Daily CEO pay now exceeds average worker's annual salary

Harrekin said:

Quantify it.

Click to expand...

Okay. All human life that does not initiate aggression on another person or their justly acquired property should be afforded the opportunity to be left alone. In that sense all humans are worth the same amount. On a more personal level, people tend to value their mate, their family, their clan etc. more than "foreigners".

I would say young men with strong backs are worth 7-8 dilithium crystals and comely breedstock women with large milker breasts might fetch 5-6 dilithium crystals. Babies not much, unless they are precooked and seasoned properly.

Harrekin said:

Quantify it.

Click to expand...

What he said^

kpmarine said:

What he said^

Click to expand...

I think I did quantify it in my terms.

How about you stop being mystical and explain your underlying question to me?

My assessment is all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Some life, my kids, my lady, siblings ,my mom etc. is "more precious" to me. None of us have a right to end anothers life UNLESS we are directly being attacked and there is no avenue of retreat.

I don't give dollar value to a human life...you?

Rob Roy said:

Okay. All human life that does not initiate aggression on another person or their justly acquired property should be afforded the opportunity to be left alone. In that sense all humans are worth the same amount. On a more personal level, people tend to value their mate, their family, their clan etc. more than "foreigners".

I would say young men with strong backs are worth 7-8 dilithium crystals and comely breedstock women with large milker breasts might fetch 5-6 dilithium crystals. Babies not much, unless they are precooked and seasoned properly.

Click to expand...

The accurate numerical answer is probably that a single human life is worth between $20,000 and $40,000 per year. If you die at 24 and your parents or spouse succeeded at wrongful death, they'd probably get $1-2 million for the whole life.

Rob Roy said:

I think I did quantify it in my terms.

How about you stop being mystical and explain your underlying question to me?

My assessment is all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Some life, my kids, my lady, siblings ,my mom etc. is "more precious" to me. None of us have a right to end anothers life UNLESS we are directly being attacked and there is no avenue of retreat.

I don't give dollar value to a human life...you?

Click to expand...

Actuaries do this every day. The point is that in a truly free market, the valuation of a human life matters. If saving lives becomes more expensive than risking them, what would a free market demand/reward? cn

cannabineer said:

Actuaries do this every day. The point is that in a truly free market, the valuation of a human life matters. If saving lives becomes more expensive than risking them, what would a free market demand/reward? cn

Click to expand...

In a free market value is established by consensual exchange. You have a pile of firewood and will sell it for $500. I need a pile of firewood and agree to pay you $500. To us the consensual transactors value was established by our mutual agreement. To others that particular pile may not have been worth $500. Therefore value can be a variable, depending on who is transacting. The key is to find a party that agrees with you on price and to freely make the exchange.

In a consensual free market exchange both buyer and seller are "rewarded" otherwise they would not have made the exchange.

I agree that the valuation of a human matters, but I tend to see this more as a moral statement than a quantitative one. Peace.

Rob Roy said:

In a free market value is established by consensual exchange. You have a pile of firewood and will sell it for $500. I need a pile of firewood and agree to pay you $500. To us the consensual transactors value was established by our mutual agreement. To others that particular pile may not have been worth $500. Therefore value can be a variable, depending on who is transacting. The key is to find a party that agrees with you on price and to freely make the exchange.

In a consensual free market exchange both buyer and seller are "rewarded" otherwise they would not have made the exchange.

I agree that the valuation of a human matters, but I tend to see this more as a moral statement than a quantitative one. Peace.

Click to expand...

Do you remember the '60s fracas about the Ford Motor Company? There was a simple, inexpensive safety-enhancing change they could have done to the Pinto's gas tank. Ford's actuaries determined that it would be more profitable to use the cheap, unsafe original design and buy out the expected number of lawsuits (resulting from the 500-900 expected incremental casualties) ... than it would have been to retool for a safer gas tank whose design was known and proven. To me this is the free market in operation, and valuation of human casualties is integral to it. cn

cannabineer said:

Do you remember the '60s fracas about the Ford Motor Company? There was a simple, inexpensive safety-enhancing change they could have done to the Pinto's gas tank. Ford's actuaries determined that it would be more profitable to use the cheap, unsafe original design and buy out the expected number of lawsuits (resulting from the 500-900 expected incremental casualties) ... than it would have been to retool for a safer gas tank whose design was known and proven. To me this is the free market in operation, and valuation of human casualties is integral to it. cn

Click to expand...

How many deaths in all the pinto fires ever? Was that more or less than all the deaths from a faulty transmission on the Chevy Thunderbird?
Cost to update all pintos? Over $60 million
Total cost of all litigation? Way less than $60 million.
Fires caused by being rear ended violently aren't supposed to happen, but then again neither are violent rear endings.

FYI the Pinto debuted in 1971, not a 60's fracas.

The value of human life is why the north went away from slavery, early industrialization is much more dangerous than agriculture. Was much cheaper to pay immigrants to dig the Erie Canal than risk valuable slaves.

cannabineer said:

Do you remember the '60s fracas about the Ford Motor Company? There was a simple, inexpensive safety-enhancing change they could have done to the Pinto's gas tank. Ford's actuaries determined that it would be more profitable to use the cheap, unsafe original design and buy out the expected number of lawsuits (resulting from the 500-900 expected incremental casualties) ... than it would have been to retool for a safer gas tank whose design was known and proven. To me this is the free market in operation, and valuation of human casualties is integral to it. cn

Click to expand...

Almost.

The "free market" isn't what caused the Pinto problems though...it was the "unfree market" that did. If the market had been free, truly free there would have been more options for the consumer, more possibilities of what to buy and more possibilities of manufacturers to provide the product. That's why the American car companies got their ass kicked by the Japanese imports and shit boxes like the Pinto went to the scrap yard. Domestic companies hate it when trade barriers are not imposed, then they have to face competition instead of having a captive market. But even after the Japanese imports starting showing up the market wasn't really free, it was just improved for the consumer as the range of choices had increased.

Ford's existence relied (still does) on the protectionism of the government construct known as a corporation. Government regulations form barriers to keep other players from entering the transportation manufacturing market and providing options to the consumer.

In other words, the market wasn't "free", it was and remains "restricted" due to government intervention. Remove restrictions and the solutions and innovative products will appear.

Why do you think we never got the flying cars ? It's because the market is inhibited by regulation. An inhibited market is not the "free market". A Pinto is not a honda. A honda is not a flying car. Regulations and corporations are not part of a truly free market.

About the flying cars: my opinion.

1) Energy cost. Flying something at low altitude requires much more energy/fuel than rolling something along. This becomes acutely more so if you have to shoehorn the wing's aspect ratio into a carlike footprint. The "flying car" prototypes i have seen have essentially done away with lifting shapes and rely on ducted thrust to rise and move. Horrific energy hogs.

2) Ever notice a flying-car prototype that washalfway decent at being a car? The design is heavily biased toward airplane. The wheels have been pretty much reduced to casters. One such on a mountain road would not please me at all.

3) Safety/management. As long as piloting is left to the nut behind the wheel/yoke, the potential for accidents, with each other and with terrain (including other people) is serious.

With an adequate-to-good roadway infrastructure in place, even a de luxe ordinary car outperforms an even a marginal flying car at rather less cost to own and operate. So as far as I can tell, the flying car embodies a stubborn unwillingness to abandon the Raygun Gothic "lifestyle of the future" promised us in the immediate postwar Golden Age of Consumerism and most completely popularized in The Jetsons. cn

cannabineer said:

About the flying cars: my opinion.

1) Energy cost. Flying something at low altitude requires much more energy/fuel than rolling something along. This becomes acutely more so if you have to shoehorn the wing's aspect ratio into a carlike footprint. The "flying car" prototypes i have seen have essentially done away with lifting shapes and rely on ducted thrust to rise and move. Horrific energy hogs.

2) Ever notice a flying-car prototype that washalfway decent at being a car? The design is heavily biased toward airplane. The wheels have been pretty much reduced to casters. One such on a mountain road would not please me at all.

3) Safety/management. As long as piloting is left to the nut behind the wheel/yoke, the potential for accidents, with each other and with terrain (including other people) is serious.

With an adequate-to-good roadway infrastructure in place, even a de luxe ordinary car outperforms an even a marginal flying car at rather less cost to own and operate. So as far as I can tell, the flying car embodies a stubborn unwillingness to abandon the Raygun Gothic "lifestyle of the future" promised us in the immediate postwar Golden Age of Consumerism and most completely popularized in The Jetsons. cn

Click to expand...

Flying cars couldn't be made light weight? I encourage you to think of what could be technologically, not what is. I don't oppose efficient cars, I just think when restrictions are placed on development they are often there as a form of industry protectionism. I oppose that.

Jetsoooon, yuuur fired!

Rob Roy said:

Flying cars couldn't be made light weight?

Click to expand...

Economically? Why are there no 500-lb.. cars? Heck; why are there no cheap and decent 1200-lb. cars?
Also, I must observe with a certain dark humor that the limit on the light weight of a flying car is imposed by the absence or regression of limits on the weight of the passenger(s).

I encourage you to think of what could be technologically, not what is. I don't oppose efficient cars, I just think when restrictions are placed on development they are often there as a form of industry protectionism. I oppose that.

Jetsoooon, yuuur fired!

Click to expand...

"What could be" technologically also needs to be washed through what is manufacturable, serviceable, salable and ~sigh~ insurable.

Dont forget to throw peak oil into the equation. Throwin in a wrench for the moment sorry...

cannabineer said:

Economically? Why are there no 500-lb.. cars? Heck; why are there no cheap and decent 1200-lb. cars?
Also, I must observe with a certain dark humor that the limit on the light weight of a flying car is imposed by the absence or regression of limits on the weight of the passenger(s).
"What could be" technologically also needs to be washed through what is manufacturable, serviceable, salable and ~sigh~ insurable.

Click to expand...

What could be is often stifled by those who hold the reins of "what is". It is not in their interest for competition to exist, hence their love of regulation that aids them in controlling markets.

Chronic Masterbator said:

Dont forget to throw peak oil into the equation. Throwin in a wrench for the moment sorry...

Click to expand...

Hemp oil. Now go light a fattie.

Rob Roy said:

Hemp oil. Now go light a fattie.

Click to expand...

Already did lol.

Rob Roy said:

What could be is often stifled by those who hold the reins of "what is". It is not in their interest for competition to exist, hence their love of regulation that aids them in controlling markets.

Click to expand...

That's why herbs isn't legal on a federal level. There hasn't been a solid way to tax it. Just sitting smokin waiting for peak oil. To hit the peak that is noticeably apparent.