a reasonable estimate of human life and made a decision. Only then can we obtain compensation when taking such risks.

I don’t know if you have ever thought about this question: Why is the social welfare system after the industrial era and the medical security system far higher than the agricultural civilization era?

In today's world, even the poorest normal country, in the eyes of the ancients, it is an ideal heaven that "has a lasting age and has a care for illness". Is this really just the moral progress of human beings?

is not, I have a view - the reasonable social welfare of a post-industrial society. In essence, it is not actually the charity of the state to the poor, but the "development risk compensation" paid to the people by the society, or to put it more bluntly - money to buy life. The truth about

is actually implicit in Vescus's "life price calculation" in 1982 - construction workers face more life dangers than other jobs, and one death on average for ten thousand people working in a year.

But from a personal perspective, can workers stop working just because there are risks?

From a social perspective, can society not build tall buildings or develop cities just because of death?

obviously can't.

The only feasible trade-off is to compensate with higher wages and work-related injury claims after the incident. Take a portion of the greater overall benefits obtained from this "risk" to compensate for the loss of life suffered by those who are unfortunately exposed to this risk.

In a sense, The modern society and country after the industrial era are actually a "big construction site", and every citizen is actually a worker working on this construction site. In essence, each of us is constantly taking more risks for the development of society at all times:

There are more and more roads and cars, and our travel is convenient, but the risk of our car accidents is also increasing. The chimneys of the factory are getting higher and higher, and we have more job opportunities and wages are rising, but we have to endure the pollution that comes with it. The scope of social cooperation is getting bigger and bigger, and we enjoy more and more services from others. But as a result, the city has become crowded and busy, and the safety factors and epidemic risks are also increasing.

These are the risks we have to face in modern society. To put it to the extreme, if we want to avoid these risks, it is actually simple - just cancel these things!

Yes, if you don’t build a building, there will naturally be no construction workers who die because of it. If you don’t go out or produce cars, you will naturally be free of risk of car accidents. If all the factories are demolished and the city is disbanded, will the risks of pollution, urban crimes, and disease epidemics be gone? Is it good for everyone to return to the pastoral pastoral era where "chicken and dogs hear each other, and never interact with each other when they are old and die"?

Or, why don’t we decide some super high regulatory measures, regardless of cost, these risks are infinitely close to zero? For example, letting robots build buildings can be technically implemented now, but the price is so high that it can fly, but why not?

The reason is that just as efficiency and security are essentially binary, life and money are essentially the same thing. When you overemphasize one end and ignore the other, you will inevitably throw both.

Therefore, it is necessary to convert, give people a reasonable estimate of their lives, find a balance point directly when efficiency and safety are directly found, and then be willing to take certain risks, develop, and compensate individuals who unfortunately encounter this risk in society. Compensation like

is the social security system. The social and medical security system is the "buying money" that the society "construction site" gives to each individual.

Why does every modern society have a minimum social security and medical security system? Why do many countries provide relief and compensation to people who encounter social risks (such as poverty, disease, disasters, crimes). In essence, these are the "moneys to buy life" that a modern society has to pay -

In order to obtain a development opportunity, a society always has to let the public face a potential risk.

However, as long as we find that the former's benefits are much greater than the latter's costs after "life price calculation", this opportunity should be seized. Because we know that if we don’t seize this opportunity, we will blindly emphasize that “life is priceless” and do not take risks. Then there will inevitably be more people who will take greater risks in disguise in other places - the risk of poverty, the risk of accidents, the risk of occlusion, the risk of disease...

So, "Is life important or money important?" Those who truly understand things will know: life and money are essentially the same thing.A reasonable "valuation" of human life is carried out to achieve an equivalent exchange between life and money, so as to make a wise trade-off and evaluation between the social costs and risks of each policy. This is exactly one of the homework that social decision-making must be done.

7

line, I'm really tired after writing so much. Let’s talk about some aftertaste that you can think of at the end.

After Friedman introduced a reasonable valuation model for human life in his works, he actually made some small comments on the contemporary American life valuation system - he found that the valuation of human life between various departments of the United States federal government has a long-term gap of whether it is big or small. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s life estimates have long been higher than those of vehicle and traffic regulators. Therefore, the United States' investment in the medical industry is actually much greater than its investment in preventing car accidents.

From an economic perspective, this is obviously absurd. Both American citizens and the same death, why are those who die on the streets so much less expensive than those who die on the hospital bed?

But this is impossible, because human reason is limited and private. "Do you want money or die?" This is indeed not a problem, but if the problem becomes "Do you want invisible money or die?" or even "Do you want your money or my life?" Many people will be selfish and be confused, and some unreasonable choices will follow. This is actually the biggest social risk .

So "human life is priceless", this is just a private moral ideal after all. For a society, human life needs to be valued, and only when human life is evaluated at a reasonable price can we equally cherish the life of every citizen under different living conditions. Only when social decisions are made will there be no deviation.

Want money or die?

money is life, life is money.

So " I am not a medicine god " is right, there is only one kind of disease in this world, poverty disease.

But it is wrong. Compared with many other diseases, poor diseases are still the best treatment, as long as we can make the right choice.