Do you think it would be great for a lot more EAs to donate like you did?
I think there are a lot of people donating 10% while working very high paying jobs who really could still have very nice lives giving, say, 30%. I think itās especially important to avoid letting your standard of living rise with your income, or no matter how much you earn you still wonāt feel secure.
But I donāt want to be too pushy: people donating 10% effectively are still doing way more than most people do, and Iām glad to see anyone join us at 10%.
perhaps capping their income at a certain level and giving the rest, like Maccaskill did back in the day (or maybe still does)
As of 2022-08-10 MacAskill still was sticking with his āfurther pledgeā.
I think the further pledge is a good idea for somewhere between āalmost no oneā and āno oneā. Possibly MacAskill, as a way to demonstrate that heās really not in this for the money?
If a government wants to maximize tax revenue would they set anyoneās marginal tax rate at 100%? Clearly not: theyāll make some choices where they forgo cash earnings for non-monetary benefits. When you decide your donation rules youāre doing a bit of this yourself, and you should consider what incentives you want to be setting up for yourself.
I think the further pledge is a good idea for somewhere between āalmost no oneā and āno oneā. Possibly MacAskill, as a way to demonstrate that heās really not in this for the money?
If a government wants to maximize tax revenue would they set anyoneās marginal tax rate at 100%? Clearly not: theyāll make some choices where they forgo cash earnings for non-monetary benefits. When you decide your donation rules youāre doing a bit of this yourself, and you should consider what incentives you want to be setting up for yourself.
I donāt follow this, donāt incentives cut both ways? Someone who has not taken the further pledge will have strong incentives to work in AI Safety/ācapabilities (where some EAs are making >=7 digits) compared to working in animal welfare, and you had a strong incentive to stay at Alphabet instead of moving into direct work, despite thinking that the latter could be more positive for the world.
Thatās not a way I was thinking about it, thanks for bringing this up! I normally think of the GWWC pledges as about donations, so the idea that it might be useful via keeping people from making choices that would lead to larger donations is initially a bit counterintuitive, but seems right.
I think there are a lot of people donating 10% while working very high paying jobs who really could still have very nice lives giving, say, 30%. I think itās especially important to avoid letting your standard of living rise with your income, or no matter how much you earn you still wonāt feel secure.
But I donāt want to be too pushy: people donating 10% effectively are still doing way more than most people do, and Iām glad to see anyone join us at 10%.
As of 2022-08-10 MacAskill still was sticking with his āfurther pledgeā.
I think the further pledge is a good idea for somewhere between āalmost no oneā and āno oneā. Possibly MacAskill, as a way to demonstrate that heās really not in this for the money?
If a government wants to maximize tax revenue would they set anyoneās marginal tax rate at 100%? Clearly not: theyāll make some choices where they forgo cash earnings for non-monetary benefits. When you decide your donation rules youāre doing a bit of this yourself, and you should consider what incentives you want to be setting up for yourself.
I donāt follow this, donāt incentives cut both ways? Someone who has not taken the further pledge will have strong incentives to work in AI Safety/ācapabilities (where some EAs are making >=7 digits) compared to working in animal welfare, and you had a strong incentive to stay at Alphabet instead of moving into direct work, despite thinking that the latter could be more positive for the world.
Thatās not a way I was thinking about it, thanks for bringing this up! I normally think of the GWWC pledges as about donations, so the idea that it might be useful via keeping people from making choices that would lead to larger donations is initially a bit counterintuitive, but seems right.