I am a bit confused by 2b. I would argue that the spirit of the 10% pledge is to donate part of your possible income. So if you have offers by $2X but instead take a direct impact job that you deem highly impactful for just $X, then you are donating close to $X already? In fact, the condition
and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.
may be looked the other way round. If you can take the $2X job now, but you may not in the future (say, because you are changing fields), you may be donating more than just $X this year.
Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between:
Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost)
Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice)
While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. It’s not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere.
So in your example—if someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesn’t count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn.
There are a few reasons for this approach:
Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations
Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths
Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income
Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving
What are your thoughts on this distinction? I’m curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.
Thanks Luke! It makes sense what you mention. It is true that it would become significantly more messy to track, even when the spirit of the 10% pledge would suggest accounting for it. Just a random idea: perhaps you could offer the option of “pausing” the pledge temporarily so it does not become a blocker for people aiming to do direct work that they deem to be particularly impactful.
Edit: upon reflection I think this idea may not be that useful. Since the 10% pledge is for the entire career, not each year, that flexibility is already incorporated. And a pause could produce some attrition.
I am a bit confused by 2b. I would argue that the spirit of the 10% pledge is to donate part of your possible income. So if you have offers by $2X but instead take a direct impact job that you deem highly impactful for just $X, then you are donating close to $X already? In fact, the condition
may be looked the other way round. If you can take the $2X job now, but you may not in the future (say, because you are changing fields), you may be donating more than just $X this year.
Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between:
Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost)
Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice)
While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. It’s not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere.
So in your example—if someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesn’t count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn.
There are a few reasons for this approach:
Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations
Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths
Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income
Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving
What are your thoughts on this distinction? I’m curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.
Thanks Luke! It makes sense what you mention. It is true that it would become significantly more messy to track, even when the spirit of the 10% pledge would suggest accounting for it. Just a random idea: perhaps you could offer the option of “pausing” the pledge temporarily so it does not become a blocker for people aiming to do direct work that they deem to be particularly impactful.
Edit: upon reflection I think this idea may not be that useful. Since the 10% pledge is for the entire career, not each year, that flexibility is already incorporated. And a pause could produce some attrition.