Hey, the post of mine that you linked is an attempt to simplify this question a lot, here’s the TL;DR in my own words:
Instead of considering whether more EAs should E2G or not: apply to a few EA orgs you like, and if any of them accept you, ask them if they’d rather hire you or get some $ amount that is vaguely what you’d donate if you’d E2G.
I think, for various reasons, this would be a better decision-making process than considering what more EAs should do.
Would it be better to assume organisations are indifferent between having a person work for them, and receiving what they would pay the person? I think so. It corresponds to the organisations’ revealed preferences, and I believe these are more reliable than their stated preferences. Organisations wanting to maximise their own impact (at the expense of global impact) have an incentive to overestimate the money they would have to receive to be happy to let the person go because they know the person could then donate to many other organisations.
Hey, the post of mine that you linked is an attempt to simplify this question a lot, here’s the TL;DR in my own words:
Instead of considering whether more EAs should E2G or not: apply to a few EA orgs you like, and if any of them accept you, ask them if they’d rather hire you or get some $ amount that is vaguely what you’d donate if you’d E2G.
I think, for various reasons, this would be a better decision-making process than considering what more EAs should do.
Hi Yonatan,
Would it be better to assume organisations are indifferent between having a person work for them, and receiving what they would pay the person? I think so. It corresponds to the organisations’ revealed preferences, and I believe these are more reliable than their stated preferences. Organisations wanting to maximise their own impact (at the expense of global impact) have an incentive to overestimate the money they would have to receive to be happy to let the person go because they know the person could then donate to many other organisations.