For example, as there are many situations in which starting to give >10% effectively will only trade off with (various levels of) personal comfort and not (in any significant way) with how well you are able to optimise your career for impact.
Okay. But even when the 10%+ comes out of someoneâs âpersonal comfortâ pot, itâs still the case that it could go into a âcareerâ pot rather than a âdonationâ pot.
I think itâs the âneed toâ part that doesnât sit right with me.
âł...which doesnât always trade off [in any significant way] with career change...ââsure. Lots of people feel like they have a healthy amount of financial runway for any career breaks they might realistically want/âhave to take, similarly for any training/âstudying they might want to do, a move to a more expensive city for a job, taking a pay cut, keeping up with spending habits of colleagues to fit in, paying for productivity-enhancing goods/âservices etcâlots of people already have a lot of savings and/âor are fairly confident they wonât want to make any drastic career changes. There is a point at which donating is the more altruistic move than investing in oneâs own career. And donating is a good signal of moral commitment that I think only becomes more important as EA grows.
But to me, âdoesnât need to trade offâ sounds more like thereâs this general way of looking at things or this general thing people can do to make it so that they donât have to choose between donations or career change. Which I donât think is true.
Maybe weâre actually on the same page. I just think confronting trade-offs is one of the best things about EA and Iâm worried that feature is starting to slip a bit.
For example, as there are many situations in which starting to give >10% effectively will only trade off with (various levels of) personal comfort and not (in any significant way) with how well you are able to optimise your career for impact.
Okay. But even when the 10%+ comes out of someoneâs âpersonal comfortâ pot, itâs still the case that it could go into a âcareerâ pot rather than a âdonationâ pot.
I think itâs the âneed toâ part that doesnât sit right with me.
âł...which doesnât always trade off [in any significant way] with career change...ââsure. Lots of people feel like they have a healthy amount of financial runway for any career breaks they might realistically want/âhave to take, similarly for any training/âstudying they might want to do, a move to a more expensive city for a job, taking a pay cut, keeping up with spending habits of colleagues to fit in, paying for productivity-enhancing goods/âservices etcâlots of people already have a lot of savings and/âor are fairly confident they wonât want to make any drastic career changes. There is a point at which donating is the more altruistic move than investing in oneâs own career. And donating is a good signal of moral commitment that I think only becomes more important as EA grows.
But to me, âdoesnât need to trade offâ sounds more like thereâs this general way of looking at things or this general thing people can do to make it so that they donât have to choose between donations or career change. Which I donât think is true.
Maybe weâre actually on the same page. I just think confronting trade-offs is one of the best things about EA and Iâm worried that feature is starting to slip a bit.