3 ms·

How? I'm curious because the numbers are so specific ($5000 = 1 human life), unclouded by the usual variances of getting the money to people at a macro scale an

How? I'm curious because the numbers are so specific ($5000 = 1 human life), unclouded by the usual variances of getting the money to people at a macro scale and having it go through many hands and across borders. Is it related to treating a specific illness that just objectively costs that much to treat?

cm2012 1y ago
Here is a detailed methodology: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates. It convinced me that $5k is a reasonable estimate.
- bombcar 1y ago
  A weird corollary to this is that if you work for one of these charities, you’re paid in human lives (say you make $50k, that’s ten people who could have been saved).
  - lmm 1y ago
    That's an extremely weird way to think about it. The same logic applies to anyone doing any job - whatever money you spend on yourself could be spent saving lives instead, if you really want to think about it that way. There's no reason that people working for an effective charity should feel more guilty about their salaries than people working for any other job - if anything it's the opposite, since salaries usually do not reflect the full value of a person's work.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > That's an extremely weird way to think about it Perhaps, but it's exactly the type of thinking the article is describing.
      - lmm 1y ago
        No it isn't. EA folks do not think that people who work for charities specifically should be paid less or feel guiltier about their salaries (indeed witness the whole Scottish Castle drama, if anything it's the opposite).
  - tovej 1y ago
    The reasonable way to think of it is that if you were not paid those 50k, the chatity eould be less able to deliver on this. It would be amortized over the entire sum of people being helped by the charity, eventually becoming a negligible overhead.
  - cm2012 1y ago
    No more than anyone is paid in human lives.

cm2012 1y ago

Here is a detailed methodology: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates. It convinced me that $5k is a reasonable estimate.

bombcar 1y ago
A weird corollary to this is that if you work for one of these charities, you’re paid in human lives (say you make $50k, that’s ten people who could have been saved).
- lmm 1y ago
  That's an extremely weird way to think about it. The same logic applies to anyone doing any job - whatever money you spend on yourself could be spent saving lives instead, if you really want to think about it that way. There's no reason that people working for an effective charity should feel more guilty about their salaries than people working for any other job - if anything it's the opposite, since salaries usually do not reflect the full value of a person's work.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > That's an extremely weird way to think about it Perhaps, but it's exactly the type of thinking the article is describing.
    - lmm 1y ago
      No it isn't. EA folks do not think that people who work for charities specifically should be paid less or feel guiltier about their salaries (indeed witness the whole Scottish Castle drama, if anything it's the opposite).
- tovej 1y ago
  The reasonable way to think of it is that if you were not paid those 50k, the chatity eould be less able to deliver on this. It would be amortized over the entire sum of people being helped by the charity, eventually becoming a negligible overhead.
- cm2012 1y ago
  No more than anyone is paid in human lives.