The incessant "won't someone think of the downtrodden rich and powerful" attitude is tiring.

There is not a systemic problem with people paying too much for safety in the US. In every case where a law doesn't apply, the funders are the ones with the final say in whether safety measures get funded, and as such all the incentives are for too little money spent on safety. The few cases where laws obligate employers to spend money on safety, are laws written in blood because employers prioritized profits over workers' lives.

In short, your concern is completely misplaced. I mean, can you point out a single example in history where a company, went bankrupt because they spent too much money on keeping their workers safe? This isn't a problem that exists.

Lots of companies have gone bankrupt. In almost all of those cases, I don't know the reason.

Which is why I set the bar so low. One real world example. I'll be happy to provide, say, 50 examples of companies cutting safety costs resulting in people dying for every example of a company going bankrupt because they actually gave a shit about the safety of their workers.

If you don't know why companies are going bankrupt, then you don't know that they're going bankrupt due to safety spending. So that's basically admitting your opinion isn't based in any evidence, no?

Companies going bankrupt has nothing to do with my opinion. That's your thing. My opinion is that "the best humanity has to offer" is practically unachievable. I can show 50 examples of human output that are suboptimal. Can you show even one example that could not be improved? If not, assertions about the best humanity has to offer aren't based on evidence, are they?

Cool man, you win. I used an idiom and the literal meaning of it wasn't true. You caught me. Good job!

I cannot think of a more boring thing to debate. But I'm sure you'll be eager to tell me that in fact I can think of more boring things to debate, since it's so important to you that superlatives be backed up with hard evidence.