Tyler Kolota
Posts 1
Comments11
Many of the most cost-effective & scale-able interventions are preventative, like child immunizations in globally poor areas. Unfortunately preventative work usually isn’t as flashy, like there isn’t a lot of fan-fare or striking event when in 6 months a vaccinated child doesn’t get malaria.
In what ways might the Mr. Beast team or others creatively work through/around this challenge to make highly-effective preventative work more compelling?
Would you consider more work & content in nutrition for pregnant mothers & developing children in globally poor regions?
-Multi-micronutrient & calcium supplementation & education for pregnant mothers to prevent still-births/early-births/underweight-births.
-Complementary feeding supplies & education for families with infants to prevent stunting.
-SQ-LNS (https://www.unicef.org/documents/nutrition/SQLNS-Guidance) distribution to prevent malnutrition in early childhood.
Research presented in the “Best Things First” book (https://lomborg.com/best-things-first) estimate a benefit of $14-$24 for every $1 spent on these interventions in globally poor regions.
Some people in this comment thread are repeatedly making the mistake of talking about the increase in satisfaction due to increased wealth of already-wealthy/developed-country-people. Increases in satisfaction related to increases in income only start to plateau around the $80k per year mark. https://images.app.goo.gl/7jDJFqbj3Eq1ePeY7
The per capita global income is around $10,000. Most people in the world would be significantly more satisfied with 2x, or even 7x, their current income.
I tried reaching out to contact@eagivingtuesday.org with the following, but never got a response…
“Hello EA Giving Tuesday Team,
I've been reading through the site & getting a better idea of how you work this each year. Based on past efforts it looks like the matching isn't just limited to the FB listed organizations in the usual Fundraiser search section, which is good news.
But for the upcoming Giving Tuesday 2022, I really want to know if you can include Giving Multiplier as an organization donation option? It is an EA organization, but it wasn't listed in the 2021 orgs. Site: https://givingmultiplier.org/ FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/GivingMultiplier/
I want to try to maximize my donation this year by donating through FB matching on Giving Tuesday, by using new credit cards with high intro cash-back bonuses, by checking if my company can also match my donation, and by donating to Giving Multiplier for a higher potential multiplier from additional new EA donors.
Is Giving Multiplier an organization you can include in this year's lineup?”
There should be a way to set this up to 3-4.5x most donations. (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BFbNymbn4ukmKWHrX/donation-multiplier-stacking-directing-1-2x-to-9-9x-more)
Hello, I reached out to contact@eagivingtuesday.org with a question about this year’s efforts. But I did not get any response. Can I please get in contact with someone from the team?
Besides the interventions mentioned for increasing free trade, immigration, or charter cities, I wonder if there is any capacity for additional less political interventions.
With new tools like the Atlas of Economic Complexity (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/), might there be some effective ways to support entrepreneurs moving up the value-add & product complexity scale to products related to the existing products & skill-sets in a country? Explainers…
Or
Is there more capacity for poverty alleviation measures that can be somewhat measured by potential increases in income from products? Like JPAL or Paul Polak interventions of developing domestic production of new income generating or income saving products (treadle pumps, low-cost drip irrigation, electro-chlorination vendors, etc)? https://youtu.be/H_F8xpat4sc
A close thing I’ve seen to the “growth diagnostics” you describe is the country strategies & likely growth products sections of the Atlas of Economic Complexity (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/).
Explainers… https://youtu.be/2FeugaLv5Bo
Some points for why Giving Multiplier could still be pretty good even if more funds are directed to slightly less effective GiveWell charities than things like bed-nets:
-
As EA starts to move a lot more money each year and potentially gets more push-back for concentrating its power in the non-profit space, Giving Multiplier offers a step in the funding process that allows more non-EAs to voice where they want more of these concentrated funds directed. It gives even outsiders a bit of a democratic voice in our processes.
-
If these outsider voices seem to tip things towards non-optimal allocations, then GiveWell’s maximum impact fund could still adjust its allocation of funds to the better marginal options. So the more democratic Giving Multiplier funds can just displace other funding sources for lower impact GiveWell charities & those displaced sources can then give to the higher impact GiveWell charities in response.
Some good counterpoints here for why Giving Multiplier could still be pretty good even after these criticisms:
-
As EA starts to move a lot more money each year and potentially gets more push-back for concentrating its power in the non-profit space, Giving Multiplier offers a step in the funding process that allows more non-EAs to voice where they want more of these concentrated funds directed. It gives even outsiders a bit of a democratic voice in our processes.
-
If these outsider voices seem to tip things towards non-optimal allocations, then GiveWell’s maximum impact fund could still adjust its allocation of funds to the better marginal options. So the more democratic Giving Multiplier funds can just displace other funding sources for lower impact GiveWell charities & those displaced sources can then give to the higher impact GiveWell charities.
When & where can I watch the video?