I think the expected value in terms of earnings on for-profit entrepreneurship is much higher than most salaried jobs, maybe with the exception of quantitative trading. (I don’t have a BOTEC for this)
The main objection to this I can imagine is that entrepreneurship offers worse job security (and at least initially, worse pay) than for-profit entrepreneurship.
I think this is true, so I think graduates without dependents who are interested in earning-to-give should take a high paying jobs for 1-2 years to save enough money to support themselves, then spend 1-2 years trying their hand at for-profit start-ups. If it doesn’t seem to be going well and especially if they have dependents, then they should consider switching back to a being an employee.
Another potential objection might be that some or many for-profit start ups do harm, so I think to avoid this EAs should focus on start ups where the direct social impact of the start-up is also net positive.
I think a greater focus on for-profit entrepreneurship for earning-to-givers from an early stage in EA’s history have meant that millions more would have gone to global health charities by now.
Earning to give should have focused more on “entrepreneurship to give”
I think the expected value in terms of earnings on for-profit entrepreneurship is much higher than most salaried jobs, maybe with the exception of quantitative trading. (I don’t have a BOTEC for this)
The main objection to this I can imagine is that entrepreneurship offers worse job security (and at least initially, worse pay) than for-profit entrepreneurship.
I think this is true, so I think graduates without dependents who are interested in earning-to-give should take a high paying jobs for 1-2 years to save enough money to support themselves, then spend 1-2 years trying their hand at for-profit start-ups. If it doesn’t seem to be going well and especially if they have dependents, then they should consider switching back to a being an employee.
Another potential objection might be that some or many for-profit start ups do harm, so I think to avoid this EAs should focus on start ups where the direct social impact of the start-up is also net positive.
I think a greater focus on for-profit entrepreneurship for earning-to-givers from an early stage in EA’s history have meant that millions more would have gone to global health charities by now.