Is the main value of this coordination to cause EAs to live together in a group? Or is it causing poor EAs to be able to do direct work without having to build up savings first?
If the former, it’s unclear to me why there would only be value in grouping together EAs who don’t have much money/income (would getting other EAs with money to live together not be equally as valuable?).
And if it’s the latter, it’s unclear to me why this idea would be better than just funding poor EAs directly and letting them decide where to live—e.g. Alex K. Chen has proposed that paying for talented young people with high potential to live in the Harvard/MIT area so they could unschool themselves there is potentially very high value.
And if it’s the latter, it’s unclear to me why this idea would be better than just funding poor EAs directly and letting them decide where to live
That would cost much more per person. With that cost would come an expectation of filtering and grant proposals, which would keep out a lot of people who might otherwise use this to do good things.
Good point. Do you think EAs with more money ought to consider living in group houses for the sake of reducing the cost of living to enable them to donate more?
only be value in grouping together EAs who don’t have much money/income
The hotel is open to anyone who wants to live frugally. Ideally EAs with money would pay their own way (i.e. the cost price of their stay). (In the event of demand outstripping supply, precedence will be given to EAs who don’t have money/income though). Also EAs with means are welcome to form their own group houses in the nearby area.
just funding poor EAs directly and letting them decide where to live
The umbrella charity being formed will be open to funding EAs to live at similar costs in other places (as mentioned in OP, SE Asia is a possibility). A key metric is how much working time you are buying with the amount granted. As jimrandomh says, funding people at a higher level places higher expectations and demands on applicants (and there are prestigious and selective grants people can already apply for).
Is the main value of this coordination to cause EAs to live together in a group? Or is it causing poor EAs to be able to do direct work without having to build up savings first?
If the former, it’s unclear to me why there would only be value in grouping together EAs who don’t have much money/income (would getting other EAs with money to live together not be equally as valuable?).
And if it’s the latter, it’s unclear to me why this idea would be better than just funding poor EAs directly and letting them decide where to live—e.g. Alex K. Chen has proposed that paying for talented young people with high potential to live in the Harvard/MIT area so they could unschool themselves there is potentially very high value.
That would cost much more per person. With that cost would come an expectation of filtering and grant proposals, which would keep out a lot of people who might otherwise use this to do good things.
Good point. Do you think EAs with more money ought to consider living in group houses for the sake of reducing the cost of living to enable them to donate more?
The hotel is open to anyone who wants to live frugally. Ideally EAs with money would pay their own way (i.e. the cost price of their stay). (In the event of demand outstripping supply, precedence will be given to EAs who don’t have money/income though). Also EAs with means are welcome to form their own group houses in the nearby area.
The umbrella charity being formed will be open to funding EAs to live at similar costs in other places (as mentioned in OP, SE Asia is a possibility). A key metric is how much working time you are buying with the amount granted. As jimrandomh says, funding people at a higher level places higher expectations and demands on applicants (and there are prestigious and selective grants people can already apply for).