MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#2Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive.
Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead. Every avoided child death is 40-50 years of productive labour from that child. The soap and vaccines is $low. The life tail is enormous. If you figure the QALY for the woman lower since she's survived into post puberty, I get that but for the kids, its 50x or more on the spend.
I just found the $ per QALY way low. But, perhaps people with experience of delivery of services and aid into marginalised economies can explain?
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#3Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive. Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoid…
> Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead
The child who would’ve been born is assumed to have had zero economic value? lol
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#4Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive. Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoid…
> Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead The child who would’ve been born is assumed to have had zero economic value? lol
How many additional jobs can I give you before I gain little positive in economic value? This is what forcing mothers to have more unwanted children is doing.
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#5Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive. Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoid…
> Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead.
> Every avoided child death [or additional child born] is 40-50 years of productive labour from that child.
Opinions about abortion and birth control aside, these two seem to be opposing calculations. If that's controversial, perhaps the conclusion should be that economic value is the wrong metric.
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#6Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive. Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoid…
> Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead. > Every avoided child death [or additional child born] is 40-50 years of productive labour from that child. Opinions about abortion and birth control aside, these two seem to be opposing calculations. If that's controversial, perhaps the conclusion should be that economic value is th…
No, these are the right metrics.
You're missing choice. When a woman chooses to have a child, or chooses to not have a child, we ascribe the economic impact based on her intent.
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#7[deleted]
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#8Do you find the end figures believable against other claims? I found them overly pessimistic but thats a non-scientific vibe view. Even on the most optimistic setting the $ per QALY seemed excessive. Many of MacKenzie Scott's interventions are early age. The multiplier effect on the economy and life adjusted years should be huge by both supression of excess pregnancies and avoided child death and disease. Every avoid…
[deleted]
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#9Speaking for myself, just knowing there is someone in the billionaire class who is still an incandescent beacon of humanity, humility, and hope has in some nontrivial way increased the quality of my years since she started on this path.
She is an existence proof that a now-inevitable extreme inequality regime is not by construction maximally cynical and extractive.
Re: MacKenzie Scott's giving, in quality-adjusted life years
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every avoided pregnancy is economically that woman being productive back in the workforce or managing the family on a lower overhead. > Every avoided child death [or additional child born] is 40-50 years of productive labour from that child. Opinions about abortion and birth control aside, these two seem to be opposing calculations. If that's controversial, perhaps the conclusion should be that economic value is th…
No, these are the right metrics. You're missing choice . When a woman chooses to have a child, or chooses to not have a child, we ascribe the economic impact based on her intent.
I think a great many women and a great many economists (and women who are economists for that matter) would take issue with the notion that raising a child is the alternative to being productive.
Ask any policy maker in South Korea how they feel about the social value in raising children. It's not a film adaptation of a book starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, it's 2055 or thereabouts in the China, the US isn't so far behind.