Although thatās an estimate of how much counterfactual value āGWWC generatesā from each pledge, which is less than the full value of the pledge. Elsewhere, it is called GWWC-attributable value. The full value is more like $47-60K on best guess.
My understanding is that $47k is the estimated time-discounted average lifetime high-impact donations from a 10% pledger, but does not discount for the fact that many pledgers (especially the largest donors giving much more than 10%) would have donated significantly with or without a 10% pledge, so only a fraction of that is counterfactually due to the existence of the 10% pledge and pledge advocacy (whether by gwwc or by others)
$15K is the attribution to GWWC (would be much harder for someone to pledge without all the digital infrastructure, research, community etc)
$47K is what youād discount from $100K if you believe cost-effectiveness of the best charities decrease over time as the problem becomes more āsolvedā, and if a pledger is giving a % of their donation below the GiveWell bar
If I take 10% of the median London annual salary (Ā£4.75K) then assume they work 30 more years (Ā£143K), this roughly in line with GWWCās headline figure.
At 1%, if we assume annual inflation = annual salary increases = annual negative discounts on cost-effectiveness of top charities we still get ~Ā£14K LTV of a 1% pledge. Maybe apply -Ā£4K discounts on pledge dropouts or changes in life circumstance to Ā£10K.
How you wish to apply % attribution to GWWCās infrastructure /ā paid ads /ā in-person advocacy /ā the local EA meetup /ā online forums is probably a messier science and hotly debated. Good thing OP and I arenāt doing this outside a personal capacity.
That said Iād bet that OPās co-workers and mine have much limited exposure to EA, so the counterfactual upside of personal advocacy is much higher, no matter if you take from the $10K headline or $4.7K time-discounted high-impact donation per 1% pledge.
At the end of the day Ā£10K will still go to high-impact nonprofits, and it would have been a community effort :)
Quick note that the number on the GWWC website is about one order of magnitude lower
But of course these are averages, and the people you inspire could give significantly more/āless, or significantly more/āless counterfactually
Although thatās an estimate of how much counterfactual value āGWWC generatesā from each pledge, which is less than the full value of the pledge. Elsewhere, it is called GWWC-attributable value. The full value is more like $47-60K on best guess.
My understanding is that $47k is the estimated time-discounted average lifetime high-impact donations from a 10% pledger, but does not discount for the fact that many pledgers (especially the largest donors giving much more than 10%) would have donated significantly with or without a 10% pledge, so only a fraction of that is counterfactually due to the existence of the 10% pledge and pledge advocacy (whether by gwwc or by others)
I think all comments here are accurate.
$100K is the headline figure
$15K is the attribution to GWWC (would be much harder for someone to pledge without all the digital infrastructure, research, community etc)
$47K is what youād discount from $100K if you believe cost-effectiveness of the best charities decrease over time as the problem becomes more āsolvedā, and if a pledger is giving a % of their donation below the GiveWell bar
If I take 10% of the median London annual salary (Ā£4.75K) then assume they work 30 more years (Ā£143K), this roughly in line with GWWCās headline figure.
At 1%, if we assume annual inflation = annual salary increases = annual negative discounts on cost-effectiveness of top charities we still get ~Ā£14K LTV of a 1% pledge. Maybe apply -Ā£4K discounts on pledge dropouts or changes in life circumstance to Ā£10K.
How you wish to apply % attribution to GWWCās infrastructure /ā paid ads /ā in-person advocacy /ā the local EA meetup /ā online forums is probably a messier science and hotly debated. Good thing OP and I arenāt doing this outside a personal capacity.
That said Iād bet that OPās co-workers and mine have much limited exposure to EA, so the counterfactual upside of personal advocacy is much higher, no matter if you take from the $10K headline or $4.7K time-discounted high-impact donation per 1% pledge.
At the end of the day Ā£10K will still go to high-impact nonprofits, and it would have been a community effort :)