This is heavily leaning towards negative, I would bet but I really dislike markets that bet on futures of more than a single year.

Yikes at this list. I would consider myself generally a functional, happy(ish), and productive member of society, but apparently I am a neutral or even bad outcome (I certainly have forgotten Mothers' Day in the past, though I'm guessing that one is tongue-in-cheek).

I hope this is not how you will judge your own child(ren).

Suggestions?

Would there be an option exception if they decide Mother’s Day does not align with their values but otherwise have a good relationship?

yes

How is having children without marriage a bad thing for "pronatalists"? I thought the whole point is to have children?

I haven't done the research or the math to be sure, but I think the outcomes are currently set up such that the average person would be more likely to lose more points than they get, whereas I assume you want to judge their parenting against the average.

Also my grandparents had 6 kids, and the Collinses seem to be approximately equal parents to them, but none of those 6 kids would have gained any points by 30, and some would have probably lost points due to negative net worth due to college debt or other "good debt", but if you judged them all on their 40th birthday instead then they would definitely have a positive score, and they all have nothing but positive things to say about their parents.

while I agree, I'm very skeptical of the Collinses and also am happy if we leave it this way 🙃

Any suggestions? the lists aren't meant to be exhaustive this early on. We have 40ish years to refine them.

One thing I'm considering is that instead of +1 if yes, +0 if no and -1 if yes, -0 if no, the outcomes should be weighted such that an average person would have a score of zero. For example "has a PhD", the first google result says 1.2% of Americans have a PhD, so something like +.988 if yes, -.012 if no, whereas "Negative net worth" is around 20% of Americans, so it should be something like -.8 if yes, +.2 if no. I'm not going to find a stat for every one of those outcomes, but currently I would guess the good outcomes are ~1% chances, whereas the bad outcomes are ~10% chances, along with the fact you currently have more bad outcomes then good, I think the average American child would get a score of -.75 under your system, and I think giving the average American child a score of 0 would be more fair. Weighting the scores by average feels like the easiest way to fix this to me, but would require doing some research and math. In particular I imagine it would be hard to find the percentages for 30 year olds specifically rather than just using the percentages for Americans in general like I just did, but it could probably be done.

Another option that I think would most likely be harder, but could be easier if you knew their family, and would most likely be more accurate, would be to just ask the kids (or their friends) on the kids 30th birthday if they think their parents did a good job raising them. If you do this you could also more easily ask about qualities like confidence, happiness, self-expressiveness, kindness, funniness, intelligence, anxiety and other qualities that would be hard to measure in strangers, but which most (including the Collinses based on what they said in the article) would probably agree are more important than the current criteria.

Another example is Shia LaBeouf, LaBeouf turned 30 on June 11th 2016, at that point he was a millionaire (not inherited) and probably had at least 100k followers somewhere, even had a significant award, and as far as I can tell had none of the bad outcomes you listed, but I think most could still realize he wasn't doing very well mentally, the same way as most child actors. based on what I have heard of the outcomes of child actors, I am willing to generalize that the parents of child actors are almost always bad, but I think most would probably get a positive score using these criteria, I am not sure if you can really fix the criteria in that regard, I think there will always be people who will be "successful" but "unwell". I was going to suggest a public poll in ~40 years, to judge them by public opinion directly rather than trying to set metrics to measure public opinion, but there will probably be at least one who doesn't want the attention, so that probably wouldn't actually work.

I think the easiest way to judge this would be to look at the income percentile of each child. If they're all above the 50th percentile for their country of residence as of their 30th birthday, I'd resolve it to Yes. Otherwise resolve it to No. For the US this would mean earning more than $75k/year.

I don't think its reasonable to say that you're not a good parent if your kids aren't millionaires.

my concern is that there are plenty of ways to have a "bad outcome" while still making lots of money, and plenty of ways to have a "good outcome" while being poor.

And I think they hold themselves and their children to high standards, so I'm fine with relatively exacting criteria.

Note also that if none of their children meet any of the "bad" criteria and a single child meets a single "good" criterion, this resolves YES.

And I think they hold themselves and their children to high standards

I think that's different though? "Did they fulfill their own standards" != "Were they good parents". The standard as currently presented is not fulfilled by ~95% of parents.

Does anyone know their ats? Do they use manifold?

There will be interesting incentives if the children find this market