The final problem with individual bargaining has also been discussed previously. Important questions of social justice and public policy are ignored if we approach questions solely from the point of view of an individual. For example suppose the risk of lung cancer for the general population is 7 in 100,000 per year. Suppose that the risk faced by workers exposed to various workplace chemicals increases to 20 in 100,000. Consider the questions that would be asked solely from the point of view of an individual bargaining with an employer. While the increased risk the tripled, it still remains quite low and the increased risk over the background rate of lung cancer is only 13 in 100,000. Given the benefits of work and given the relatively low marginal increase in risk, it might well be reasonable for an individual to choose to work that job. However, imagine that there are 100,000 workers industry wide facing the same decision. In this situation, we can be statistically certain of an additional 13 cases of lung cancer each year. Are these 13 cancers a prince worth paying for the freedom of 100,000 individuals to choose? They may be, but the point is that this question would never be asked if public policy relied exclusively on the individual perspective. Might there be standards such as maximum exposure levels that would reduce the number of cancers? Might some public policies such as tax incentives to safe businesses reduce cancer rates? These questions of public policy, questions that after all will affect human lives, would never even be asked by an individual facing the choice of working at a risky job. To the degree that these are important questions that ought to be asked, individual bargaining will fail as an ethical public policy approach to worker health and safety.