* not sure how predictive choice of org to work at is of choice of org to donate to, lots of people I know donate to the org they work at because they think it’s the best, some donate to think they think are less impactful (at least on utilitarian grounds) than the place they work (e.g. see CEA giving season charity recs) - you seem to think that orgs people donate to are better than orgs they work at but Idk if that’s true
I am assuming people would donate to organisations which are more cost-effective than their own in expectation because donating to ones which are less cost-effective would decrease their impact. This still leaves open the possibility of people donating to their own organisation (or asking to earn less), but they selected this partly for personal fit reasons which do not apply to donations, so I would expect most unbiased people to think there are other organisations which are more cost-effective than their own.
* a bit confused about the net effects of joining an org on its capital, e.g. lots of hires unlock more funding via fundraising capacity, credibility, etc.
Roles unlocking funds should ideally be paid more until the point where increasing earnings by 1 $ only increases funds by 1 $.
Both. I do not have reasons to believe organisations are under or overspending on fundraising. Some organisations say they have a hard time finding people who are a good fit for fundraising (being “talent-constrained”), but I think this only means there are steep diminishing returns on spending more on fundraising by increasing the earnings of possible fundraising roles. It does not mean they are underspending on fundraising. In general, I think it is sensible to at least have a prior expectation that the various activities on which an impact-focussed organisation can spend more money on have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, they would be leaving impact on the table by not moving money from the least to the most cost-effective activities at the margin. At the same time, I expect to find inefficiencies after learning more.
Thanks for the good points, Caleb.
I am assuming people would donate to organisations which are more cost-effective than their own in expectation because donating to ones which are less cost-effective would decrease their impact. This still leaves open the possibility of people donating to their own organisation (or asking to earn less), but they selected this partly for personal fit reasons which do not apply to donations, so I would expect most unbiased people to think there are other organisations which are more cost-effective than their own.
Roles unlocking funds should ideally be paid more until the point where increasing earnings by 1 $ only increases funds by 1 $.
Do you think in real life that’s a sensible expectation, or are you saying that’s how you wish it worked?
Both. I do not have reasons to believe organisations are under or overspending on fundraising. Some organisations say they have a hard time finding people who are a good fit for fundraising (being “talent-constrained”), but I think this only means there are steep diminishing returns on spending more on fundraising by increasing the earnings of possible fundraising roles. It does not mean they are underspending on fundraising. In general, I think it is sensible to at least have a prior expectation that the various activities on which an impact-focussed organisation can spend more money on have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, they would be leaving impact on the table by not moving money from the least to the most cost-effective activities at the margin. At the same time, I expect to find inefficiencies after learning more.