I think you make a good point about virtue not being self-sacrifice, and I definitely see your first point too, particularly for lots of people currently involved in effective altruism.
However, of course people can only vary their income within certain limits. There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own. I’d aspire to an effective altruism that can accommodate these people too, and I think it’s for people like this that Tom’s point comes into play. However, I think that your caveat is really important for the many other people who have a higher upper limit on their earnings.
There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own.
I seems unlikely there would be many EAs in this situation. EAs are generally very intelligent and very educated—something would have to be very wrong to leave them capped out at $15k. Even people with only High School education can earn 6 figures if they are committed—working on an oil rig, or driving trucks in Alaska, pay very well, and being a nurse is a very achievable career for most people. Even if they didn’t change career, most people can substantially boost their income by asking for a raise each year.
I think this comment could be improved by removing the false suggestion that some of those professions are not open to certain genders (even if they have skewed gender ratios, the fields are open to all genders).
My concern was that people might accuse me of overstating my case. It’s true that these professions are open to women but I would not feel comfortable recommending them. Certainly if someone suggested I work on a rig I would be rather nonplussed! We can recommend people change career but I think some options are sufficiently beyond the Overton window that it is unreasonable to ask it of people.
I think you make a good point about virtue not being self-sacrifice, and I definitely see your first point too, particularly for lots of people currently involved in effective altruism.
However, of course people can only vary their income within certain limits. There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own. I’d aspire to an effective altruism that can accommodate these people too, and I think it’s for people like this that Tom’s point comes into play. However, I think that your caveat is really important for the many other people who have a higher upper limit on their earnings.
I seems unlikely there would be many EAs in this situation. EAs are generally very intelligent and very educated—something would have to be very wrong to leave them capped out at $15k. Even people with only High School education can earn 6 figures if they are committed—working on an oil rig, or driving trucks in Alaska, pay very well, and being a nurse is a very achievable career for most people. Even if they didn’t change career, most people can substantially boost their income by asking for a raise each year.
I think this comment could be improved by removing the false suggestion that some of those professions are not open to certain genders (even if they have skewed gender ratios, the fields are open to all genders).
Good idea, I made the edit you suggested.
My concern was that people might accuse me of overstating my case. It’s true that these professions are open to women but I would not feel comfortable recommending them. Certainly if someone suggested I work on a rig I would be rather nonplussed! We can recommend people change career but I think some options are sufficiently beyond the Overton window that it is unreasonable to ask it of people.