Of course it can--anything can be quantified
I think hyper-rationalism like this is misguided. Some things aren't quantitative, and to try to make you are asking for distortion and neglect of something important. A person's worth to society is a fuzzy concept outside of a particular tradition about it. You can limit your definition of worth to things that can be quantified, and limit your definition of society to some discrete, static entity in a transactional relation to an individual. But that just answers the question with a tautology. The only thing you are measuring then is the extent of your own model.
Did you read the rest of my post?
I did, but I it seemed like a good jumping off point since that was the crucial presupposition not only of your post but of several others as well. Your post indicates that our problem in quantifying something is solely one of epistemology (the limits of our knowledge). I view the problem as more fundamental and ontological - that even with perfect knowledge some things wouldn't be subject to that analysis.
I admit that "hyper-rationalism" probably doesn't capture the nuance of your view. Perhaps "comprehensive ratio
nal realism" or something like that would be more precise.