cbn42

In that case, rather than asking "what is a life worth", I think the better question would be to look at opportunity cost. How much does it cost per life saved, and what else could be done with that money? Is it more efficient to spend $500K on a full time fire department, or give that money to the hospital? Which will have a lower dollars-per-life-saved ratio?

cestmoi123

Agreed. If we took, say, half of TSA's budget, what _else_ could we do with that money?

GUWonder

Increase life expectancy of millions of people who would otherwise die from preventable/treatable diseases. I doubt that a cut in half of the TSA's budget would result in such a large increase in terrorist attacks against US flights to offset the number of lives saved by diverting half of the TSA's budget for medical/nutritional purposes.

InkUnderNails

For 2014, you get $30,000,000,000.

Add to that an estimate of the productivity losses from CP delays and other costs.

Now, play with those numbers.

Mayo Clinic, $8,500,000,000 expenses per year. That means the 1/2 of the budget would cover the expenses for 3.5 more Mayo clinics. That is an additional 2,200,000 patient days at the Mayo clinic.

Let's all speculate because we can not know. Which saves more lives?

Loren Pechtel

The amount of life insurance you have says nothing about the value of your life. It says something about the economic hardships that would be caused by the loss of your life.

If you have no dependents nor plans to acquire any why would you have life insurance? (Other than for estate tax reasons if you're really wealthy.)

KDS

Whether you buy insurance, or have the money in the bank, we still are defining the worth (or "hardship" from its absence) of a life by monetary means.

cbn42

Yes, but the intrinsic value of something is not necessarily equal to its exchange value. Intrinsic value is what it is worth to you. Exchange value is what you can sell it for. They are related but not always identical.

(I just made up the term intrinsic, economists have some other word for it which I can't remember right now.)

DeafBlonde

intangible

you're welcome

Boggie Dog

Is there any evidence that TSA has saved any lives or even just one life?

InkUnderNails

My budget numbers were from DHS, and that includes other things in addition to TSA, the Coast Guard to pick a probable life saving example.

As for TSA, there is a significant possibility that the avoidance of the airport and driving instead, may have actually cost lives. I have no evidence except empirical evidence.

Let's suppose that they find 30 guns a month which is about what the numbers typically are. That is one a day, roughly. We have no way to know how many were just people that forgot or had absolutely no nefarious intent. We can guess. Guessing is fun. How about one a month?

When that gun is pulled on a plane one thing will almost certainly happen. A bunch of passengers will tackle the idiot and beat him within an inch of his life or kill him. If he gets one in addition to himself, that is two a month. 24 a year.

Back to Mayo. 2.2 million patient days at Mayo are almost certainly responsible for saving 24 lives or more. That is one person per 100,000 patient days, more or less. Heck, if every gun was missed, and every gun led to two deaths, that is 720 per year. That is still one person per 3050 patient days. Over eight years of patient care per death?

I'll bet on Mayo.

icarus2009

Just received an email from FlyerTalk that included:
Please complete the survey today.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...istration.html

Clicked on the blue line and arrived here.

Where is the survey?

chollis

Yes, I'm a TSA hater but the questionnaire is so skewed toward a negative TSA evaluation that anyone can argue that the results should be tossed. It's unfortunate because I believe that an unbiased survey would find frequent flyers overwhelmingly agreeing that the TSA is not worth the cost, is ineffective and a misery for all who fly...

jjmiller69

Very well put, I also have nothing asgainst the TSA. Most of my experiences with the TSA were pleasant. My problem is they don't appear very effective. I have personelly taken on banned items by mistake and not realized it until I unpacked. Not once has the TSA ever found them. No they weren't guns which should be found. I believe they could be cut back with out any change in out comes. Just consentrate on a few certain items.

InkUnderNails

When I consider costs, inconvenience, disregard of the constitution and inane indecipherable rules, no TSA experience is ever pleasant. I will admit that some are much less onerous than others, but none reach the level of pleasant.

tparke05

I think a few questions were missing. I had to answer "Yes" to the questions on the process being effective and thorough. They did not ask if I thought the procedures were overkill, and too much, for the threats found. My issue is not with the fact they are there, or with the personnel assigned. It is the degree to which we are screened, and the additional time required to do so. To date, the additional steps have not shown to be proven any more effective that the old shoes and belt on metal detector.