Comment by akira2501
8 months ago
> For every dollar in job site saws sold, you cause ~$20 in injuries.
Fine.. but for every dollar in job site saws sold how much useful output do they produce? My suspicion is it's something like:
$1 for the saw. $20 for the injuries. $500 of added project value.
In which case, it's not at all clear that sawstop is a useful addition.
"Fine.. but for every dollar in job site saws sold how much useful output do they produce"
This is accounted for in the economic benefit calculation, and is estimated at somewhere around 650million-1billion total.
Even if you add sales + economic benefits, it's less than cost injuries.
The CPSC has done this analysis (3 times now), as have others, as part of the breakeven analysis.
It's honestly a bit frustrating when lots of HN is just like "i'm sure X" without spending the 30 seconds it would take to discover real data on their opinion.
> the economic benefit calculation
You mean their _estimate_?
> Even if you add sales + economic benefits, it's less than cost injuries.
Provided no new error modes are revealed, like overall reduction in safety due to over reliance on safety systems and their perceived infallibility even under prolonged conditions of zero maintenance.
Not that this has _ever_ happened before.
> The CPSC has done this analysis (3 times now)
They've done this before and have been appealed before and have had their "rulings" overturned before. They should stick to recalls. Attempting to use estimates to ban products is not, to me, valid due process.
> "i'm sure X"
You're using quotes around something I didn't even remotely say. I said, "my suspicion is." Your response is one government agency has done estimates that we should just worship?
But who pays for the injuries, and who reaps the added project value?