Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Value of life" in English language version.
First, VSL should vary across risks. For example, people are willing to pay high amounts to avoid cancer risks, and hence there is reason to think that people's VSL is higher for cancer deaths than for sudden, unanticipated deaths. Cancer risks are involved in the work of many regulatory agencies, and people seem to be particularly concerned about such risks, in a way that should produce a high VSL- almost unquestionably higher than the values that agencies now use. More generally, deaths that produce unusual fear, or that are accompanied by high levels of pain and suffering, should be expected to produce a higher VSL. Human beings face countless mortality risks, and it would be truly bizarre to maintain that people value avoiding each of those risks identically. Second, VSL should vary across individuals, simply because different people are willing to pay different amounts to avoid risks. People who are risk averse will be willing to pay more, and will therefore show a higher VSL, than people who are risk-seeking. Those who are rich will show a higher VSL than those who are poor. People who are thirty might well show a higher VSL than people who are sixty. It follows that different demographic groups will show diversity in their VSLs as well.
First, VSL should vary across risks. For example, people are willing to pay high amounts to avoid cancer risks, and hence there is reason to think that people's VSL is higher for cancer deaths than for sudden, unanticipated deaths. Cancer risks are involved in the work of many regulatory agencies, and people seem to be particularly concerned about such risks, in a way that should produce a high VSL- almost unquestionably higher than the values that agencies now use. More generally, deaths that produce unusual fear, or that are accompanied by high levels of pain and suffering, should be expected to produce a higher VSL. Human beings face countless mortality risks, and it would be truly bizarre to maintain that people value avoiding each of those risks identically. Second, VSL should vary across individuals, simply because different people are willing to pay different amounts to avoid risks. People who are risk averse will be willing to pay more, and will therefore show a higher VSL, than people who are risk-seeking. Those who are rich will show a higher VSL than those who are poor. People who are thirty might well show a higher VSL than people who are sixty. It follows that different demographic groups will show diversity in their VSLs as well.
we should value risks by demographic groups so that if a particular group is more impacted by a risk than another, we can use a more accurate value of a statistical life for that group. This will assure that the government neither imposes undue costs or fails to eliminate risks that individuals would be willing to pay to eliminate.
If there are some goods that cannot be compared, then the project of attempting to monetize all of the benefits and costs for comparison is flawed from the start. If you accept this position, you may have a way out of the original problematic conclusion. If we cannot compare the value of a life and other benefits, then the problem of disparately valued lives comes from trying to convert a life into something with which it cannot be compared: money.
First, VSL should vary across risks. For example, people are willing to pay high amounts to avoid cancer risks, and hence there is reason to think that people's VSL is higher for cancer deaths than for sudden, unanticipated deaths. Cancer risks are involved in the work of many regulatory agencies, and people seem to be particularly concerned about such risks, in a way that should produce a high VSL- almost unquestionably higher than the values that agencies now use. More generally, deaths that produce unusual fear, or that are accompanied by high levels of pain and suffering, should be expected to produce a higher VSL. Human beings face countless mortality risks, and it would be truly bizarre to maintain that people value avoiding each of those risks identically. Second, VSL should vary across individuals, simply because different people are willing to pay different amounts to avoid risks. People who are risk averse will be willing to pay more, and will therefore show a higher VSL, than people who are risk-seeking. Those who are rich will show a higher VSL than those who are poor. People who are thirty might well show a higher VSL than people who are sixty. It follows that different demographic groups will show diversity in their VSLs as well.
