Thanks for writing this, I found many of these points relatable. As I read the post I found it a little surprising that I haven’t seen more of this kind of discussion.
The epistemics and independence point feels particularly important—I think this is one of the main factors that makes me want to build more runway. I don’t have a very principled view of how much runway is “reasonable”, if people have numbers in mind I’d love to see them.
My best guess is that you want to have enough money that you can see yourself transitioning to a reasonable job outside of EA, in a way that’s not financially scary, plus some buffer.
For people roughly in my shoes (childless, basically healthy, no significant dependents, but also definitely can’t rely on family or other people outside of the EA community for financial stability), I’d guess that this looks like ~6-24 months of consumption in your early-mid twenties, and ~18-36 months in your late twenties or early thirties. [1]
Naive extrapolation suggests higher numbers for older people, but I’ve never been older, and I’m not sure how useful speculation is here.
My guess is that people with more reliable sources of financial support (most obviously family, but also religious communities, or living in countries with more reliable social safety nets than the US) can get away with lower savings, and people with a higher probability of large variable expenses (eg older, chronic illnesses that sometimes flare up in expensive ways) should have more savings.
I’m not sure which direction dependents should change the numbers. On the one hand there’s a clear case for wanting a higher buffer (generally, people with kids want more safety), but on the other, often people with dependents effectively have other forms of insurance (eg a wage-earning partner, or one who can go back to the workforce, and/or governmental subsidies for unemployment).
I would also guess that considerations change quite a bit when someone is close to retirement.
I suspect my numbers are higher/more conservative than other EAs, particularly public commentators. I think this is partially due to me thinking the costs of high runway isn’t as high as them (I mostly model it as costing time value of holding the money rather than donating, instead of the whole lump sum), partially because it’s easier for me to see realistic worlds where I’ll just be screwed if I’m both unemployed and don’t have remaining savings, and partially because I’m cowardly.
The reasoning for variable and increasing numbers with age is that younger people usually have more flexibility to change jobs (getting an EA job right out of college and quitting after a year is almost strictly better for career capital than taking a gap year, say), as well as greater emotional and practical ability to change lifestyles without it being as scary. More experienced people also take longer to retrain and may have a lower number of jobs that they’re excited about.
Thanks for writing this, I found many of these points relatable. As I read the post I found it a little surprising that I haven’t seen more of this kind of discussion.
The epistemics and independence point feels particularly important—I think this is one of the main factors that makes me want to build more runway. I don’t have a very principled view of how much runway is “reasonable”, if people have numbers in mind I’d love to see them.
My best guess is that you want to have enough money that you can see yourself transitioning to a reasonable job outside of EA, in a way that’s not financially scary, plus some buffer.
For people roughly in my shoes (childless, basically healthy, no significant dependents, but also definitely can’t rely on family or other people outside of the EA community for financial stability), I’d guess that this looks like ~6-24 months of consumption in your early-mid twenties, and ~18-36 months in your late twenties or early thirties. [1]
Naive extrapolation suggests higher numbers for older people, but I’ve never been older, and I’m not sure how useful speculation is here.
My guess is that people with more reliable sources of financial support (most obviously family, but also religious communities, or living in countries with more reliable social safety nets than the US) can get away with lower savings, and people with a higher probability of large variable expenses (eg older, chronic illnesses that sometimes flare up in expensive ways) should have more savings.
I’m not sure which direction dependents should change the numbers. On the one hand there’s a clear case for wanting a higher buffer (generally, people with kids want more safety), but on the other, often people with dependents effectively have other forms of insurance (eg a wage-earning partner, or one who can go back to the workforce, and/or governmental subsidies for unemployment).
I would also guess that considerations change quite a bit when someone is close to retirement.
I suspect my numbers are higher/more conservative than other EAs, particularly public commentators. I think this is partially due to me thinking the costs of high runway isn’t as high as them (I mostly model it as costing time value of holding the money rather than donating, instead of the whole lump sum), partially because it’s easier for me to see realistic worlds where I’ll just be screwed if I’m both unemployed and don’t have remaining savings, and partially because I’m cowardly.
The reasoning for variable and increasing numbers with age is that younger people usually have more flexibility to change jobs (getting an EA job right out of college and quitting after a year is almost strictly better for career capital than taking a gap year, say), as well as greater emotional and practical ability to change lifestyles without it being as scary. More experienced people also take longer to retrain and may have a lower number of jobs that they’re excited about.
“but I’ve never been older”—best quote of the day ;)