A common objection to Effective Altruism is general, and global health and welfare programs in particular, is that it only looks at legible programs when the most important changes are at a system level, and especially ones that encourage economic development. I’m curious what critics who agree with this perspective think about OP’s new program area.
After reading the recent https://www.thenation.com/article/society/progressive-left-philanthropy-strategy/ and many similar articles, my understanding is that proponents of “system level” changes are sceptical of a neoliberal/market-driven approach, and want a more centrally planned economy, where opportunities and outcomes are guaranteed to be more equal, or at least everyone is guaranteed a basic amount of wealth.
My understanding is that they care primarily about things like increased inequality, homelessness and unemployment in the United States, and they believe that main causes for those issues are the greed of the top 0.01% and market regulations (or lack thereof) which favour the richest at the expense of the poorest.
So I would imagine that reading things like:
They would expect an AGOA renewal to increase inequality and unemployment in the US by replacing American jobs with sweatshops in countries with lower minimum wage/worker rights, enriching capitalists who would profit from exploiting less protected workers.
But this is definitely a position I struggle to understand, so it’s likely that I’m misrepresenting it and would welcome other guesses/corrections.