September 22, 2004
Hi, everyone. I'm pondering over a conversation I had with a friend of mine a couple days ago. Since I studied economics in school and didn't fall asleep in class or develop an undying hatred for it, friends often come to me with economic queries. This one, though, sort of came at the end of a conversation, seemingly somewhat randomly.
"You know what's interesting?" my friend said. "Families of military personnel killed in combat get all kinds of money, scholarships etc. But if you die at home in a traffic accident, your family gets none of that. Why is it that families of war casualties deserve more than families of soldiers who die in other ways?"
As you might imagine, my friend's question wasn't purely theoretical. Her father was a retired Navy man who perished in a crash. "I'm not being greedy," she said. "I'd rather have my father back than all the money in the world." But it occurred to her to wonder.
"People bend over backwards to help if your death is 'worthy' or 'heroic,'" she said. "But if it's ordinary, who cares, right?"
The unfortunate fact is that there is an economic logic to it. Economically, the remaining years of your life can be viewed in terms of expected earning potential. Let's say we can expect the average American to work for about 40 years (from age 25 to 65, say.) If you're killed in combat at age 45, you've been deprived of half of your earning potential. (More than half, actually, since your earnings tend to increase as you age.)
And if you die in combat, the government has deprived you of that earning potential by sending you to war. Therefore, they could be said to "owe" those lost earnings to your survivors, in the same way that the operators of, say, a faulty amusement park ride owe your heirs compensation if you die when the roller coaster collapses.
Now, death is part of the normal operation of a war, so the government probably wouldn't be found legally liable if it were a matter of trial. But since we have an all-volunteer force, the government has to find a way to convince people to sign up for a job with a significant possibility of death, so ensuring that the family will be compensated for the soldier's lost earning potential is one way to do it. (Other incentives, like the Mongtomery GI college bill, are particularly welcome to lower-income people who might not be able to afford these opportunities otherwise.)
On the other hand, if a soldier dies in a traffic accident, that's not the government's fault. His being in the service didn't affect his death at all. It would have been exactly the same if he'd worked in an auto factory or a university all his life. The government isn't responsible for his death, and therefore they have no other responsibility to the survivors, economically, than whatever pension the soldier might have been entitled to.
Of course, this kind of economic logic is cold comfort to someone who's just lost a parent or spouse. And my friend wasn't particularly mollified by my explanation. "My father was willing to die for his country, regardless of economic incentive," she said. She told me how he was twice on a battleship in the Persian Gulf when the country was close to war. And it's hard for her to understand why it would have been so much more financially advantageous for him to die on the battleship.
I can't fully comprehend her feeling; my father left the service before I was born, and he never came close to serving in combat. But her question made me think further, about the victims in the 9/11 attacks. It's uncomfortable to think about this, but there's no economic rationale for the enormous payouts that the families of the victims received. The government was not responsible for these deaths, certainly not in the direct sense that they're responsible if they send a soldier to die in Iraq. It was an outpouring, a purely emotional reaction by a grieving country. And I understand that. It certainly made me feel good to know that those families were taken care of. But what if a worker at the Twin Towers had died in a car wreck on his way to work that morning? Would he be SOL? Was he somehow less deserving of our financial generosity just because he died in a different way?
As an economist, I'm comfortable with the payouts extended to the families of soldiers killed in combat. I'm less comfortable with the payouts extended to the families of 9/11 victims. If it's a one-time thing, fine. The psychic comfort to the nation might be worth it. But what if, God forbid, terrorist attacks become more commonplace? Are we going to see everyone sticking their hands out, treating tragedy as a winning lottery ticket? I certainly hope not.
You see, this is precisely why people don't like to hang out with economists. People think our attempts to quantify human life in dollars and cents is cold and unfeeling. And in a way, it is. I happen to like it because it's a way to look at life, and a way that makes otherwise mysterious aspects of life quantifiable. I'm a rationalist at heart, and I like to have explanations for things. Economics offer explanations for many aspects of life. But there's a reason I don't tend to get invited to cocktail parties. For those of you contemplating a course of study in economics, I recommend it. Just be sure and develop a compensating interest, one that other people might want to hear about.
Carl over at FoolBlog is a fellow suffering skeptic when it comes to DC baseball. The buzz is growing increasingly encouraging, but we've all been burned too many times. All we can do at this point is wait, and hope. Baseball's Executive Committee meets tomorrow in Milwaukee. Things might start happening then. We shall see.
That's all for me today. See you tomorrow!
Posted by: Fred at
06:28 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1036 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Carl at September 23, 2004 09:06 AM (24VP5)
Posted by: PG at September 23, 2004 01:47 PM (SETvK)
Posted by: Papa Shaft at September 23, 2004 04:30 PM (2t5BB)
36 queries taking 0.0457 seconds, 68 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.