The issue of worker safety puts the tension between worker welfare and consumer welfare in sharp relief. Consumers want the product (education or meat) NOW and at the lowest price, regardless of the safety risk borne by the worker (teacher or meatpacker) to provide the product.

The same tension exists for worker exploitation. Consumers might even have a taste for worker exploitation to the extent some of the underpayment is shared with the consumer in the form of lower prices.

This is not to suggest that the consumer-welfare standard is inherently anti-worker. There could be occasions where the dueling interests overlap. But in many circumstances, the CW standard will lead policymakers or courts to make decisions that are harmful to worker welfare.

By elevating the interests of consumers, the Chicago School was catering to our most selfish instincts. Any conflicts would be resolved against workers. Most consumers are also workers, and should be able to empathize w/ other workers. But we ignored others because it felt good.

If consumers are not willing to pay extra for the product to ensure the safety of workers—because consumers don’t internalize those worker benefits—then profit-maximizing firms will not provide safety to workers so long as the incremental costs of doing so are positive.