The claim that it’s natural to donate to one’s employer given one’s prior decision to become an employee assumes that EAs—or at least those working for EA orgs—should spend all their altruistic resources (i.e. time and money) in the same way. But this assumption is clearly false: it can be perfectly reasonable for me to believe that I should spend my time working for some organization, and that I should spend my money supporting some other organization. Obviously, this will be the case if the organization I work for, but not the one I support, lacks room for more funding. But it can also be the case in many other situations, depending on the relative funding and talent constraints of both the organization I work for and the organizations I could financially support.
Sure, but your estimates of the effectiveness of sending money or your labour to a project are correlated, so it’s no surprise if people are unusually likely to want to donate to the place they work.
The claim that it’s natural to donate to one’s employer given one’s prior decision to become an employee assumes that EAs—or at least those working for EA orgs—should spend all their altruistic resources (i.e. time and money) in the same way.
No, the claim is not that all employees should donate to their employers. The claim is that it’s natural, viz. that there is a pro tanto reason for it.
I think the claim should be that there is a prima facie reason for donating to one’s employer. If the reason was pro tanto, one would have reason for donating even after learning that one’s employer e.g. has no room for more funding.
I agree with the claim so interpreted. If you believe working for some organization is the best use of your time, there’s a presumption that donating to this organization is the best use of your money. So I now see that my original comment was uncharitable.
At present, I don’t have a good sense of how strong this presumption should be. So it’s unclear to me how much weight I should give to arguments that appeal to this presumption.
I agree. I have friends who work at one EA organization but I expect would donate to another. I don’t think Rob and Owen were saying there should be a norm in favour of donating to one’s employer in general. I thought we were just taking for granted as an effective altruist they would only donate to their own employer if they thought it was the best use of their money. Of course it’s often not. Givewell employees probably donate to their recommended charities rather than Givewell. I’d bet the same is true of ACE employees and ACE’s recommended charities.
ACE and GiveWell have both written blog posts about where staff donate in the past. It’s been a mix of recommended charities, the employer organization, and other charities. On skimming, it looks to me like GiveWell staff, at least in 2015, more closely followed the recommendations of their employer than ACE staff.
That seems like something we would expect if GiveWell and ACE researchers are doing a good job, given that animal interventions seem to have less robust evidence than global poverty ones.
The claim that it’s natural to donate to one’s employer given one’s prior decision to become an employee assumes that EAs—or at least those working for EA orgs—should spend all their altruistic resources (i.e. time and money) in the same way. But this assumption is clearly false: it can be perfectly reasonable for me to believe that I should spend my time working for some organization, and that I should spend my money supporting some other organization. Obviously, this will be the case if the organization I work for, but not the one I support, lacks room for more funding. But it can also be the case in many other situations, depending on the relative funding and talent constraints of both the organization I work for and the organizations I could financially support.
And the impact of one’s skillset in different orgs/focus areas.
Sure, but your estimates of the effectiveness of sending money or your labour to a project are correlated, so it’s no surprise if people are unusually likely to want to donate to the place they work.
No, the claim is not that all employees should donate to their employers. The claim is that it’s natural, viz. that there is a pro tanto reason for it.
I think the claim should be that there is a prima facie reason for donating to one’s employer. If the reason was pro tanto, one would have reason for donating even after learning that one’s employer e.g. has no room for more funding.
I agree with the claim so interpreted. If you believe working for some organization is the best use of your time, there’s a presumption that donating to this organization is the best use of your money. So I now see that my original comment was uncharitable.
At present, I don’t have a good sense of how strong this presumption should be. So it’s unclear to me how much weight I should give to arguments that appeal to this presumption.
I agree. I have friends who work at one EA organization but I expect would donate to another. I don’t think Rob and Owen were saying there should be a norm in favour of donating to one’s employer in general. I thought we were just taking for granted as an effective altruist they would only donate to their own employer if they thought it was the best use of their money. Of course it’s often not. Givewell employees probably donate to their recommended charities rather than Givewell. I’d bet the same is true of ACE employees and ACE’s recommended charities.
ACE and GiveWell have both written blog posts about where staff donate in the past. It’s been a mix of recommended charities, the employer organization, and other charities. On skimming, it looks to me like GiveWell staff, at least in 2015, more closely followed the recommendations of their employer than ACE staff.
(Links go to 2015 staff donation posts.)
That seems like something we would expect if GiveWell and ACE researchers are doing a good job, given that animal interventions seem to have less robust evidence than global poverty ones.