Do 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?

▲

AaronAPU 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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

	▲	hilariously 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

leereeves 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

ralph84 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people are net consumers and other people are net producers over their lifetime. If you abort the net consumers and invest in the net producers it's an economic gain. What's controversial is identifying who will be the net producers and net consumers that early because it's essentially eugenics.

▲

Schiendelman 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

reinitctxoffset 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	Schiendelman 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I was not in any way intending to imply I thought that, I was using the language above about economic value. I've edited my post to avoid the misunderstanding, I think you and I are aligned.
	▲	ziofill 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don’t disagree, but there is a vast difference between a wanted and an unwanted child. This is well studied and well understood. See freakonomics episode 394.

▲

11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]