I agree that earning to give can be a very valid and high-impact path, especially when there isn’t a clear personal fit for direct work.
My hesitation is that this often gets framed as an “easier” or more available alternative, when in practice the same structural dynamics frequently apply. Careers that genuinely offer strong earning potential—beyond what someone would likely donate anyway—are often just as competitive, credential-dependent, and constrained as EA-aligned roles themselves (e.g. top tech, finance, or specialized professional tracks). So for many people, the bottleneck simply shifts rather than disappears.
I also think this intersects with your point about funding constraints. If the ecosystem is funding-constrained rather than talent-constrained in many areas, then earn to give makes a lot of sense at the margin. But if access to high-earning roles is itself limited, we may still be leaving a large amount of motivated human capital underutilized—both in direct work and in earning to give.
That’s why I keep coming back to the possibility that the core issue isn’t just individual career choice, but a mismatch between motivation, available roles, and the systems we’ve built to translate one into the other.
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!
I agree that earning to give can be a very valid and high-impact path, especially when there isn’t a clear personal fit for direct work.
My hesitation is that this often gets framed as an “easier” or more available alternative, when in practice the same structural dynamics frequently apply. Careers that genuinely offer strong earning potential—beyond what someone would likely donate anyway—are often just as competitive, credential-dependent, and constrained as EA-aligned roles themselves (e.g. top tech, finance, or specialized professional tracks). So for many people, the bottleneck simply shifts rather than disappears.
I also think this intersects with your point about funding constraints. If the ecosystem is funding-constrained rather than talent-constrained in many areas, then earn to give makes a lot of sense at the margin. But if access to high-earning roles is itself limited, we may still be leaving a large amount of motivated human capital underutilized—both in direct work and in earning to give.
That’s why I keep coming back to the possibility that the core issue isn’t just individual career choice, but a mismatch between motivation, available roles, and the systems we’ve built to translate one into the other.
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!