In fact, wouldn’t it be much easier in general for people to conceptualize and pledge a certain % of their total assets to EA causes upon passing instead of doing it every year?
It might be easier to conceptualize, but it might not be particularly impactful.
(I’m going to use numbers close to US medians. The 10% Pledge was created by middle-class people, and I think its middle-class accessibility is an important part of keeping EA at least mildly “democratic.”)
Suppose a 25-year old (“Jane Doe”) will have total earnings of $3M over a 40-year period in current dollars (averaging $75,000 per year in current dollars). The the national average wage index is about $69K nowadays, but round numbers are easier to work with.
So the value of what the pledge asks of Jane is $300K in current dollars. That’s a significant ask, to be sure, and much ink has been spilled about whether it the right amount. It probably is a bit too much for Jane, but then again I expect that the average person with openness to the 10% Pledge has above-average earnings capacity. Although I would prefer some income gradation to the Pledge, the people who run it have emphasized simplicity, and it doesn’t sound like a graduated scale would address your concern anyway.
I question whether Jane’s estate will have $300K in current dollars in it when she dies. The US median household wealth was $167K in 2021, mostly home equity. Older workers will have more, but there’s also dissaving in retirement. The average inheritance conditioned on receiving an inheritance is $184K according to this (also 2021).
Even if we’re generous and assume Jane will have $300K in current-dollar assets when she dies, the “certain % of their total assets” would have to be 100% to match the commitment level of the current pledge. For at least most people with kids—and if Jane is statistically common, she will have at least one child—that is a very hard sell. If the ask was (say) 25% of assets at death, the pledge might be only 12-25% as impactful as the 10% Pledge.
So, at a minimum, I think one would need to compare an equal-sacrifice version of “% of income” vs. “% of assets at death.”
A few other observations:
The balancing act, I think, is minimizing a “holier than thou” attitude while making an implied moral claim effectively. Any solution involves some degree of tradeoffs.
When most people sign the Pledge, I think they can be seen as impliedly asserting something. That is approximately: People similarly situated to me should give away a meaningful amount of their income, where meaningful is an amount whose absence is clearly noticed but is not onerous. It’s inevitable that making this kind of assertion is going to be controversial.
The signaling value of having a community of people pledging to make donations when they die is much weaker than having a community of live givers. It’s not the pledging that conveys moral weight so much as the doing. It’s very easy to dismiss mere pledges without action as performative.
I think the claim-making power of giving is lower when one gives only (or predominately) at death for a different reason as well. The universe has already decided to divest you of your money at that point. So in some sense, the donor who gives at death is spending (what would counterfactually be) other people’s money. I take—and I think many people take—the moral claims of people who opine about how to spend other people’s money much less seriously than the claims of people who spend their own money on a cause.
Hi Jason—thanks for spelling out the details here. I agree with your observations. I’m not proposing to eliminate the 10% pledge and am more “endorsing a multi-level approach” as you said in your other comment. I acknowledge it’s (1) easier to let go of “(what would counterfactually be) other people’s money” and (2) it’d likely be a lesser sum than lifetime giving, but it may be a good lower-commitment option. Gen Z are having fewer kids (which is reflected in my friend group, where especially high-income women are not planning to have any kids) and people tend to think more about their legacy in old age, so this proposal could be appealing. To be clear, I think people who take the 10% pledge are super respectable and the trial pledge is a good way to get people on the fence in the door. Giving What We Can already added the wealth-based option and the Further Pledge as newer options and I wonder if it’s more accessible if it gives a whole list of options (As another example, X% of your inheritance/trust—I know many trust fund babies that would be happy to do something, anything, with their money. Again, it doesn’t carry the weight of an average middle-class person giving 10% every year, but it would be a lot more money funneled into effective causes rather than naming another building at Harvard after themselves.) and tweak the messaging to be something like “While we encourage people to take the 10% pledge and have a trial pledge that you can easily get started with, we also realize there are many other possible giving options that you prefer to pursue, for example: [insert list of options]. Should you choose not taking the 10% pledge, we still urge you to consider directing your donations towards effective charities.”
I suppose I’m really making two main points here:
More mass appeal (both to the not-so-well-off and to the wealthy people) without giving up the full-commitment option
Emphasis on the “effective” part more than the “10%” part to the mass while affirming/not diluting the meaning of the 10% pledge for those choosing the full commitment
It might be easier to conceptualize, but it might not be particularly impactful.
(I’m going to use numbers close to US medians. The 10% Pledge was created by middle-class people, and I think its middle-class accessibility is an important part of keeping EA at least mildly “democratic.”)
Suppose a 25-year old (“Jane Doe”) will have total earnings of $3M over a 40-year period in current dollars (averaging $75,000 per year in current dollars). The the national average wage index is about $69K nowadays, but round numbers are easier to work with.
So the value of what the pledge asks of Jane is $300K in current dollars. That’s a significant ask, to be sure, and much ink has been spilled about whether it the right amount. It probably is a bit too much for Jane, but then again I expect that the average person with openness to the 10% Pledge has above-average earnings capacity. Although I would prefer some income gradation to the Pledge, the people who run it have emphasized simplicity, and it doesn’t sound like a graduated scale would address your concern anyway.
I question whether Jane’s estate will have $300K in current dollars in it when she dies. The US median household wealth was $167K in 2021, mostly home equity. Older workers will have more, but there’s also dissaving in retirement. The average inheritance conditioned on receiving an inheritance is $184K according to this (also 2021).
Even if we’re generous and assume Jane will have $300K in current-dollar assets when she dies, the “certain % of their total assets” would have to be 100% to match the commitment level of the current pledge. For at least most people with kids—and if Jane is statistically common, she will have at least one child—that is a very hard sell. If the ask was (say) 25% of assets at death, the pledge might be only 12-25% as impactful as the 10% Pledge.
So, at a minimum, I think one would need to compare an equal-sacrifice version of “% of income” vs. “% of assets at death.”
A few other observations:
The balancing act, I think, is minimizing a “holier than thou” attitude while making an implied moral claim effectively. Any solution involves some degree of tradeoffs.
When most people sign the Pledge, I think they can be seen as impliedly asserting something. That is approximately: People similarly situated to me should give away a meaningful amount of their income, where meaningful is an amount whose absence is clearly noticed but is not onerous. It’s inevitable that making this kind of assertion is going to be controversial.
The signaling value of having a community of people pledging to make donations when they die is much weaker than having a community of live givers. It’s not the pledging that conveys moral weight so much as the doing. It’s very easy to dismiss mere pledges without action as performative.
I think the claim-making power of giving is lower when one gives only (or predominately) at death for a different reason as well. The universe has already decided to divest you of your money at that point. So in some sense, the donor who gives at death is spending (what would counterfactually be) other people’s money. I take—and I think many people take—the moral claims of people who opine about how to spend other people’s money much less seriously than the claims of people who spend their own money on a cause.
Hi Jason—thanks for spelling out the details here. I agree with your observations. I’m not proposing to eliminate the 10% pledge and am more “endorsing a multi-level approach” as you said in your other comment. I acknowledge it’s (1) easier to let go of “(what would counterfactually be) other people’s money” and (2) it’d likely be a lesser sum than lifetime giving, but it may be a good lower-commitment option. Gen Z are having fewer kids (which is reflected in my friend group, where especially high-income women are not planning to have any kids) and people tend to think more about their legacy in old age, so this proposal could be appealing. To be clear, I think people who take the 10% pledge are super respectable and the trial pledge is a good way to get people on the fence in the door. Giving What We Can already added the wealth-based option and the Further Pledge as newer options and I wonder if it’s more accessible if it gives a whole list of options (As another example, X% of your inheritance/trust—I know many trust fund babies that would be happy to do something, anything, with their money. Again, it doesn’t carry the weight of an average middle-class person giving 10% every year, but it would be a lot more money funneled into effective causes rather than naming another building at Harvard after themselves.) and tweak the messaging to be something like “While we encourage people to take the 10% pledge and have a trial pledge that you can easily get started with, we also realize there are many other possible giving options that you prefer to pursue, for example: [insert list of options]. Should you choose not taking the 10% pledge, we still urge you to consider directing your donations towards effective charities.”
I suppose I’m really making two main points here:
More mass appeal (both to the not-so-well-off and to the wealthy people) without giving up the full-commitment option
Emphasis on the “effective” part more than the “10%” part to the mass while affirming/not diluting the meaning of the 10% pledge for those choosing the full commitment