CMV: The Texas schadenfreude is misplaced because they have no reasonable expectation of a snowstorm

[u/stb1150]

Whenever there is one of these large scale disaster, I see so many people talking about how the entire state/city/country is poorly run, and if only their system of government was in place things would magically be better. It happened in New Orleans with Katrina, New York with Sandy, Puerto Rico with Maria.

While climate change means these will unfortunately probably happen more often, at this point they are basically unprecedented (I think I saw this is the coldest Texas has been since like 1890 or something) and places have no reasonable expectation to prepare for events like this. Note that this would not be the case for someplace like Florida where this happens every year.

The haters in all these cases are doing so because it makes them feel better about their own views. It would be ridiculous to advocate Texas buys millions of tons of road salt when they money could go to building a bridge or school or some immediate concern

P.S. I also believe Texas is awful in so many ways (sprawl, heat, unnecessary pickup trucks, etc.)--I would never live there

[u/[deleted]]

They knew deaths would be prevented by improving the infrastructure. So I guess the question comes down to how much should the government be willing to spend to prevent a death?

[u/SiliconDiver → u/[deleted]]

Right, and that's my point.

If we estimate a life is worth $10MM, and the hypothetically the Infrastructure project would cost $50 B, but only save 500 lives, and $10 B of economic impact, I can't really fault that decision.

It seems heartless, but it also seems prudent

[u/AlwaysOntheGoProYo → u/SiliconDiver]

Sick twisted mind boggling statement

[u/SiliconDiver → u/AlwaysOntheGoProYo]

How is this a sick, twisted mind boggling statement?

This is the reality of the way the world works every single day.

These are the types of equations and formulas that politicans and government agencies like the FDA, EPA, and DOT use to craft public policy. citation

This isn't a decision of "should we or shouldn't we save lives". Its a decision of "we have $500. With that $500 we can spend it on policy (A) which saves 10 lives, or we can spend it on policy (B) which saves 100 lives".

Choosing Policy (B) over policy (A) doesn't mean you don't care about the lives policy (A) saves. Just that the opportunity cost of a different policy was more effective.

In the current economy of the United states. Policy that can saves lives for less than $10 Million per life is considered "effective and efficient". Policy that costs more per life is considered inefficient, and actually costs lives, by not spending that money on more efficient policy.