Bob Jacobs

Karma: 1,614

I’m a student of moral science at the university of Ghent. I also started and ran EA Ghent from 2020 to 2024, at which point I quit in protest over the Manifest scandal (and the reactionary trend it highlighted). I now no longer consider myself an EA (but I’m still part of GWWC and EAA, and if the rationalists split off I’ll join again).

If you’re interested in philosophy and mechanism design, consider checking out my blog.

I co-started Effectief Geven (Belgian effective giving org), am a volunteer researcher at SatisfIA (AI-safety org) and a volunteer writer at GAIA (Animal welfare org).

Possible conflict of interests: I have never received money from EA, but could plausibly be biased in favor of the organizations I volunteer for.

Bob Jacobs Dec 10, 2022, 7:26 PM
8 points
4 ∶ 1
in reply to: Pablo’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
- Jan Kulveit has yet to point out anything, he has merely claimed that. Perhaps he posts evidence that I made false claims in the future, but for now there is no reason to downvote. Also the heavy downvotes started long before Jan made his comment.
- The comment was hidden since it was replying to a thread with negative karma, many comments turn into posts and I found this information alarming enough to warrant it’s own post.
- I did provide reasons to defend it and when those discussion took place we didn’t yet have a confession by SBF so it was still possible that this was all a misunderstanding, furthermore Wytham Abbey wasn’t purchased by FTX funds, this chateau is.
EDIT: Also Jan’s comment gets 10 karma while he has yet to cite anything, while my citation filled comment doesn’t just get disagreement karma, it get’s actual negative karma. This is not an impartial evaluation of the evidence, this is preemptively voting on what people wish to be true.

Bob Jacobs Dec 10, 2022, 4:10 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau
Good idea, I have now done so.

ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau

Bob JacobsDec 10, 2022, 3:54 PM

−1 points

6 comments1 min readEA link

Bob Jacobs Dec 10, 2022, 2:26 PM
10 points
7 ∶ 3
in reply to: lastmistborn’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
I did some digging and found that:
ESPR’s adres is listed as [EDIT: Removed at request of Irena, it wasn’t a castle]
The Czech Association for Effective Altruisms adresses are listed as [EDIT: Removed at request of Irena, they weren’t castles]
EA Prague lists their locations as [EDIT: Removed at request of Irena, it wasn’t a castle]
For money I found that Open Philanthropy gave $510,000 to ESPR and $10,350 to CARE conference travel grants in Prague (neither of which seemed to mask the purchase of a castle)
Not saying your claim isn’t true, just that none of their currently listed buildings are castles and I couldn’t find any evidence of a purchase.
SIDENOTE: With this research and all the recent scandals it’s starting to dawn on me how much money people are getting, I always just assumed most EA’s were unpaid volunteers like me.
[Early edit before any upvotes] I found a source:
The server got some interesting information this week iRozhlas.cz. According to his findings, the FTX Foundation sent 107 million crowns to the Czech Republic for the purchase and operation of a chateau in Hostačov, a small village in the Havlíčkobrod region. This happened just four months before the FTX crash.
The castle was bought by Irena Kotíková, respectively the association European Summer Program on Rationality. Mrs. Kotíková claims that she applied to FTX for a grant for an international education center and simply received it. On the first attempt. So far, she says she is not afraid that the collapse of FTX could also affect her project at the castle, but she is ready to return the money if she is called upon to do so.
Personal opinion: This seems bad. This should’ve been disclosed and we shouldn’t keep the chateau.
EDIT: The fact that this comment got negative karma and the fact that the post I made about it also got negative karma and got hidden from the frontpage, without anyone making an argument why it’s a bad piece of writing, really makes me lose faith in the EA-community. EDIT: It’s back on the frontpage.
EDIT: Removed addresses at the request of Irena
EDIT: For the people who read Jan’s comment and got the impression I digged through obscure messages to reveal people’s addresses, I didn’t. They are the addresses that are publicly listed on the respective websites contact pages. You can find my full reply to Jan’s comment here.
What links here?
- Jan_Kulveit's comment on Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey? by Jeroen Willems🔸 (Dec 11, 2022, 11:16 AM; 64 points)

Bob Jacobs Dec 8, 2022, 3:15 PM
−1 points
13 ∶ 11
in reply to: AlasdairPR’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
Or at least a cheaper one? With better access to public transport?
This seems overbudget and public transport is not only better for the environment, it’s also more egalitarian. It would allow people from more impoverished backgrounds to more easily join our community, which—given our demographics—might be something we want to encourage.
EDIT: Yes I’m aware that you could reach the estate via public transport, the connection is just very bad (on the weekend you have to do a 26 minute walk), that’s why I said “better acces” not “at all accessible”.

Bob Jacobs Dec 8, 2022, 2:36 PM
16 points
4 ∶ 0
on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
Just wanted to answer this edited question:
Edit to add: If this expense has been made a while back, why not announce it then?
They did mention it on August 2nd:
What is Wytham Abbey?
The project is under development. In time, all being well, it will function as a workshop venue in Oxford.
Although I would like to point out that it was going to be revealed in the New Yorker a few days later.
Last year, the Centre for Effective Altruism bought Wytham Abbey, a palatial estate near Oxford, built in 1480.
It is possible that they were allowed to preview the article and were trying to get ahead of it.

Bob Jacobs Dec 8, 2022, 2:19 PM
8 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
The “large grant made specifically for this” explanation is unconvincing without more. Did a grantor come up with this idea independently, or did CEA choose to approach a grantor with this idea (as opposed to other pitches it could have made for someone with that kind of money to spend)?
This section of Owen’s reply seems to imply the latter:
I was the person who owned the early development of the project idea, and fundraised for it. (The funding comes from a grant specifically for this project, and is not FTX-related.) I brought it to the rest of the board of EVF to ask for fiscal sponsorship (i.e. I would direct the funding to EVF and EVF would buy the property and employ staff to work on the project).
Although I suppose it is possible he sought out a funder but the funder was only willing to pay for this specific one.

Bob Jacobs Dec 8, 2022, 12:21 PM
15 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: SBF’s recent live interview at the DealBook Summit
It looks like SBF admitted to fraud in this interview. He admitted to knowingly commingling funds in a way that directly violates the terms of service, and he admitted that was their general business practice.

Bob Jacobs Dec 5, 2022, 6:13 PM
5 points
10 ∶ 11
on: What specific changes should we as a community make to the effective altruism community? [Stage 1]
EA organizations should be run democratically, and the karma system, or at least the agreement karma, should also be (more) democratic.
EDIT: I would like to point out that having a lot of disagreement karma doesn’t necessarily mean most people disagree. When this suggestion had three votes it had positive agreement karma, but when I returned at five votes it had negative:
I stuck around for a bit to see how the karma would evolve:
What we see is that the downvotes contain a lot more voting weight than the upvotes. This seems logical, people with more voting power have an incentive to use that power to make sure they don’t lose it. We really cannot conclude what the EA community believes/wants based on the results of the karma-system, and if we want to know what the community really wants I suggest we use polls/surveys instead.
What links here?
- Possible changes to EA, a big upvoted list by Nathan Young (Jan 18, 2023, 6:56 PM; 43 points)

Bob Jacobs Dec 3, 2022, 11:44 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA Forum feature suggestion thread
So, proposing that we give everyone equal voting power gives those on the forum with more voting power an incentive to lessen mine (by downvoting this). So how about this: we make the agreement karma democratic. That way we can see what people actually agree or disagree on and since it doesn’t affect karma we can make it democratic without affecting those with disproportionate voting power.
EDIT: Three people upvoted this suggestion, one person downvoted this suggestion, the result is negative karma. What we see is that the downvotes contain a lot more voting weight than the upvotes. This seems logical, people with more voting power have an incentive to use that power to make sure they don’t lose it. Just keep in mind that we really cannot conclude what the EA community believes/wants based on the results of an undemocratic karma-system.
What links here?
- What specific changes should we as a community make to the effective altruism community? [Stage 1] by Nathan Young (Dec 5, 2022, 9:04 AM; 58 points)

Bob Jacobs Dec 2, 2022, 11:43 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Is anyone developing EA groups in prisons? Lots of brilliant minds with lots of time and real world experience of the dynamics which perpetuate dysfunction, injustice, corruption and other causes of suffering.
Joeri Kooimans is/was teaching philosophy in prison, so maybe you could talk to him?

Bob Jacobs Dec 2, 2022, 11:04 PM
10 points
5 ∶ 13
on: Bringing back earning to give
Interesting, my takeaway from FTX was exactly the opposite. That we should focus on getting away from venture capitalists/acquiring as much money as possible/other mindsets that got us into this mess, and instead cultivate talent that are so dedicated to EA that they’re willing to do altruistic work for very little money.

Bob Jacobs Nov 30, 2022, 11:38 AM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Risks from Asteroids
Of course, we can also try to spot asteroids in the sky. Astronomers have identified a large majority of near-Earth asteroids^[3] larger than 1km across, and many smaller examples. From these surveys, we know that the chance of an Earth-impact for asteroids 1-10km in diameter in an average century is about 1 in 6,000, and about 1 in 1.5 million for asteroids larger than 10km across — that is, roughly the size of the asteroid that caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene mass (dinosaur) extinction event.

Interestingly enough, the importance of asteroid size might be overestimated, compared to impact angle and impact site. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs wouldn’t have been nearly as deadly, hadn’t it struck at one of the worst possible places at one of the worst possible angles.
This 2017 paper used computer models to see if the rock composition of the impact site could’ve made a difference. The computer calculated the amount of soot and sulfates that would be ejected into the atmosphere as well as what that would mean for our planet, since both soot and sulfates can block the sun’s light. The blocked out sun started a global winter that lasted years and this is what killed the dinosaurs, not the impact of the asteroid directly. The researchers found that the composition of the impact site was especially unlucky. And since the Earth is constantly spinning and moving in space, this means that if the asteroid had just arrived a couple minutes later it wouldn’t have hit such a problematic piece of land or might have even hit the ocean where a lot of its impact would have been lessened (in terms of the amount of rock that got ejected into the atmosphere).
This 2020 paper concluded that the asteroid hit from a pretty steep angle, about 45-60 degrees. This vaporized more rock than a shallow strike and released more climate-changing gases than other angles, with 2-3 times as much carbon dioxide released as a vertical impact and 10 times as much as a shallow impact.
Seeing how unlucky the impact timing was means that asteroids probably aren’t as big of a risk as they are imagined to be. And even if we don’t develop the technology to completely deflect asteroids, changing the angle or delaying it so it hits a different impact site might be enough to change a mass extinction into a mere disaster.

Bob Jacobs Nov 28, 2022, 11:03 PM
9 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
An employee-owned firm seems to be basically equivalent to a firm that gives employees shares (common) and then indefinitely prevents them from selling them (rare). The latter step seems pretty harmful to the employees; they could always keep the shares if they wanted to, but the ability to sell is quite valuable. It allows them to diversify their portfolio, rather than having their savings and job tied up in the same firm. It also allows them to liquidate the shares to fund a large purchase (e.g. a house) if they wanted to. Given how desirable these things are, I’d be surprised if banning employees from selling their shares was net beneficial to them, and without the restriction the shares they sold would typically be to third party investors, so you would naturally end up with a traditional firm again. Similarly, employees at many public companies could, if they wanted to, buy stock in their employer—e.g. a firm with 10% margins, 20x PE, paying 30% of revenue as wages, could be entirely bought out by the employees in a few years… but wisely they chose not to do so!
While theoretically poor people can buy stocks, in practice we see that it’s mostly rich people having them, co-ops would change that. Some co-ops allow workers to sell their shares, but importantly, none allow them to sell their voting shares. This distinction is important, because a co-op is not “basically equivalent to a firm that gives employees shares and then indefinitely prevents them from selling them”, it gives them shares and control. This control does allow the employees to actually sell non-voting shares if they want to (see table in the post). The difference is that they control the amount of stock in circulation. So a lot of conventional firms give their employees stock, but even if they aren’t pulling contract shenanigans, the owners still control the amount of stock that is sold. They very rarely give their employees preferred stock and they can dilute the value of employee stock at any time without their input. This is impossible in a co-op.
But the control aspect is not only important to protect the workers, it actually makes the firms perform better. Let’s take a look at source [9]: Do Broad-based Employee Ownership, Profit Sharing and Stock Options Help the Best Firms Do Even Better?, Blasi et al. They looked at firms in the USA, some of which had what they called ‘shared capitalism’ which includes stock options and other profit sharing practices. The study looks at the relationship of shared capitalism to outcomes like profitability and the likelihood employees will leave. Interestingly enough, they investigate how these things are affected by the combination of ownership and participation:
On the y-axis we have voluntary turnover, which we ideally want to be low. On the x-axis we have a measure of how empowered employees are (using the index of trust, participation, and information sharing constructed by the authors of the study). The red line shows the effect of employee empowerment on voluntary turnover for firms with no shared capitalism. The black line shows the same for firms with a high degree of shared capitalism. For the firms without shared capitalism, greater empowerment has no effect on workers’ likelihood of leaving, as shown by the flatness of the red line. Perhaps this is because workers do not value greater responsibilities without ownership. But for the firms with shared capitalism, greater empowerment is associated with lower voluntary turnover, as shown by the downward slope of the black line. All the while it doesn’t negatively affect the return on equity. In other words, under shared capitalism people are less likely to leave when they are given a bigger role in the firm’s decisions. It seems the combination of ownership through shared capitalism and of control through empowerment produces lower turnover rates than either one on their own. Merely owning stock is not enough; you have to be able to take part in the running of the organization to make the ownership meaningful.
You correctly identify the fact that coops struggle to raise capital for investment, but I think the solutions you suggest are sort of ‘cheating’. It’s true that, if a firm only has to pay workers and suppliers because the government is covering the capital, then it will probably be able to pay those groups more than a traditional firm that has to split its revenue three ways between workers, suppliers and capital. But the traditional firm, if it received similar sized subsidies (e.g. an exemption from payroll and sales taxes) would also pay workers more and lower prices for customers. When deciding on which form of economic organization is superior for the economy as a whole, we cannot fairly compare one which needs external support to one which is self-funding.
They struggle to raise initial investing[27], but after that they actually become more resilient than conventional firms and don’t need “constant government intervention”[15][13]. That’s why I advised to make it easier to turn existing firms into conventional firms, that would remove the initial hurdle. It’s interesting that you chose sales taxes and payroll taxes, both of which are regressive taxes that I would be in favor of abolishing anyway (although I would be okay with a sales tax on things like yachts). Even if the payroll taxes fall on the employer, they can just pass it off to employees in the form of lower wages. With other taxes (like LVT) you can’t pass it on to the populace. In practice we observe that employers don’t spend more money on wages when they make more profits, but instead invest them in stock buybacks. This makes investors richer while worker wages stagnate, despite workers becoming more productive. This is one of the main reasons inequality is rising.

Finally, I roll to disbelieve on the idea that coops are more productive than traditionally organized firms. There is a reason these coops have over time been out-competed by normal firms, and have become smaller as a percentage of the economy. I haven’t read all the research you referred to, but I think a common problem is the mis-identification of comparison firms. Because traditional profit-orientated firms will re-invest and expand so long as marginal product is positive, their average productivity can look lower than that of firms whose growth has been artificially constrained by the coop structure, even though this growth is in fact a good thing!
They are not outcompeted everywhere. In places where there are already lots of co-ops (like France, Uruguay and Italy) co-ops are very competitive. Capitalist firms do better when there are more capitalist firms around, co-ops do better with more co-ops around.[30] Also, just because a firm is more productive doesn’t mean it’s more competitive in a capitalist system. Capitalists favor capitalist firms (obviously): if a startup co-op can turn $10 of investment into $1000, but will split that $500 with the workers and $500 with investors, while a capitalist startup can turn $10 into $900 that goes purely to the investors, of course the investors will invest in the capitalists startup even though it’s less productive. And yes, the scientific literature does show that co-ops are at least as, if not more productive than capitalist firms.[17][33](this one is a meta-analysis, not just a study) The reason I put similar levels of productivity in my post, is that the increase in productivity, although significant, is small, and I want to make conservative claims.
A practical example of the failure of coops comes from the ACA/Obamacare insurance coops. These received generous funding from the federal government. However, despite the advantages they had over the for-profit (and tax paying) regular insurance companies, they almost all failed within a few years due to incompetence at underwriting. They often had to be rescued by the for-profit firms to prevent leaving people without health insurance.
They are consumer co-ops, not worker co-ops. Different type of co-op.

Bob Jacobs Nov 28, 2022, 3:12 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Fair Collective Efficient Altruism
Hi Jobst,
As far as I can grok, this seems to work (but I can’t grok very far). Maybe you could have a chat with Frederik van de Putte who’s also working on collective decision making, and who even tried his own hand in formalizing the veil of ignorance.

Bob Jacobs Nov 28, 2022, 11:19 AM
3 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
Is this a reasonable summary?
The mental health aspect is important, but also, don’t forget the potential impact of economic growth: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development
These things, while maybe valuable, does not give that much overall evidence for life satisfaction or happiness.
I wanted to give a brief summary of the literature so as to not make the post too drawn-out. But I’ll go over it in more detail:
I mentioned that source [14] found that co-ops create more social trust. But what did they find exactly? Sabatini et al investigated the role of cooperative enterprise in the creation of social trust in Italy. They find that, unlike any other type of enterprise, cooperatives have a particular ability to foster the development of social trust. This supports the view that the development of cooperative enterprises—and, more generally, of less hierarchical models of governance and of enterprises that do not aim purely to maximize profit—may play a crucial role in the diffusion of trust and in the accumulation of social capital. Trust reduces uncertainty and transaction costs, enforces contracts, and facilitates credit at the level of individual investors, thereby enhancing the efficiency of exchanges and encouraging investment in ideas, human capital and physical capital.
Now this study isn’t perfect. The cross sectional design of the survey has prevented it from controlling for fixed effects at the individual level. In addition, it did not carry out fully randomized experiments, and it has not been able to isolate suitable instrumental variables. Hence, it cannot exclude the existence of some form of endogeneity leading to inconsistent estimates. Still, this is the best study we have so even if it’s not 100% certain, it’s already very promising.
In the post I summarized the work of Blasi et al as:
Research has shown that employees getting more ownership of the company is associated with higher trust, perception of fairness, information sharing and cooperation.
How they researched this is by studying the effect of employee ownership on company culture and function. The analysis of the data set finds that shared ownership forms of pay are associated with high-trust supervision, participation in decisions, and information sharing, and with a variety of positive perceptions of company culture, plus, it’s also associated with lower voluntary turnover and higher return on equity. The random-effects estimates mainly reflect comparisons between firms rather than within firms, which means it’s possible that there are unobserved firm characteristics that help account for the findings. Nevertheless, these results indicate that group incentives are likely to have positive effects if implemented in the appropriate way – with supportive HR policies rather than on their own. (Additionally these results indicate that public policy supporting group incentives, which may be motivated by a concern to increase middle class incomes and share the rewards of economic performance more broadly, is unlikely to harm and may even improve economic performance.)

I don’t consider source ^[31]to be strong evidence, so maybe skip this section if you’re short on time. Joshi (not Yoshi) et al. investigated 2 major cooperative leagues (Mondragon in Spain and La Lega in Italy) and the way they interact with other cooperatives and form economies of scale. The findings suggest that coops perform better in markets which have a pre-established cooperative league. This promotes a workforce with more cooperation and social cohesion which is linked to higher worker satisfaction.

On to [34]. Coad et al. analyzed the causal linkages between well-being, income, health problems, worries, autonomy and hours worked in the job for working German individuals from 1984-2008. Given that autonomy and hours worked are the key causal drivers, it seems that individuals first choose their career trajectory in terms of autonomy or personal freedom, then decide how much to work (intensity down this trajectory), and well-being (work satisfaction and life satisfaction) is the result of these decisions. Finding that autonomy is such an important non-pecuniary determinant of individual well-being is consistent with the predictions of self-determination theory and prompts a more prominent role for autonomy in labour economics. Individuals aiming at improving their workplace and general well-being are better off seeking out work that allows them room for self-determined action and discretion.
Source [35], Park et al, investigates the relationships between job demands and job search behaviour in regards to employee attitudes and behaviour for cooperatives in Seoul, South Korea. The findings revealed that worker cooperatives moderated the relationship between job demands and organizational commitment, in other words, while the negative relationship between job demands and organizational commitment was significant in capitalist firms, it was not maintained in worker cooperatives. A potential limitation of the present study is that individual-level variables were measured by self-reports (I personally don’t find this that severe).
Lastly, I didn’t put this source in the post, but it can be considered an additional piece of evidence:
Effects of Cooperative Membership and Participation in Decision Making on Job Satisfaction of Home Health Aides, by Daphne P. Berry examines job satisfaction and participation in decision making in three home health aide facilities with different organizational structures (worker-owned for-profit, for-profit with no participation or ownership by workers, and nonprofit). More than 600 surveys were completed by home health aides across the three facilities. The author also engaged in participant observation during training sessions and other meetings and conducted a small number of interviews with caregivers and agency management. Home health aides at the worker-owned, participative decision making organization were significantly more satisfied with their jobs. This study involved respondents from one of each type of business. I didn’t include it because it doesn’t study it across several types of organization, which would’ve allowed more focus on the effects of the structural characteristics of the organizations.
One last effect that I mentioned in the post (that we shouldn’t neglect) is the positive impact on the families of the employees when the employees are doing better.[38] I haven’t studied this aspect in depth, but I don’t think this claim is too controversial.
What links here?
- Bob Jacobs's comment on Democratizing the workplace as a cause area by Bob Jacobs (Nov 28, 2022, 11:03 PM; 9 points)

Bob Jacobs Nov 27, 2022, 6:37 PM
−3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: DirectedEvolution’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
That’s an interesting hypothesis. I’d love to read a literature review if you want to write one.
Edit: Perhaps a better way to have phrased this is: postpartum depression would be a totally different cause area. I feel like dismissing a literature review on a cause area proposal because ‘an idea for a different cause area I just thought of could hypothetically be better and you should first research that before we take your cause area seriously’ is a standard we don’t hold any other proposal to. We don’t expect a proposal post for e.g. a fish farming cause area to also do research on malaria nets, nuclear risk, or anything else a commenter comes up with.

Bob Jacobs Nov 27, 2022, 11:24 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sam Bogerd’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
think it is an interesting argument that this is potentially effective because so many people spend so much time at the workplace
The mental health aspect is important, but also, don’t forget the potential impact of economic growth: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development
then I think the smart political play would be to just keep strengthening co-determination laws until co-ops and other companies are basically identical.
I actually suggested this strategy in my post:
Perhaps traditional firms could slowly be eased into becoming co-ops by first giving the employees more stakes in the company and then expanding their participation rights.

Bob Jacobs Nov 27, 2022, 8:03 AM
4 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: DirectedEvolution’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
Only 21% of global employees report being engaged at work, and 19% are straight up miserable.
I don’t find it plausible that mantras like “living for the weekend” and “work is just a paycheck”, and social movements like “quiet quitting” and “躺平 (lying flat)” are prominent because people think of a job as stressful but rewarding, like having a baby.
But even if people were also miserable in their personal life, why would that exclude us from making their lives better in the workplace? It’s still 80,000 hours of your life (actually 90,000 hours) and improving your work life will improve your life overall.

Bob Jacobs Nov 26, 2022, 11:28 PM
6 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: DirectedEvolution’s comment on: Democratizing the workplace as a cause area
While 50% of Americans say they are stressed at their job on a daily basis, 90% of Americans are satisfied with their personal life: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx

The fact that people don’t like their jobs but like their free-time corresponds well to my personal experience of talking to people and media portrayal of life in general: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeanBoss

Bob Jacobs

ESPR should re­turn the FTX-funded chateau

ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau