Now, over to you. What are your blockers, and what could help?
I think it would be nice to know what is the marginal value of my personal spending, increasing my reserves, and donating. Ideally, these should all be equal, but they are all hard to estimate. I think people aligned with EA could be persuaded to donate more if it was shown that reserves or personal spending are too high (for a given set of conditions). I agree that these 3 buckets are not mutually exclusive, but it is unclear how much should go into each of them.
FWIW, my current giving policy is defined by:
Spending on what intuitively feels right (I have only spent 3.65 kā¬/āyear of my own money since August 2018, thanks to lots of support from family).
Donating everything I have above 4 times the global real GDP per capita (43.3 kā¬), such that I maintain reserves which allow me to live for 2 years without gaining any income, and spending 2 times as much as the mean human.
One motive of concern for me is the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of longtermist work. I think neartermist interventions are usually less effective, but seem to have much more impact evaluations.
I agree increasing reserves should be the priority early one. On the other hand, I think it makes sense to set a target level of personal spending and savings (which does not have to be the same for everyone), and just donate everything above that level. My reason for this is that the marginal returns on personal spending and savings diminish much more steeply than personal donations.
Agree re: marginal returns on personal spending, very uncertain re: savings, especially given uncertain income (Iām currently midway through a one-year grant) and uncertain projected expenditures (traveling to conferences, moving house, supporting family, etc). Iāve thought seriously about the āset threshold and donate everything elseā strategy for a long time and envied folks with the financial security and other sources of privilege to feel comfortable implementing it, and I think there are many more people like me (especially from LMICs). So for now I default to giving 10%.
Fair enough Mo, especially when you are from a LMIC!
Another huge factor people should factor in is possible inheritance and safety nets from family, which are often quite large especially in high income countries.
I think many more people should set thresholds though, I was so inspired by Will McKaskill and his threshold (something like 35,000 pounds?) in the original āDoing Good Betterā book.
The way I think about it is that factors such as the ones you described will push the level of target savings to a higher level, and therefore the marginal returns on saving will be higher. I believe donating less than 10 % can be good strategy under some conditions.
This warms my heart man, massive respect and think of the difference you will make to the world through giving this generously over the years! I love that you live simply as well, something I would love to write more aboutābut a couple of pro simplicity comments I have made have recieved both a karma and agreement hammering so I havenāt tried yet!
āFWIW, my current giving policy is defined by:
Spending on what intuitively feels right (I have only spent 3.65 kā¬/āyear of my own money since August 2018, thanks to lots of support from family).
Donating everything I have above 4 times the global real GDP per capita (43.3 kā¬), such that I maintain reserves which allow me to live for 2 years without gaining any income, and spending 2 times as much as the mean human.ā
Just to clarify, note that I do not live as simply as 3.65 kā¬/āyear suggest. I live with family, so I do not have to pay for accomodation (unless I am travelling without family), which I guess accounts for the bulk of expenditure of most people.
something I would love to write more aboutābut a couple of pro simplicity comments I have made have recieved both a karma and agreement hammering so I havenāt tried yet!
I guess the negative response comes from some people thinking (at least implicitly) that at the margin it is better to increase personal spending and reserves. This may well be true for some people, but not all, so I suppose it might still be good to write about ways to live simply while maintaining high productivity.
Nice piece, Luke!
I think it would be nice to know what is the marginal value of my personal spending, increasing my reserves, and donating. Ideally, these should all be equal, but they are all hard to estimate. I think people aligned with EA could be persuaded to donate more if it was shown that reserves or personal spending are too high (for a given set of conditions). I agree that these 3 buckets are not mutually exclusive, but it is unclear how much should go into each of them.
FWIW, my current giving policy is defined by:
Spending on what intuitively feels right (I have only spent 3.65 kā¬/āyear of my own money since August 2018, thanks to lots of support from family).
Donating everything I have above 4 times the global real GDP per capita (43.3 kā¬), such that I maintain reserves which allow me to live for 2 years without gaining any income, and spending 2 times as much as the mean human.
One motive of concern for me is the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of longtermist work. I think neartermist interventions are usually less effective, but seem to have much more impact evaluations.
I found this discussion of how much to save vs donate helpful when I was reviewing my finances recently.
Thanks for sharing, Holly!
I agree increasing reserves should be the priority early one. On the other hand, I think it makes sense to set a target level of personal spending and savings (which does not have to be the same for everyone), and just donate everything above that level. My reason for this is that the marginal returns on personal spending and savings diminish much more steeply than personal donations.
Agree re: marginal returns on personal spending, very uncertain re: savings, especially given uncertain income (Iām currently midway through a one-year grant) and uncertain projected expenditures (traveling to conferences, moving house, supporting family, etc). Iāve thought seriously about the āset threshold and donate everything elseā strategy for a long time and envied folks with the financial security and other sources of privilege to feel comfortable implementing it, and I think there are many more people like me (especially from LMICs). So for now I default to giving 10%.
Fair enough Mo, especially when you are from a LMIC!
Another huge factor people should factor in is possible inheritance and safety nets from family, which are often quite large especially in high income countries.
I think many more people should set thresholds though, I was so inspired by Will McKaskill and his threshold (something like 35,000 pounds?) in the original āDoing Good Betterā book.
Makes sense, Mo!
The way I think about it is that factors such as the ones you described will push the level of target savings to a higher level, and therefore the marginal returns on saving will be higher. I believe donating less than 10 % can be good strategy under some conditions.
This warms my heart man, massive respect and think of the difference you will make to the world through giving this generously over the years! I love that you live simply as well, something I would love to write more aboutābut a couple of pro simplicity comments I have made have recieved both a karma and agreement hammering so I havenāt tried yet!
āFWIW, my current giving policy is defined by:
Spending on what intuitively feels right (I have only spent 3.65 kā¬/āyear of my own money since August 2018, thanks to lots of support from family).
Donating everything I have above 4 times the global real GDP per capita (43.3 kā¬), such that I maintain reserves which allow me to live for 2 years without gaining any income, and spending 2 times as much as the mean human.ā
Thanks for the kind words, Nick!
Just to clarify, note that I do not live as simply as 3.65 kā¬/āyear suggest. I live with family, so I do not have to pay for accomodation (unless I am travelling without family), which I guess accounts for the bulk of expenditure of most people.
I guess the negative response comes from some people thinking (at least implicitly) that at the margin it is better to increase personal spending and reserves. This may well be true for some people, but not all, so I suppose it might still be good to write about ways to live simply while maintaining high productivity.