What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective jobâs compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
It still seems like a mistake to not point out to people that they can substantially increase their donation and thus lives saved, even if it doesnât count towards the pledge
I agree. Letâs take for granted GWWCâs position that donation matching shouldnât count towards the 10% pledge (I donât think it matters, but even so). Then they could say on their website âPledgers should check here (link) to see if their employer matches donations. While matched donations do not count towards the GWWC pledge, they offer an easy way to direct extra money towards saving lives.â Then there is no confusion.
I agree. Indeed, âthis is because the spirit of the pledge is to voluntarily forego a certain portion of your income and use it to improve the lives of othersâ, sounds suspiciously not cold-hearted-economist-ey enough for an EA org.
GWWC is probably valuable as it is precisely because it offers a warmer aspect and a community and all that, but youâre right, donation matching is just one more variable that should be counted into the utility calculation.
>What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective jobâs compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
Iâm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that GWWC should include the donation match in the denominator, but not the numerator? Or include in both? Or are you not talking about GWWC at all here?
with GWWC at least officially they donât consider company match as part of the pledge:
https://ââwww.givingwhatwecan.org/ââfaq/ââdo-i-count-employer-donation-matching-towards-my-giving-pledge
What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective jobâs compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
It still seems like a mistake to not point out to people that they can substantially increase their donation and thus lives saved, even if it doesnât count towards the pledge
I agree. Letâs take for granted GWWCâs position that donation matching shouldnât count towards the 10% pledge (I donât think it matters, but even so). Then they could say on their website âPledgers should check here (link) to see if their employer matches donations. While matched donations do not count towards the GWWC pledge, they offer an easy way to direct extra money towards saving lives.â Then there is no confusion.
I agree. Indeed, âthis is because the spirit of the pledge is to voluntarily forego a certain portion of your income and use it to improve the lives of othersâ, sounds suspiciously not cold-hearted-economist-ey enough for an EA org.
GWWC is probably valuable as it is precisely because it offers a warmer aspect and a community and all that, but youâre right, donation matching is just one more variable that should be counted into the utility calculation.
>What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective jobâs compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
Iâm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that GWWC should include the donation match in the denominator, but not the numerator? Or include in both? Or are you not talking about GWWC at all here?
I was suggesting in both.