The list of 6 mistakes suggests there are reasons why people might incorrectly lean towards earning to give. However I do not think that the conclusion that “probably fewer people should be aiming to earn to give” follows directly from this.
I suspect the factors that effect whether earning to give should be more or less prevalent depends a lot whether we think wealth, and the kinds of influence it can buy, will be useful tools to wield in the mid to long run (as today’s young professionals reach the peaks of their careers) as well as empirical questions on what proportion of EAs are actually earning to give etc.
(On the other-hand these issues maybe so hard to predict that you think just looking at where we will be bias as a community and then trying to lean the other way is a better metric to use)
Of course—the argument is more that if these are considerations that people are not already taking into account, and they push against etg, then probably the balance should move away from etg.
If they had already taken these considerations into account, then no adjustment needed. Or if these considerations turn out to be unimportant compared to others, then no adjustment needed. Or if people were incorrectly unfair on etg before, these considerations would just push them to the correct level.
The list of 6 mistakes suggests there are reasons why people might incorrectly lean towards earning to give. However I do not think that the conclusion that “probably fewer people should be aiming to earn to give” follows directly from this.
I suspect the factors that effect whether earning to give should be more or less prevalent depends a lot whether we think wealth, and the kinds of influence it can buy, will be useful tools to wield in the mid to long run (as today’s young professionals reach the peaks of their careers) as well as empirical questions on what proportion of EAs are actually earning to give etc.
(On the other-hand these issues maybe so hard to predict that you think just looking at where we will be bias as a community and then trying to lean the other way is a better metric to use)
Of course—the argument is more that if these are considerations that people are not already taking into account, and they push against etg, then probably the balance should move away from etg.
If they had already taken these considerations into account, then no adjustment needed. Or if these considerations turn out to be unimportant compared to others, then no adjustment needed. Or if people were incorrectly unfair on etg before, these considerations would just push them to the correct level.