Pod Insights Freakonomics Radio 344. Who Decides How Much a Life Is Worth? About this episode After every mass shooting or terrorist attack, victims and survivors receive a huge outpouring of support — including a massive pool of compensation money. How should that money be allocated? We speak with the man who’s done that job after many tragedies, including 9/11. The hard part, it turns out, isn’t attaching a dollar figure to each victim; the hard part is acknowledging that dollars can’t heal the pain.
Transcript Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:01 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens,
0:43 Stephen J. Dubner? boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life, like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Mint Mobile. With Mint Mobile's summer sale, all of Mint's
1:25 Stephen J. Dubner? plans are $15 per month, even unlimited. Free yourself from big wireless and switch to Mint for high-speed data and coverage on the T-Mobile 5G network. To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com/freak. That's mintmobile.com/freak. Upfront payment $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months. Plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Greater than 50GB may slow when network is busy. Includes up to 20GB hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.
2:11 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.
2:49 Stephen J. Dubner? When something terrible happens, something truly terrible, a mass shooting or terrorist attack, there is a man whose phone eventually will ring.
3:01 Speaker 01 My name is Kenneth Feinberg. I'm a lawyer here in Washington, DC.
3:05 Stephen J. Dubner? Feinberg grew up near Boston, in Brockton, Massachusetts.
3:09 Speaker 01 Brockton High School graduate, University of Massachusetts graduate, New York University School of Law. And then, I was asked by the Chief Judge of New York State to clerk for him.
3:25 Stephen J. Dubner? This was in 1970. As Feinberg's career progressed, he got to know many of the chief judge's other former clerks.
3:32 Speaker 01 One of whom was the very distinguished, eminent, federal district judge Jack B. Weinstein in Brooklyn.
3:40 Stephen J. Dubner? One day in 1984, Feinberg got a call from Judge Weinstein. By this time, Feinberg had put in time as a federal prosecutor and as chief of staff for Senator Ted Kennedy. Now, he was in private practice. What did Judge Weinstein want?
3:55 Speaker 01 Weinstein had assigned to him the Agent Orange litigation, brought by Vietnam veterans against the chemical industry, Dow Monsanto.
4:08 Speaker 01 alleging certain physical injuries and deaths attributable to inhaling or swimming in the herbicide Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam.
4:20 Stephen J. Dubner? For those who don't recall or know, Agent Orange was an exfoliant meant to burn the shrubs off to give American soldiers an advantage, yeah?
4:28 Speaker 01 That's right, so the Vietcong couldn't hide and ambush American soldiers. Well, the Vietnam veterans came home with clorachne, with soft tissue sarcomas, with other cancers. And Judge Weinstein had that case, very complicated, very complex medical case. And on the eve of trial, he asked me, would I be willing to come to Brooklyn to mediate a settlement of that case and then design and administer a compensation program for eligible Vietnam veterans?
5:03 Stephen J. Dubner? So Judge Weinstein knew that you very much admired him. Was that in any way putting his thumb on the scale in that case?
5:12 Speaker 01 Yes, he put his thumb on the scale to get it settled. I don't think he put his thumb on the scale as to what the amount should be, or whether the chemical industry had a better case than the Vietnam veterans. He put his thumb on the scale only in the sense that, let's try and resolve this case rather than litigate the case and then appeals and five or six more years of uncertainty. He saw the necessity of trying to bring litigation to closure. And he also saw that legally, the veterans had a tough case, they may not win.
5:49 Stephen J. Dubner? Were you aware of any previous programs, or any previous settlements that were even close to, similar to that in terms of scope and really magnitude?
5:59 Speaker 01 No, unprecedented, writing on a blank slate. So I accepted the assignment, at the request, of course, of the court. And in eight weeks, we settled that massive, complex litigation. Once I did that, everybody started calling me.
6:24 Stephen J. Dubner? The Agent Orange settlement didn't please everyone. In fact, there's barely ever a settlement like this that leaves everyone happy because underlying each case is a tragedy that dollars cannot repair. A tragedy requiring a thankless and perhaps impossible calculus. But that's when Feinberg's phone rings.
6:45 Speaker 01 It might be a governor, a hickin'looper in Colorado after the Aurora movie shootings. It might be a mayor, Menino, in Boston after the Boston Marathon bombings. It might be the president of the Virginia Tech University.
7:00 Stephen J. Dubner? There was one tragedy that differed from the rest on several dimensions.
7:04 Speaker 01 The 9/11 fund was fascinating because Congress authorized unlimited funds. Whatever Feinberg thinks is appropriate, fine with us. We don't know how to value these lives.
7:18 Stephen J. Dubner? Today on Freakonomics Radio, how do you put a monetary value on a human life?
7:23 Speaker 01 He looked at me. "Mr. Feinberg, don't ever tell people like me that you know how I feel. You have no idea how I feel."
7:49 Speaker 02 From Stitcher and Dubner Productions, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.
8:07 Stephen J. Dubner? It's been happening with increasing intensity, if not quite regularity. The gun massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, at the country music festival near the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. When the call comes, Kenneth Feinberg sets aside his regular legal work and takes up the case, usually working pro bono.
8:30 Stephen J. Dubner? I know every case is different. There's a different set of victims. There's a different motivation. There's a different pool of money. There's a different public sentiment. Walk us through how you get involved, how you assess the landscape, and then how you begin to make it happen.
8:49 Speaker 01 So on the agenda, one, somebody initiates it. Not me. I get the call to design it. Somebody initiates it. Then the very next question you have to ask, how much money do you have to distribute? That drives everything. Until you know whether you've got a billion dollars, five billion dollars, 20 billion dollars, 3 million dollars, 8 million dollars, there's nothing to plan. You can't decide and design a program until you know how much money there is that you're going to allocate to victims. Then you ask, based on the amount of money, who's eligible? The dead?
9:34 Speaker 01 The physically injured? What about those who didn't suffer any physical injury but are now so mentally incapacitated they can't get out of bed? Are they eligible? Then you have to ask, very important, what is the methodology that will be used to calculate how much goes to each individual? Do we base it on our tort system? If somebody gets hit by an automobile or falls off a ladder? That system? Does one size fit all? All lives are equal? Everybody gets the same? You've got to decide what methodology will be used. And then after you've got eligibility and methodology decided, what proof does a victim, alleged,
10:16 Speaker 01 have to submit to me to corroborate the claim? And then finally, do you want to give every eligible victim or their family, at their option, an opportunity to be heard? To come in and talk with me? Once I get that call, those are the issues that have to be addressed.
10:38 Stephen J. Dubner? In the time between the event itself and you getting the call, let's say it's the Vegas shooting or it's the Orlando shooting, what are you thinking? Are you waiting for the call? Are you thinking about that event? Are you assessing in any way?
10:50 Speaker 01 I'm not waiting for the call. I hope the call won't come. And if it does come, I hope that it will come later rather than earlier. The more time that goes by after a tragedy, you hope there'll be a dampening of the emotion of the survivors and the victims. Emotional trauma is the single biggest handicap obstacle to successful implementation of these programs.
11:22 Stephen J. Dubner? You've said in the past that the single, maybe most common heartache of 9/11 survivors, victims' families, was the lack of a body, yes?
11:37 Speaker 01 Yes.
11:37 Stephen J. Dubner? Did that surprise you?
11:40 Speaker 01 It surprised me, the depth of the emotional angst when mothers and fathers would come to see me and say, you know, Mr. Feinberg, you're offering me $4 million, and they haven't even found my daughter's body, and probably never will. That raises the emotional stakes of a hearing, of a give and take, and makes it all that much more difficult to talk in the cold world of dollars and cents.
12:17 Stephen J. Dubner? One of your most unusual settlements was after the 2008 financial crisis, when the government essentially took over a number of firms, and you were called in to set the limits on their top executives' compensation.
12:31 Speaker 01 Congress bailed out corporate America after the 2008/9 financial crisis in order to prevent Bank of America, or GM, or Chrysler, or Citibank, AIG, from going under.
12:48 Speaker 01 Taxpayer money propped up the private American business economic system. Congress passed a law and the law said, "Well, now that we've protected these companies and bailed them out from bankruptcy, we're now a creditor. And until the companies pay us back with interest, we will appoint the Treasury Department to fix corporate pay, the annual compensation of private corporate officials." And they thought, "What kind of guy could we get?" Populist revenge. Yeah. Secretary of the Treasury called me up and said, "We're a Treasury.
13:31 Speaker 01 We don't want to be in this business setting private corporate pay." What would Alexander Hamilton say? So, um, this was my job for 16 months to set individual corporate packages of compensation for the top 25 officials in the seven companies that received the most taxpayer bailout assistance. Yeah, and, um, what kind of blowback did you get from them? Tremendous blowback. I, I didn't realize, I did not realize how emotional this would get. Corporate officials, if I go to them and say, "You are making five million a year. Now I'm going to cut it back to a million."
14:16 Speaker 01 I waited for them to say, "Oh, that means I'll have to sell a third car. I'll have to get rid of our, our estate on Long Island at the beach. I won't be able to send my kids to Exeter and Andover." That's what I expected. I was wrong. Very emotional. Because these corporate officials viewed their compensation as the sole barometer of self-worth. And that surprised you? Surprised me. It was as emotional as 9/11. "Mr. Feinberg, if you cut my pay by 90 or 80%, how dare you?"
14:53 Speaker 01 I have worked for 25 years for this company. I have given up my sweat and my blood and all that I could. And now you have made me worthless in my own eyes. What did you think of that argument? Did you find validity in it or no? I found validity in the legitimacy and good faith emotion that they exhibited. But with all due respect, that was not a rationale for me to say, I feel bad for you and therefore I won't cut you a pay. Congress has passed a law. I was frankly astounded at the emotional mirror of self-worth that was reflected in what your check says every week.
15:36 Speaker 01 What about the church and your role on Sundays at the church? What about your three children and how well they're being raised? What about the loving family that you've got? Nope, nope.
15:54 Stephen J. Dubner? There is, of course, a big difference between a government clawback from corporate executives and distributing money to the victims and survivors of a mass shooting or terrorist attack. And in most of the latter cases, the funds are coming not from an institution or government, but from public donations. The One Orlando Fund, for instance, was set up to help victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, in which 49 people were killed and dozens injured. The fund received more than $31 million in donations. Of that, Feinberg distributed more than $17 million to the families of the people who were murdered. The victims who spent time in a hospital but survived got between $69,321,000.
16:39 Stephen J. Dubner? And people who were in the nightclub but weren't hospitalized got a bit more than $26,000 each. When it comes to putting a price on human life and suffering, Feinberg is hardly reinventing the wheel. There are actually lots of different ways to do it. That's W. Kip Vescuzzi. I'm an economist.
16:58 Speaker 03 And I'm a professor at Vanderbilt University.
17:00 Stephen J. Dubner? Viscusi's work has focused on a widely-used metric called the value of a statistical life.
17:07 Speaker 03 The value of statistical life refers to how much it's worth to prevent one expected death.
17:13 Stephen J. Dubner? Some people, especially if it's their own death they're trying to prevent, would put that number at infinity.
17:20 Speaker 03 Everybody who thinks that life should have an infinite value should instead ask themselves the question, how much would you pay for a car that's safer but by a trivial amount? And most people are not willing to pay an unlimited amount of money for this slightly safer car.
17:38 Stephen J. Dubner? There's another complication to statistically valuing a life, an even harder problem to solve.
17:43 Speaker 03 Lots of people say that even placing any dollar number on life devalues life. So we shouldn't be doing it at all. But as a routine practice, government agencies have to make decisions. So either implicitly or explicitly, they're going to be valuing life, and we want them to use the right numbers.
18:02 Stephen J. Dubner? Okay, so what are the right numbers? How do you get there? Let's start with the way it used to be.
18:08 Speaker 03 So it used to be the government agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, did not want to explicitly say that they're placing a value on life. So instead, they called it the cost of death. Well, the cost of death figures only capture the income lost to survivors. They don't capture how much you value your own life and how much you value staying alive. So what you really want to know is how much are people willing to pay and how much is society willing to pay to prevent the risk of one expected death? And the way I've looked at it is by examining how much workers require
18:48 Speaker 03 in terms of compensation to face extra risks of death on the job. And if you do that, you come up with a number in current dollars of about $10 million.
18:59 Stephen J. Dubner? In a perfect world, the compensation for risky work would inevitably price in that risk. But, as Viscusi explains, the world is far from perfect.
19:09 Speaker 03 So what I've found is that whether you get paid or not depends, in part, on who you are. So immigrant workers, particularly Mexican immigrants, who are not fluent in English, work on jobs that are 50% riskier than the average job, and they don't get extra pay for the risks. So these are the areas where we need more government regulation and more vigorous enforcement of the regulatory standards. I would not place a lower value on their lives simply because they have fewer opportunities. If you gave them these opportunities, they would have different values.
19:49 Stephen J. Dubner? Viscousy's calculations are, well, calculated, even rational, perhaps. The problem is that rationality often dissipates once a terrible thing happens, when people are hurt or killed by a company's product and there's a lawsuit.
20:07 Speaker 03 I've done studies with mock jurors, hundreds of mock jurors, where I presented them with different case scenarios. In some case scenarios, the companies didn't place a value on life at all. Other scenarios, the company placed a value based on the lost earnings. Another variant was the company placed a value on life based on the government's value of statistical life. What I found is that you get a seemingly perverse result, which is that if the companies value lives more, let's say they value lives at $5 million or $7 million instead of a few hundred thousand dollars, jurors want to send companies a signal that they disapprove of what the company's done.
20:52 Speaker 03 So they want to punish them with an award that exceeds whatever dollar number the company used. So if the company used a number of $300,000, then punishing them $1 million would send them a price signal. But if they valued the life at $5 million, you have to punish them with a penalty of $10 million in order to let them know that they've undervalued life.
21:13 Stephen J. Dubner? And there's another complication. Are all lives valued equally? This is a capitalist society. Ken Feinberg again.
21:21 Speaker 01 Money has always been the vehicle.
21:25 Speaker 01 To lift up the innocent or the victim. And, and that, that is something that is American. Gee, you're giving different amounts to different individuals. That doesn't sound like very American. It is very American. If somebody gets hit by an automobile or falls off a ladder, the stockbroker and the banker get more than the waiter, the busboy, or the fireman. That's the American capitalist system, and that's the role of money in trying to temper the unfortunate.
21:57 Stephen J. Dubner? Coming up after the break, that system gets put to the test after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
22:04 Speaker 04 I was angry. I was very angry. Yet, at the same time, I didn't want to bite the hand that would, that would feed me.
22:22 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything? The perfect pair of pants? Or the tee you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel-quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince.
23:05 Stephen J. Dubner? Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash freak.
23:27 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio, sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds, because switching your home and auto insurance is better than
24:09 Stephen J. Dubner? cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So, switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. Kenneth Feinberg is a lawyer in private practice in Washington, DC.
24:39 Speaker 01 And I have the task, after certain tragedies, of trying to calculate what amount of public or private compensation should be allocated to particular victims.
24:55 Stephen J. Dubner? If you've heard of Feinberg before today, it's likely because one of the tragedies he worked on was the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He sought out that job.
25:04 Speaker 01 That's correct. Once the legislation was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, saying there would be a fund.
25:10 Stephen J. Dubner? Yeah.
25:10 Speaker 01 I suggested to both Senator Kennedy and Senator Chuck Hagel, a good friend of mine from Nebraska, Republican, I'd be interested. Well, that's all it took. They together contacted John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, the President, Bush, and I got the job.
25:27 Stephen J. Dubner? This job was, for many reasons, different from any other. The scope of the tragedy, the political, economic, and emotional tensions, and perhaps most distinctively, the source of the settlement money.
25:41 Speaker 01 The 9/11 fund was fascinating because Congress authorized unlimited funds, whatever Feinberg thinks is appropriate.
25:51 Speaker 01 Fine with us. We don't know how to value these lives. And in that program, I spent taxpayer money. Seven point one billion dollars. I, I thought that the Congress would hang me. And instead, the Congress was very, very satisfied.
26:09 Stephen J. Dubner? There were a lot of things about the nine eleven Victims Compensation Fund that were unique. The airlines and other industries, for instance, didn't contribute one cent. The legislation was written essentially to protect the airline industries and other industries, maybe insurance firms, from going out of business.
26:25 Speaker 01 It basically, although the program was voluntary, it encouraged all victims who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center, the airlines, the Pentagon, to divert themselves out of the legal system. Come in for a special award and promise on a signed piece of paper, I will not sue. If you're giving immunity in effect to the airlines, who can't be sued for negligence, or Boeing, the cockpit door wasn't secure, the security system was negligently installed. If you're giving them sort of immunity from suit, well, what about the victims who paid the price? Congress decided, we better balance it.
27:10 Speaker 01 We will make it very difficult to sue the airlines or the World Trade Center. But at the same time, we'll make it very easy for victims to get compensated without suing. So that was the balance that was struck. That meant, the minute I saw that,
27:28 Speaker 01 that voluntary applicants have to sign a paper, I will not sue. Well, that means everybody who filed a claim has to receive a different amount of money. A stockbroker or a banker, or a high-priced lawyer or accountant, their survivors expect more from the nine eleven fund in return for a promise not to sue than the waiter, the busboy, the fireman, the cop, the soldier. The minute you take a program with public money and join the litigation at the hip of the program.
28:05 Speaker 01 Everybody's getting a different amount, and that causes tremendous divisiveness.
28:10 Stephen J. Dubner? But I believe it was Senator Kennedy who said to you, "Listen, um, you need to understand that a life is a life, and that while you do need to recompense more in some cases, can you talk about that balance you tried to strike?"
28:24 Speaker 01 Of course. Senator Kennedy said flat out privately, "Now, Ken, this is all taxpayer money coming out of the US Treasury. Make sure that 90% of that money doesn't go to 10% of the victims. That will be a real mistake." So what I did under the statute, I had discretion, and I could say to a stockbroker's widow, "You know, if you run the numbers, purely the calculation of lost earnings, your husband, over a lifetime, after taxes, etc., would have made $21 million. Well, this fund was
29:06 Speaker 01 not designed. Congress never intended to give you $21 million, so I'm exercising my discretion under the statute, and I'm going to reduce it to $6 million." Now, there are very, very few people even getting $6 million, but based on the data and what your husband was earning, and what he was likely projected to earn, you're going to be a high-end compensated individual. Whereas the waiter or the busboy might have had lifetime earnings after taxes of $800,000, I'm going to raise you, in my discretion,
29:45 Speaker 01 closer not to 2 million, but closer to the median of about 1.5 million. And that way, exactly as you point out, I managed, exercising my valid discretion, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
30:03 Stephen J. Dubner? Uh, did you hear a lot of complaints from the families of the highest earners?
30:07 Speaker 01 Some. A few sued. They went to federal court, claiming that I was violating the statute by not giving them their full economic lost wage or earnings.
30:18 Stephen J. Dubner? They sued within the corridor of the settlement, uh, having agreed to the settlement?
30:23 Speaker 01 No, they didn't accept the settlement. I said, "I'll give you 6 million instead of 21 million or 24 million," and they said, "You're violating the statutory language." They went to court. They all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial. And people ask me all the time, did they get more or less? Well, some may have got more, some of them may have got less.
30:45 Stephen J. Dubner? Hard for you to know.
30:45 Speaker 01 Hard to know, it's confidential. But, don't forget, those families lived with this for five years, relived it, and relived the tragedy. And at the end of the day, whatever they got, 25% of it went to their lawyers.
30:59 Stephen J. Dubner? Do you feel it's a more complicated calculation to do the kind of, uh, the kind of calculations that economists like Kip Fiskusi do, that try to put a price on, among other things, public goods, right? Clean air and water and so on. Um, do you think that's inherently a much more...
31:15 Speaker 01 Oh, much more difficult. You know, what I do in all of these programs is not rocket science. The tough part, the debilitating part, is the emotion. The stories you hear, you wouldn't believe. Lady comes to see me, 24 years old, sobbing. "Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a firefighter, and he died at the World Trade Center. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, when you cut the check from the 9/11 fund, I'm gonna get $2.4 million, tax-free. I want it in 30 days."
32:01 Speaker 01 "Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days? This is public money. The Treasury has to do its due diligence. It might be 90 days. You'll get your money." "I want it in 30 days." "Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg.
32:20 Speaker 01 I have terminal cancer. I have eight weeks to live. My husband was gonna take care of our two children. Now they're gonna be orphans. Now, I've gotta get this money while I still have my faculties. I've gotta set up a trust, get a guardian, make sure they'll be provided for. I don't have much time. You gotta help me." Well, we ran down to the Treasury. We accelerated the program. We got her the check. Six weeks later, she died.
33:01 Stephen J. Dubner? Did you try in the beginning to be more empathic perhaps than you realized was a good idea?
33:06 Speaker 01 Yes, and I make mistakes. You see, you make mistakes and you learn your lesson. I remember one 83-year-old man came to see me after 9/11. He said, "I lost my, uh, son." "Mr. Feinberg, a father should never bury a son." "I'll never be the same. Doesn't matter how much money you give me." I made the mistake of saying to this very nice man, "This is terrible. I know how you feel." He looked at me, nice man, tears, "Mr. Feinberg, don't ever tell people like me that you know how I feel. You have no idea how I feel. You have a tough job, but..." Those words ring hollow.
33:51 Speaker 01 They're pretentious. They're robotic. "Well, I'll never do that again."
33:59 Speaker 04 I was angry. I was very angry. Yet, at the same time, I didn't want to bite the hand that would feed me.
34:11 Stephen J. Dubner? That is Charles Wolfe, whose wife Catherine died on 9/11. He is an Amway distributor. Catherine worked with him on that business and just started a new job as an executive assistant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. We asked our friend Anna Sale, host of the Death, Sex, and Money podcast, to talk with Wolfe about his experience with Ken Feinberg and the 9/11 Fund.
34:37 Speaker 05 Congress takes action. Ultimately, there is one person, one man, whose job it is to be the person to give you an answer on what of this fund, this money from the government, what will be your share because of your loss?
34:57 Speaker 04 No, that's not the way it worked. Real simply. This did not have a fixed amount of money allocated to it.
35:07 Speaker 04 He had the entire United States Treasury at his disposal. It was not based on how much of this money were you going to get. They made it exactly like you would happen for a wrongful death lawsuit. They calculated it based on lost future earnings and pain and suffering.
35:27 Speaker 05 Did that feel like, if he tells me he's calculating, I feel like there could be more potential for frustration if you feel like he's underestimating.
35:38 Speaker 04 I understood that. So my mind was, I needed to prove how much Catherine was worth based on her current income, what her absence in our business would result in, and hopefully that everything would work out.
35:53 Speaker 05 And when you say had to prove, are you sitting with spreadsheets and doing the numbers yourself?
36:01 Speaker 04 A lot of it, yeah. I'm gathering information, I'm gathering past information, I'm gathering data.
36:08 Speaker 05 Yeah.
36:09 Speaker 04 Because the whole thing, the whole thing, the issue was the non-economic damages, the pain and suffering.
36:14 Speaker 05 What was that worth? That was the question.
36:17 Speaker 04 Yeah, exactly. He had picked a number at that time that was 27 years old.
36:22 Speaker 05 Based on a 27-year-old formula?
36:24 Speaker 04 Correct. And with no, no, no adjustments or anything. Because I learned, I learned that lawyers like to work on precedent, precedents. They don't like to probe new ground.
36:36 Speaker 05 Did you feel like he knew how to communicate with people who were in deep grief?
36:44 Speaker 04 No, not at that time. No.
36:48 Speaker 04 So I had to, shall we see, be very diplomatic about it? I had to say things in a certain way. But I'd already done my homework. I knew the ins and outs of the whole thing. And I'm making sure that I attack his policies and rules, not him personally. I do remember though, because at this point, you don't know who to trust or who not to trust. And I remember, because I went after him several times. And he says, "Charles?" in his Boston accent. He says, "Charles, I've heard this all before, but I've never heard it said so eloquently."
37:33 Speaker 04 I'm like, "Is he giving me BS? Is he trying to placate me? Is he trying to soften me? Is he, "Well, what's going on here?" And as he walked out of the room afterwards, I mean, he was just walking by me like this. I says, "You picked the wrong benchmark."
37:59 Speaker 05 I don't know if you use the word "closure" when you're thinking about your own grief.
38:04 Speaker 04 I just had a dream about her last night. Closure might be for something like you go through in a divorce. And you remember that old song, "I'm gonna wash that man right out of my hair"?
38:13 Speaker 05 Yeah, I've felt that.
38:15 Speaker 04 Yeah, okay, all right, you know. That might be closure. All right? It's done. That's closure. No, there's no closure in this. What you do is you move on in your life. But when there's somebody that you've loved, deeply loved, does that love ever go away?
38:32 Speaker 05 Would you want Ken Feinberg's job?
38:35 Speaker 04 I will tell you this, looking at it now, he had one hell of a hard job. He and I had breakfast together in '08. He says, "Charles?"
38:46 Speaker 04 He says, "My lawyer training taught me how to deal with other lawyers. It didn't teach me how to deal with grieving widows six weeks after they lost their husbands." I says, "I get that." He had to learn.
39:12 Speaker 04 People have their spouses taken, their siblings taken, their parents taken. See, this is the thing, unless you've been through this. There were times that I just wanted to be with her. I actually never thought of committing suicide. But I knew that I wanted to be dead so I could be with her. When you get to that level, it's about having something in return. It's about something. Who can value a person's life? So what they did is they gave us what they would have made in the future. The best estimation they could. That's the way it was.
39:56 Speaker 04 I still think that's a fair way to do it.
40:03 Speaker 01 I'll defend the 9/11 compensation fund to my grave. I think it did exactly what the American people wanted to show the world. We take care of our own. They wanted to demonstrate their sense of community with the victims. So I think it was the right thing to do, but I think the 9/11 fund better studied in a history class, not a law school class. You will never see another 9/11 fund, I do not believe, nor should you.
40:30 Stephen J. Dubner? Because why?
40:31 Speaker 01 Because you're taking public money.
40:33 Stephen J. Dubner? What if there's an event that necessitates?
40:35 Speaker 01 There's an event every day that necessitates.
40:46 Stephen J. Dubner? There's this word that I'm sure you've heard a million times. The word is closure. Does it exist?
40:53 Speaker 01 No. I hear that all the time. I mean, you know, you hear this argument, here's a check for $2 million. It will bring you some small closure from the incident and the grief. Dollars don't do that. They're a hollow substitute, I can tell you, for loss.
41:21 Stephen J. Dubner? Thanks to Kenneth Feinberg for speaking with us today. If you want to learn more about his settlement work, he's written two books, What Is Life Worth and Who Gets What. Thanks also to Charles Wolfe, Anna Sale, and Kip Fescusi. Coming up next time on Freakonomics Radio, is it really true that Scandinavia is the happiest place on Earth?
41:39 Speaker 06 Yeah, I definitely am happier.
41:41 Speaker 07 It's about togetherness. It's about pleasure. It's about warmth.
41:46 Speaker 06 I regularly forget to lock car and/or house. I do leave my children outside to sleep.
41:52 Stephen J. Dubner? And why even economists are getting on the happiness train and putting aside traditional measures like GDP. My god, let's get serious about the quality of our lives and stop this nonsense. That's next time on Freakonomics Radio. Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Max Miller and Andy Meisenheimer, with help from Alvin Melathe and Annabelle Bacon. Our staff also includes Alison Kreglo, Greg Rosalsky, Greg Rippon, Harry Huggins, and Zach Lepinski. The music you hear throughout the episode was composed by Luis Guerra. You can find Freakonomics Radio wherever you get your podcasts. Our entire archive is available on the Stitcher app or at Freakonomics.com, where you'll also find transcripts,
42:36 Stephen J. Dubner? show notes, and so on. If you subscribe to Stitcher Premium, you'll get every episode of Freakonomics Radio ad-free, plus lots of extra bonus episodes. So go to StitcherPremium.com/Freakonomics. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or via email at [email protected] . Thanks, as always, for listening.
43:02 Speaker 02 Stitcher.
43:07 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by EverPure. Is the value of AI not living up to the promise? The problem is probably your data, not your AI models. When it's scattered across different systems, getting your data AI-ready is a challenge. You keep your AI waiting, and everything slows down. EverPure unifies your data, so you can see it, understand it, and control it all from one simple place, and get it AI-ready fast. Unlock the true value of your AI at EverPureData.com.
43:40 Stephen J. Dubner? Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9 milligrams, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility, it's what powers possibilities.
44:24 Stephen J. Dubner? So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.
44:48 Speaker 08 This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.
Previous A Conversation With PepsiCo C.E.O. Indra Nooyi (Ep. 316 Update) Next 345. How to Be Happy Page updated September 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
