So I think you’re trying to make two points at once (the points 1 and 2 as you’ve defined them) and that has prompted a bit of a negative reaction because most people responding (including me) are focusing on point 2, which is a well worn argument in EA circles that you seemed to be making an overly strong claim about.
To state it more clearly, I think most people have interpreted you as claiming:
“If you have X dollars that you want to donate, then it is better to invest them, and donate the X dollars + investment returns at death, than to donate the X dollars immediately”
Whereas what you are actually claiming is:
“The policy ‘give X% at death’ is an easier sell than the policy ‘give Y% of your income each year’, even when X is significantly bigger than Y, and in a realistic population of givers could result in more wealth being moved in total, even in year 1.”
Do you agree with that summary?
If so, I think that’s an interesting claim, and I’m sorry that a lot of us have been thrown off by the phrasing! My concerns with this claim would be:
It involves an empirical claim about donor psychology that can’t be answered just with a simulation (giving at death isn’t free since lots of people want to leave something for their family, so the idea they’d be willing to give more under this policy needs more justification).
I think comparing annual donors who give nothing at death to people who give everything at death is a false dichotomy. I expect most GWWC pledgers to also give a substantial amount of their wealth at death (in addition to what they give each year while alive).
You should make clearer that you’re advocating for a change in public messaging, not a change to what an ideal altruistic donor should do with their donations (the post title is not currently written in this way).
I think there is a psychological and messaging discussion that flows from this, but I want people to poke at it for sure, and I’m feeling like population based analysis is more in line with EA than individual analysis.
Closer! Without the psychology and even when comparing 10% of annual income vs 10% of net worth at death, in a population of 750k givers that represent a normal distribution of ages and normal death rates, giving 10% net worth at death produces more donated dollars per year (even in year 1) versus giving 10% of income.
It’s still a psychology question! The people who die in year 1 and make up those increased donations haven’t had time to accrue interest, so they’re donating money you claim they’d never have donated if they were only 10% per year pledgers, which is a claim about donor psychology, and an unrealistic one at that!
So I think you’re trying to make two points at once (the points 1 and 2 as you’ve defined them) and that has prompted a bit of a negative reaction because most people responding (including me) are focusing on point 2, which is a well worn argument in EA circles that you seemed to be making an overly strong claim about.
To state it more clearly, I think most people have interpreted you as claiming:
“If you have X dollars that you want to donate, then it is better to invest them, and donate the X dollars + investment returns at death, than to donate the X dollars immediately”
Whereas what you are actually claiming is:
“The policy ‘give X% at death’ is an easier sell than the policy ‘give Y% of your income each year’, even when X is significantly bigger than Y, and in a realistic population of givers could result in more wealth being moved in total, even in year 1.”
Do you agree with that summary?
If so, I think that’s an interesting claim, and I’m sorry that a lot of us have been thrown off by the phrasing! My concerns with this claim would be:
It involves an empirical claim about donor psychology that can’t be answered just with a simulation (giving at death isn’t free since lots of people want to leave something for their family, so the idea they’d be willing to give more under this policy needs more justification).
I think comparing annual donors who give nothing at death to people who give everything at death is a false dichotomy. I expect most GWWC pledgers to also give a substantial amount of their wealth at death (in addition to what they give each year while alive).
You should make clearer that you’re advocating for a change in public messaging, not a change to what an ideal altruistic donor should do with their donations (the post title is not currently written in this way).
I think there is a psychological and messaging discussion that flows from this, but I want people to poke at it for sure, and I’m feeling like population based analysis is more in line with EA than individual analysis.
Closer! Without the psychology and even when comparing 10% of annual income vs 10% of net worth at death, in a population of 750k givers that represent a normal distribution of ages and normal death rates, giving 10% net worth at death produces more donated dollars per year (even in year 1) versus giving 10% of income.
It’s still a psychology question! The people who die in year 1 and make up those increased donations haven’t had time to accrue interest, so they’re donating money you claim they’d never have donated if they were only 10% per year pledgers, which is a claim about donor psychology, and an unrealistic one at that!
I think most people are saving investing for life so I think I’m looking at it in more of a real world population than in a vacuum