So.... calculating 9/11 loss compensation.... how bout that. ..
Tough stuff. Touchy subject. Very relative and ambiguous; very hard to quantify - I do not envy Kenneth Feinberg.
But even so I mean it was a pretty straightforward reading, right? One article about the vast intricacies of developing some sort of mathematical model to take it all into account, and two articles discussing the general public's ethical critique of the results. Actually, the way I see it, there's really only two things that would even be worth discussing - I could either critique and scrutinize Feinberg's method of calculating loss (like the examples from the other articles), or we could take a look at the ethics of the compensation altogether... .. what to choose, what to choose.. why not both?
I'm gonna say right off the bat that, in going over the final report of the "Special Master's" 9/11 victim compensation fund.... I mean we see in the other articles several issues brought up by people like how to address the issues of the varying incomes of victims or how to address their potential earnings and losses and.. I've gotta say it's pretty astonishing how well this dude was able to quantify this situation. Granted, it was a long reading with enough dry legalspeak that I might have glossed over the specifics of several of the presumed methodologies, but even down to the compensation of non-economic [emotional] loss, I find I cannot but agree with pretty much all of his methodology; moreover, after going through such heavily detailed aspects, I find I have no sympathy for the victims who complain that their situation was treated unfairly. Feinberg clearly busted his @*$ to account for every aspect as fairly as possible and, given the circumstances, I think his methods - which constantly gave the victims the benefit of the doubt - were more than reasonable.
If there is any criticizable issue with his presumed methodology, I feel that it could only be the fact that, in determining these compensations according to the standard method of calculating how much the victim would have earned otherwise, the final calculated government compensations (which apparently come out of the taxpayers' wallets) were just too high. In the end it totaled some $7 billion and each victim was compensated with upwards of ~$900,000 if dead and ~$100,000 if injured; I mean that is a lot and yeah sure that's what the Special Master calculated I guess [although I might take issue with the fact that 250k+ was given for emotional trauma unless.. no even accounting for therapy sessions that's just too much there is no way to quantitatively justify that kind of cash], but when you're shelling out that kind of dough for one national tragedy, victims of other national tragedies are like "What the hell? I survived Oklahoma city and all I got was this lousy t-shirt - where's my hundreds of thousands?" which is exemplary of the long-term issues mentioned by the other articles I mean if they valued a human life at ~$900,000 once why not do that for all future tragedies? Problem, right there.
Lastly, I wanted to take a look at compensation in general. Reportedly, the article talked about how the compensation is basically a bribe, or, in legal terms, a settlement, wherein they accept a sum of money in return for refraining from suing the government. Now I don't care enough to know very much of politics and the legal process, but overall it seems to me that the whole point of these kinds of legal disputes is to identify fault/responsibility and call for a recompensory solution. If the government is offering financial compensation, it's almost implying an admission of fault, like "We're sorry we let 9/11 happen now shut up and take our money." So I think it's kinda odd that they chose that terminology, since [barring conspiracy theories] the government was not officially responsible for it, and, as such, shouldn't technically be "compensating" these victims for anything.
Accordingly, I will then assume that these compensations are better classified as support and aid for those who bore the tragedy; as such, the primary focus of the money is not one of required reparation [i.e. because 9/11 happened, the victims deserve financial stability], but rather a simple attempt by our Big Brother to help out those who experienced the worst of it. Make no mistake, I empathize greatly with the victims' losses and I agree wholeheartedly with extending monetary aid and support, but I just don't think they are entitled to any form of recompense from the government. That being said, I don't think there is any reason why the governmental financial aid ought necessarily to be calculated to provide for all of each victim's losses in terms of how much income they might have had in the future. But, like I said, I do think it would be nice to lend some form of aid.
Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time thinking of a solution to that problem... if the
compensation/aid is not determined based primarily around individuals'
incomes, how else could the government's aid effectively help the
survivors of the individual? Discuss.
Matt, I found your response much more entertaining than the articles. And picking up on your discussion prompt it is very difficult to put a price on an individuals life other than their incomes. Money is what our world revolves around and it seems quite logical to put more weight on the monetary acquirement over an individuals life over their ethical influence or at the very least use it as a starting point for a model.
ReplyDeleteBut how does one actually assess whether or not a survivor or a loved one has suffered more emotional stress? I am in complete agreement with you that I would not like to have this job. And I believe in an article it addressed the fact that the current sociocultural phenomenon is an obsession with heroes. So does a hero get more money just because they acted in favor of altruism or their job title or should a survivor who contracted health problems receive more compensation. Speaking for me, I would probably weight the distribution of compensation toward survivors other than heroes based on preservation of human life instead of compensation.
And then I am conflicted because I've been told from an early age that one cannot put a price on an individuals life, yet it seems this is what we've been forced to do.
I found these readings to be a lot heavier than I expected. I only now realize how incredibly difficult it would be to have that kind of a job, assigning a monetary value to an individual's life. I think Feinberg handled it very well despite the difficulty. I thought his reasoning behind assigning a single lump sum for the suffering was really smart, even though many people seemed to disagree that 250K was enough. I feel as though all of this money should have been more than enough, and those who complain are looking a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak. I cannot personally see any other way to dispense funds so large than to look at their incomes and assess how much they would have made if they were to survive. Any long term method, like a fund that could be dipped into as time went along to help victims' families, would make things a lot more complicated, and fighting over the money would be more certain to occur and for longer. That solution would be worse.
ReplyDeleteWhether our government should or should not offer aid, I'm not sure I can really answer to that. On the one hand, it does seem strange to offer money to not sue the airlines, but on the other, it would be nice to avoid big lawsuits in the supreme court or wherever. It would allow everyone to just move on with their lives if they didn't spend the time and money suing people's butts that did not really have any fault in the incident.
I do not envy Mr. Feinberg in the least bit. Coming up with a formula to compensate those who were affected by 9/11 and quantifying the value of an individuals life is extremely difficult. I think it interesting how after any similar attack no similar program was created. How can you look at the lady whose daughter died in the 93' terrorist attack or the Oklahoma City attacks. I feel like while September 11th was an awful attack it is hard for me too see these people compensated while others ignored.
ReplyDeleteWhen determining what survivors' losses are it is even more difficult to quantify
Continuing here!
ReplyDeleteWhen determining what survivors' losses are, it is more difficult to numerically quantify this amount. The factors including emotional trauma, and developed health problems link to being exposed to fumes within the building are hard to monetarily determine.
I believe when you are dealing with such large sums of money no one will ever be completely happy in the results.
These readings also helped me realized the aid aftermath of the September 11 attacks in a whole new light. I do not think anyone would argue (especially Mr. Feinberg) that it is very difficult to attach a price tag to a human life or emotional distress. I believe this difficulty arises from the disparity between money and human emotion. Money on one hand is something meant to be logical, rational, tic for tac. There's set exchange rates in order to make a fair purchase. Emotion, as we discussed earlier, is very irrational and personalized. Game theory itself refutes irrational/emotional decisions in its original premises in attempting to model human decision making.
ReplyDeleteOne final note I would like to make is on the issues of autonomy of charity organizations. In the readings it discussed how the Red Cross diverted some of its funds donated for the Sep 11 attacks to infrastructure (other charitable givings). It also mentioned how Mr. Feinberg took no salary from his role in distributing the govt relief fund. All of this reminded me of the fact that the CEOs and big wigs in several larger charitable organizations receive a very sizable 6 figure salary for their work (reference Susan B. Komen foundation for examples http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/komen-spends-lavishly-on-salaries-and-promotion/2012/02/06/gIQAVw4qtQ_blog.html). I was trying to find if this salary is funded mainly from donations or somewhere else. If these salaries are funded by donations meant for victims, is it right that these CEOs and execs make a solid profit from other's suffering? Maybe I am missing something, but it just seems off to me that one can make a +6 figure salary raising money to help other people's suffering. If anyone knows more about the situation I would be interested to know.
As far as whether or not the government should offer aid to these victims in the first place, I am not entirely sure. I definitely think that charities should be allowed to distribute funds to victims; however I am not sure exactly how I feel about using government funds to assist victims. Feinberg mentioned that some people would try and claim that their suffering was worse than that of others because they talked with their loved one as the towers fell. They assumed that they had gone through more suffering than someone who’s loved one died instantly. Feinberg admitted that there was no way for him to make distinctions between the suffering of one victim and that of another. I agree with Feinberg in this sense. This being said, I do not see how the government can grant aid to a family whose loved one was killed in the attacks on September 11 and not to a family whose loved one dies in a tragic car accident. How can they assert that victims of September 11 somehow suffer more than victims of other tragedies? If the government assigns aid to the victims of September 11, shouldn’t they also grant aid to victims of smaller tragedies? I think that part of this goes back to nationalism. The public was deeply affected by these attacks. In the days and months following the attacks, people all over the United States were terrified, and it was difficult to try to return to daily routines. At this point, it became the responsibility of the government to make a strong stand, reassuring Americans that this was not acceptable. They declared “war on terror,” in an effort to reassure Americans that we were not weak. Airport security was tightened dramatically, effectively making citizens feel safer when traveling. The government’s decision to grant aid to victims seems to be a form of furthering this idea of nationalism. This is their way of showing the world that these attacks will not be forgotten, and neither will the families of the victims.
ReplyDelete