I donāt know of any good data source on how many people are currently earning to give, but our internal data at GWWC suggests it could be at least 100s (also depending on which definition you use)
According to the 2022 EA survey, out of 3270 people who answered, 335 people were earning to give. Since there are a lot more EAs than 3270, I think it would be more like a thousand people who are earning to give. But itās true they might not be using the 80k definition:
Work a job thatās higher earning than they would have otherwise but that they believe is morally neutral or positive
Donate a large fraction of the extra earnings, typically 20-50% of their total salary
Donate to organisations they think are highly effective (i.e. funding-constrained organisations working on big, neglected global problems)ā
I agree with you that it should not have to be a different job, but I disagree that 20% is too low. There are many (most?) EAs who do not have a direct high-impact career or do a lot of high-impact volunteering. So roughly the other way of having impact is earning to give, and if people can give 10%, I think that should qualify.
There are many (most?) EAs who do not have a direct high-impact career or do a lot of high-impact volunteering. So roughly the other way of having impact is earning to give, and if people can give 10%, I think that should qualify.
I donāt understand the reasoning behind this. The goal shouldnāt be to allow everyone to āhave an impactā, and people can definitely āhave an impactā by donating 10%, regardless of whether it counts as earning to give.
I guess as long as there is another category (like āotherā), itās ok. But I believe one EAG exit survey didnāt have another category, so one person I heard from felt excluded.
According to the 2022 EA survey, out of 3270 people who answered, 335 people were earning to give. Since there are a lot more EAs than 3270, I think it would be more like a thousand people who are earning to give. But itās true they might not be using the 80k definition:
I agree with you that it should not have to be a different job, but I disagree that 20% is too low. There are many (most?) EAs who do not have a direct high-impact career or do a lot of high-impact volunteering. So roughly the other way of having impact is earning to give, and if people can give 10%, I think that should qualify.
I donāt understand the reasoning behind this. The goal shouldnāt be to allow everyone to āhave an impactā, and people can definitely āhave an impactā by donating 10%, regardless of whether it counts as earning to give.
I guess as long as there is another category (like āotherā), itās ok. But I believe one EAG exit survey didnāt have another category, so one person I heard from felt excluded.