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 :)
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 :)