It’s interesting to encounter this argument against donating to charity, as I haven’t come across it before. The strategy of optimizing for specialization because performance follows the statistical Pareto distributions sounds about right to me.
While this post raises valid points about the potential opportunity costs of spreading oneself too thin, I believe the traditional approach of donating a percentage of income (such as 10%) has its merits as well. It provides a scalable framework that aligns with one’s earning potential, allowing individuals at different income levels to contribute meaningfully and, like Grayden said, it could provide a valuable “skin in the game” effect.
It’s interesting to encounter this argument against donating to charity, as I haven’t come across it before. The strategy of optimizing for specialization because performance follows the statistical Pareto distributions sounds about right to me.
While this post raises valid points about the potential opportunity costs of spreading oneself too thin, I believe the traditional approach of donating a percentage of income (such as 10%) has its merits as well. It provides a scalable framework that aligns with one’s earning potential, allowing individuals at different income levels to contribute meaningfully and, like Grayden said, it could provide a valuable “skin in the game” effect.