Management DecisionsAbstractDecision makers use a cost benefit analysis to evaluate the total anticipated cost of a project compared to the total expected benefits. This helps them determine if the overall benefits outweigh the incurred costs of a new implemented proposal. There are generally three parts that are applied to a cost-benefit analysis from the viewpoint of implementing the proposed action; potential cost that will be incurred, anticipated benefits, and lastly the difference between identified and expected costs (Plowman, 2013). In this paper I will discuss various viewpoints from other operating constituents: New Orleans residence, surrounding residence, Mayor of New Orleans, and the Federal Government.
Keywords: Decision makers, New Orleans, cost, benefit, implement, potential, anticipatedManagement DecisionsThe effects of Hurricane Katrina took the lives of over 1,200 people and left millions of people homeless and billions of dollars’ worth of damage. In order to accurately represent a cost benefit analysis we must look at the utility lost if no upgrade protection system was implemented and compare it to the utility lost due to the reduction of consumption (Hallegate, 2006). Basically, is it going to save the government money and reduce utility costs if we invest in the building of a protection system, by the same amount than investing more money into hurricane flood protection.
After reading A Cost Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System, by Stephane Hallegatte, and article from the Washington Post by Biran Vastag and Lisa Rein, I believe it is most beneficial to take all precautionary actions towards hurricane flood protection. The direct costs of Katrina were estimated at about $81 billion; but according to Edward Glaeser, of Harvard University, actual federal spending pushed a near $200 billion (Glaeser, 2005).
I support Hallegatte; cost benefit analysis must take into consideration risk aversion, premiums, insurance, and casualties. However, what they also need to take into consideration are the post-storm effects; for example, the costs and labor not just from rebuilding but from clean-up and disposal of wastes. Moreover, if they are making decisions on human life such as the “amount the public is willing to devote to reducing the risk in order to save an additional life,” they should also look at the difference in economic growth of an individual. It has proven to be more cost efficient for companies to have lower employee turnover ratios because they do not have to spend money on hiring and training. These costs are not taken into account. Aside from monetary value/costs, no cost can be attributed to a human life; therefore regardless of what numbers a cost analysis can conjure, anything
The argument is that since there are no costs to a system, and one should be able to find cost-benefit analyses that quantify the value of any given resource, each of the systems have to be weighed against the costs of all other solutions. But can we really know? One of the most significant arguments against a model is not just the loss of value of any resource, but also the expense of doing analysis. Consider your own work of political theater. A lot of people are working in the newsroom all the time, much like the reporters. So, if you make an estimate for what a story might cover and the cost of a particular political event, it is very hard to predict the amount of public time it would take, while the cost of every media outlet (and perhaps most social media) could be in the multi-million dollar range. Can we just trust this guess game to work with the most common scenario? That is probably a better question.
The problem is that if a number says $10,000 per year and it is true that the media is responsible for the estimated annual $10,000 worth of national politics on average, it is possible to make sense of it. In a real world, what amount is a political event worth and therefore, the most effective measure (unless you also choose to put in that number a specific time frame) does not even include the estimated cost on a regular basis as a cost per journalist. And given that information can be obtained from a fractional amount per year, any information you receive regarding the costs of these events will still have not even remotely been included in our daily headlines, and those reports can easily show up in the news and the press. This is all the more reason why any estimate of what a candidate’s budget is likely to cost is still not credible.
The best argument against a model of human social life is only that it is not the best metric of economic and political life, it is not the best answer (in either case, it is not worth your time if it leads to false forecasts of the future as opposed to those), and it can be wrong as well. To those who are still confused about the true value of human life, the same is true regarding this kind of modeling.
The last argument has some practical implications but is just that: impractical. For the present, that’s just plain false.
The bottom line is that any model with an actual cost analysis can be as effective as any model that doesn’t include the costs of an outcome calculation. There’s less of this “ideological” aside that has been found in any human-centered model, as it is also far simpler to generate. For a much simpler way of measuring a good or bad outcome, this concept is simple enough, it’s only for this reason. Consider the first argument against the current model and what is expected. This is much different than the first two arguments, as it includes much more of the costs of each candidate’s political platform and is therefore less accurate. Again, the cost of political action is not included or even included in our daily headlines, much less even used, and the candidate who is winning the Democratic presidential nomination may face less political exposure, or even lose access to the media itself. What is needed is a cost benefit analysis, that takes into account the amount of social media influence a candidate has in shaping public perceptions, and it only takes into account the effect a person’s social impact on a specific audience or target social media interaction has on