Depends on what you count as meaningful earning potential.
One of the big ideas that I take from the old days of effective altruism, is that strategically donating 10% of the median US salary can save more lives than becoming a doctor in the US over one’s career.
Same logic applies to animal welfare, catastrophic risk reduction, and other priorities.
A different question is would you be satisfied with having a normal job and donating 10% (or whatever % makes sense in your situation)?
I also think this ties back to the broader question I was raising. If a large share of motivated people end up defaulting to earn-to-give not because it’s their best fit, but because pathways into direct impact work are bottlenecked or unclear, that may still point to a structural issue—even if earn-to-give remains net positive in expectation.
So yes, I think the question of “would you be satisfied with a normal job and donating 10%?” is a crucial one. My concern is less about whether that option is impactful in theory, and more about whether the ecosystem is doing enough to help people find durable, high-fit ways to contribute—whether through direct work, earning to give, or something in between.
I think it’s a bit tricky to reason about “the ecosystem” on a global level. Directionally I’d say earning-to-give deserves more popularity (perhaps even as a default, given direct work seems oversubscribed) and more community support and, yes, it’s hard and can feel less rewarding to find a well paying job and to donate a large fraction of your income!
Depends on what you count as meaningful earning potential.
One of the big ideas that I take from the old days of effective altruism, is that strategically donating 10% of the median US salary can save more lives than becoming a doctor in the US over one’s career.
Same logic applies to animal welfare, catastrophic risk reduction, and other priorities.
A different question is would you be satisfied with having a normal job and donating 10% (or whatever % makes sense in your situation)?
I also think this ties back to the broader question I was raising. If a large share of motivated people end up defaulting to earn-to-give not because it’s their best fit, but because pathways into direct impact work are bottlenecked or unclear, that may still point to a structural issue—even if earn-to-give remains net positive in expectation.
So yes, I think the question of “would you be satisfied with a normal job and donating 10%?” is a crucial one. My concern is less about whether that option is impactful in theory, and more about whether the ecosystem is doing enough to help people find durable, high-fit ways to contribute—whether through direct work, earning to give, or something in between.
I think it’s a bit tricky to reason about “the ecosystem” on a global level.
Directionally I’d say earning-to-give deserves more popularity (perhaps even as a default, given direct work seems oversubscribed) and more community support and, yes, it’s hard and can feel less rewarding to find a well paying job and to donate a large fraction of your income!