I think the 10% versus 50% descriptions are useful, and Iām surprised I have not seen them before on the forum, except for my comment here. In that comment, I was arguing that free time could be defined as 40 hours a week, so if you volunteer effectively four hours a week, that would make you a 10% EA. But this also means if you donate 50% and spend 50% of your free time effectively (like I try to do), you would be a 100% EA. Another way is having an EA job (which is typically half of market salary, so it is like donating 50%) that is nominally 40 hours a week, but actually working 60 hours a week, so it is like you are volunteering half of your āfreeā time. Then it would be nice clean orders of magnitude. But 100% is not very common, and it could be misleading, so 50% is ok.
But this also means if you donate 50% and spend 50% of your free time effectively (like I try to do), you would be a 100% EA
If you gave 60% of your income would that make you a 110% EA? If so, I think that mostly just highlights that this metric should not be taken too seriously. (I was going to criticize it on more technical grounds, but I think to do so would be to give legitimacy to the idea that people should compare their own ānumbersā with each other, which seems likely to be to be a bad idea)
Correctāto make this physically realistic (not able to exceed 100%), you would need to say that someone who donates 10% of money and does no volunteering is dedicating 5% of their total āpotential effort.ā But it is more intuitive to say that GWWC is a ā10%ā EA.
I think the 10% versus 50% descriptions are useful, and Iām surprised I have not seen them before on the forum, except for my comment here. In that comment, I was arguing that free time could be defined as 40 hours a week, so if you volunteer effectively four hours a week, that would make you a 10% EA. But this also means if you donate 50% and spend 50% of your free time effectively (like I try to do), you would be a 100% EA. Another way is having an EA job (which is typically half of market salary, so it is like donating 50%) that is nominally 40 hours a week, but actually working 60 hours a week, so it is like you are volunteering half of your āfreeā time. Then it would be nice clean orders of magnitude. But 100% is not very common, and it could be misleading, so 50% is ok.
If you gave 60% of your income would that make you a 110% EA? If so, I think that mostly just highlights that this metric should not be taken too seriously. (I was going to criticize it on more technical grounds, but I think to do so would be to give legitimacy to the idea that people should compare their own ānumbersā with each other, which seems likely to be to be a bad idea)
Correctāto make this physically realistic (not able to exceed 100%), you would need to say that someone who donates 10% of money and does no volunteering is dedicating 5% of their total āpotential effort.ā But it is more intuitive to say that GWWC is a ā10%ā EA.