I think the way an EA would view this would still be in terms of the most utility-effective use of their time, however, the opportunity for leverage may significantly impact the calculation, and may enable cost-effective uses of time outside of typical cause areas.
For instance, there might be an EA endorsed charity for which marginal donations would generate utility at a rate of 10 utils/dollar. There might be an organization in the developed world that generates utility at an average rate of 1 util per dollar, and has an average annual budget of $10 million.
Suppose an EA sees an opportunity to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the non-EA charity, by about 50%, increasing its utility to 1.5 utils per dollar, and taking the EA about a full-time of work of its time. Alternatively, the EA could Earn to Give, generating a $120k salary, being able to donate $40k to the EA endorsed charity.
The EA working for non-EA charity and increasing its average utility/$ from 1 to 1.5 generates $5 million utility, assuming the same budget. On the other hand, by ETG and generating 40k to the EA charity, only 400k utility is generated.
In this circumstance, the EA generates far more utility by working for the non-Ea charity and rendering it more efficient than ETG for the EA charity.
I like the idea of enabling different domains (which may not, themselves, be the most cost effective marginal recipient) to reach local maximums as a particularly effective opportunity. There may not be as many opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the most effective charities as there are some of the less effective charities that are still significant recipients of funds.
One might say that it is better not to support such charities and let them die. This logic may be more applicable in the for-profit world, where failure to generate sufficient returns is often a death knell. However, survival in the nonprofit world can be more tied to being able to make donors happy than it is to demonstrate QALYs/dollar.
I think the way an EA would view this would still be in terms of the most utility-effective use of their time, however, the opportunity for leverage may significantly impact the calculation, and may enable cost-effective uses of time outside of typical cause areas.
For instance, there might be an EA endorsed charity for which marginal donations would generate utility at a rate of 10 utils/dollar. There might be an organization in the developed world that generates utility at an average rate of 1 util per dollar, and has an average annual budget of $10 million.
Suppose an EA sees an opportunity to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the non-EA charity, by about 50%, increasing its utility to 1.5 utils per dollar, and taking the EA about a full-time of work of its time. Alternatively, the EA could Earn to Give, generating a $120k salary, being able to donate $40k to the EA endorsed charity.
The EA working for non-EA charity and increasing its average utility/$ from 1 to 1.5 generates $5 million utility, assuming the same budget. On the other hand, by ETG and generating 40k to the EA charity, only 400k utility is generated.
In this circumstance, the EA generates far more utility by working for the non-Ea charity and rendering it more efficient than ETG for the EA charity.
I like the idea of enabling different domains (which may not, themselves, be the most cost effective marginal recipient) to reach local maximums as a particularly effective opportunity. There may not be as many opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the most effective charities as there are some of the less effective charities that are still significant recipients of funds.
One might say that it is better not to support such charities and let them die. This logic may be more applicable in the for-profit world, where failure to generate sufficient returns is often a death knell. However, survival in the nonprofit world can be more tied to being able to make donors happy than it is to demonstrate QALYs/dollar.