> If you're ripping a wet piece of wood, no thumb risk at all
I'm no expert in this, but I'd say 'definitely way more than one'.
So, the risk is really quite high here.
So just divide the average net worth of a saw operator by the cost of a saw to get how many saws a finger is worth.
So talking about the average outcomes of a random homeless person doesn’t really apply here.
If I went bankrupt and lost everything I have a social safety net of family members who would put a roof over my head until I got on my feet again. Only people without that safety net end up on the streets. Or they have addictions that mean their family can’t take care of them anymore.
If we're concerned about job site injuries then let's address the real problem, which is that a lot of people using these things do so as fast as humanly possible with little regard for set up, site safety, or body positioning because the amount of money they will lose by doing that eats so much margin out of their piecework that it's not worth it. As usual we don't want to solve the hard problem of reducing throughput to improve safety, but we're perfectly happy to throw a part that is as expensive as the sawblade on the unit just to say we're doing something.
Solving that sounds a lot harder to me than legislating that saws have safety features.