My numbers are a little different to yours at around 25-50%. I think the reason is that I envision many EAs going into ‘influence’ areas like foundations, other NGOs, politics, academia, journalism, and policy. Those that do probably won’t earn large sums but neither will they be drawing substantial funding from the EA community; they are sort of excluded from both sides the earning-to-givers vs. direct-workers analysis you do above. When I do a similar analysis, I get a similar conclusion of wanting very roughly 1 ETG person for each 1 direct EA org person, but then I envisage 0 − 50% of EAs doing the orthgonal ‘influence’ options, hence 25-50% in both ETG and ‘direct’ work.
That’s really interesting analysis! I hadn’t considered that. But I agree.
This was a significant factor for us. I could easily see a future where it’s best for the majority of EAs go to work in research, international orgs, policy etc.; which already drives the percentage under 50.
That’s really interesting analysis! I hadn’t considered that. But I agree.
This was a significant factor for us. I could easily see a future where it’s best for the majority of EAs go to work in research, international orgs, policy etc.; which already drives the percentage under 50.