As always your posts are very clear, constructive and go straight for the key points!
Here’s why I don’t agree, and am not much moved from my original estimate:
Firstly, as you note, the claim was only about the most motivated/talented people, in the long run. The first point was there to deal with the fact that many people who are less motivated will find it much easier to earn to give than the alternatives. The second is there to deal with the career capital point—that many people should earn to give early on, but transition out later on to have a direct impact. So inasmuch as we are addressing different audiences, we don’t actually disagree as much as it might seem. That so many people who are not as flexible will prefer earning to give, is a reason to do direct work if you’re open to both.
The post neglects that we can get enormous sums of money from outside pre-existing sources, for example, Good Ventures. This could end up covering many of the costs for people doing direct work, and dramatically reduce the need for earning to give. So probably our estimates should be a wide range depending on how that goes.
Earnings are log-normal, so the average donations per earning to giver are much higher than the typical cases you mention. Particularly so as many people are going into entrepreneurship, which allows you to make either a lot of money in your first 10 years, or switch to direct work. (Also note there is something peculiar about the argument that each person who earns to give doesn’t donate much money, so that’s why more people should do it.)
I don’t think AMF or GiveDirectly are likely to continue to be regarded as the most effective organisations in the long run, so although they have exceptional spends per staff member, I anticipate that the places I would want to move money to will have many more staff for each dollar they spend.
Lots of promising opportunities won’t require any earning to give to support them—politics, science researchers, academics, working in a foundation, journalists, activists, profitable start-ups that are directly valuable, etc. To me that’s already where I would want at least a third of the people we were talking about to go.
As always your posts are very clear, constructive and go straight for the key points!
Here’s why I don’t agree, and am not much moved from my original estimate:
Firstly, as you note, the claim was only about the most motivated/talented people, in the long run. The first point was there to deal with the fact that many people who are less motivated will find it much easier to earn to give than the alternatives. The second is there to deal with the career capital point—that many people should earn to give early on, but transition out later on to have a direct impact. So inasmuch as we are addressing different audiences, we don’t actually disagree as much as it might seem. That so many people who are not as flexible will prefer earning to give, is a reason to do direct work if you’re open to both.
The post neglects that we can get enormous sums of money from outside pre-existing sources, for example, Good Ventures. This could end up covering many of the costs for people doing direct work, and dramatically reduce the need for earning to give. So probably our estimates should be a wide range depending on how that goes.
Earnings are log-normal, so the average donations per earning to giver are much higher than the typical cases you mention. Particularly so as many people are going into entrepreneurship, which allows you to make either a lot of money in your first 10 years, or switch to direct work. (Also note there is something peculiar about the argument that each person who earns to give doesn’t donate much money, so that’s why more people should do it.)
I don’t think AMF or GiveDirectly are likely to continue to be regarded as the most effective organisations in the long run, so although they have exceptional spends per staff member, I anticipate that the places I would want to move money to will have many more staff for each dollar they spend.
Lots of promising opportunities won’t require any earning to give to support them—politics, science researchers, academics, working in a foundation, journalists, activists, profitable start-ups that are directly valuable, etc. To me that’s already where I would want at least a third of the people we were talking about to go.