Since most of the EA orgs in question are heavily constrained in hiring by whatever level of growth they can manage or feel comfortable with (that’s kinda the whole point of the OP, right?), it would not generally be my assumption that additional funds would be used for extra hiring compared to the counterfactual. I grant that if that is the assumption, these effects seem to cancel.
Other ways not listed in your last paragraph.
-earning to give to allow orgs to raise salaries
-earning to give to fund regranting
-earning to give to fund things like targeted advertising (you may have intended to cover this category in ‘capital goods’, I’m not sure)
These things are much closer to my model of where extra funding to at least CEA and 80k in at least the past 18 months has gone, not into additional hiring.
Since most of the EA orgs in question are heavily constrained in hiring by whatever level of growth they can manage or feel comfortable with (that’s kinda the whole point of the OP, right?), it would not generally be my assumption that additional funds would be used for extra hiring compared to the counterfactual. I grant that if that is the assumption, these effects seem to cancel.
Other ways not listed in your last paragraph.
-earning to give to allow orgs to raise salaries
-earning to give to fund regranting
-earning to give to fund things like targeted advertising (you may have intended to cover this category in ‘capital goods’, I’m not sure)
These things are much closer to my model of where extra funding to at least CEA and 80k in at least the past 18 months has gone, not into additional hiring.