One of the most common misconceptions that we’ve encountered about 80,000 Hours is that we’re exclusively or predominantly focused on earning to give. This blog post is to say definitively that this is not the case. Moreover, the proportion of people for whom we think earning to give is the best option has gone down over time.
To get a sense of this, I surveyed the 80,000 Hours team on the following question: “At this point in time, and on the margin, what portion of altruistically motivated graduates from a good university, who are open to pursuing any career path, should aim to earn to give in the long term?” (Please note that this is just a straw poll used as a way of addressing the misconception stated; it doesn’t represent a definitive answer to this question).
Will: 15%
Ben: 20%
Rob: 10%
Roman: 15%
Instead, we think that most people should be doing things like politics, policy, high-value research, for-profit and non-profit entrepreneurship, and direct work for highly socially valuable organizations.
The purpose of the number was to show the view of 80k (which we perceived most people to not be aware of). I guess the usefulness of it depends on how reliable you think the gestalt judgment of the employees at 80k are.
Instead, we think that most people should be doing things like politics, policy, high-value research, for-profit and non-profit entrepreneurship, and direct work for highly socially valuable organizations.
Some of these career paths either allow you to earn to give along the way, or I would have thought fall straightforwardly in to the earn to give category (for-profit entrepreneurship). A person hearing the 15% number without context might not realize this.
That’s fair, if I use it again I’ll try to make that explicit. The 15% also doesn’t include skill-building in well-paid jobs as a stepping stone to direct work.
I agree. I was originally under the impression that 80K had surveyed a lot more than four people to come up with the 15% number.
It’s pretty explicit in the original blogpost:
The purpose of the number was to show the view of 80k (which we perceived most people to not be aware of). I guess the usefulness of it depends on how reliable you think the gestalt judgment of the employees at 80k are.
Some of these career paths either allow you to earn to give along the way, or I would have thought fall straightforwardly in to the earn to give category (for-profit entrepreneurship). A person hearing the 15% number without context might not realize this.
That’s fair, if I use it again I’ll try to make that explicit. The 15% also doesn’t include skill-building in well-paid jobs as a stepping stone to direct work.
Oh yeah that is pretty explicit, I guess I forgot that part and just remembered the 15% part, and then assumed you had surveyed like a dozen people.