Just to add my personal experience, if you might be planning direct work, especially entrepreneurship and/or might want to have children—a personal runway has served me well. Not sure if this is stretching the “giving 10%” too far, but you could mentally consider it donated and in case you don’t need it later, you can donate it then. I think at least 12 months of runway at your anticipated future expenses might be the right level (so not a student expense, but if you might want children, accounting for all related expenses). Another situation that could make donations more challenging is if you move cities/countries for your job and thus might incur extra expenses from travelling to see loved ones. Especially with things getting weird geopolitically and with AI, I think now might be a good time to consider “donating to flexibility”. That said, I think more strict donation pledges are highly commendable but for me it has meant I operated with lower runway than might have been ideal.
Strongly both agree and disagree—it’s incredibly valuable to have saving, it should definitely be prioritized, and despite being smart, it’s not a donation!
So if you choose to save instead of fulfilling your full pledge, I think that’s a reasonable decision, though I’d certainly endorse trying to find other places to save money instead. But given that, don’t claim it’s charitable, say you’re making a compromise. (Moral imperfection is normal and acceptable, if not inevitable. Trying to justify such compromises as actually fully morally justified, in my view, is neither OK, nor is it ever necessary.)
I like the idea of just accepting it as moral imperfection rather than rationalizing it as charity — thanks for challenging me! One benefit of framing it as imperfection is that it helps normalize moral imperfection, which might actually be net positive for the most dedicated altruists, since it could help prevent burnout or other mental strain.
Still, I’m not completely decided. I’m unclear about cases where someone needs to use their runway:
A. They might have chosen not to build runway and instead donated effectively, and then later, when needing runway, received career transition funding from an effective donor.
B. Alternatively, they could have built runway and, when needing it, avoided submitting a funding request for career transition and instead used their own funds — probably more cost-effective overall, since it reduces admin costs for both the person and the grantmakers.
Just to add my personal experience, if you might be planning direct work, especially entrepreneurship and/or might want to have children—a personal runway has served me well. Not sure if this is stretching the “giving 10%” too far, but you could mentally consider it donated and in case you don’t need it later, you can donate it then. I think at least 12 months of runway at your anticipated future expenses might be the right level (so not a student expense, but if you might want children, accounting for all related expenses). Another situation that could make donations more challenging is if you move cities/countries for your job and thus might incur extra expenses from travelling to see loved ones. Especially with things getting weird geopolitically and with AI, I think now might be a good time to consider “donating to flexibility”. That said, I think more strict donation pledges are highly commendable but for me it has meant I operated with lower runway than might have been ideal.
Strongly both agree and disagree—it’s incredibly valuable to have saving, it should definitely be prioritized, and despite being smart, it’s not a donation!
So if you choose to save instead of fulfilling your full pledge, I think that’s a reasonable decision, though I’d certainly endorse trying to find other places to save money instead. But given that, don’t claim it’s charitable, say you’re making a compromise. (Moral imperfection is normal and acceptable, if not inevitable. Trying to justify such compromises as actually fully morally justified, in my view, is neither OK, nor is it ever necessary.)
I like the idea of just accepting it as moral imperfection rather than rationalizing it as charity — thanks for challenging me! One benefit of framing it as imperfection is that it helps normalize moral imperfection, which might actually be net positive for the most dedicated altruists, since it could help prevent burnout or other mental strain.
Still, I’m not completely decided. I’m unclear about cases where someone needs to use their runway:
A. They might have chosen not to build runway and instead donated effectively, and then later, when needing runway, received career transition funding from an effective donor.
B. Alternatively, they could have built runway and, when needing it, avoided submitting a funding request for career transition and instead used their own funds — probably more cost-effective overall, since it reduces admin costs for both the person and the grantmakers.