It can also be framed the other way around: Itâs an even better opportunity to plant some seeds towards giving in people that would never have thought about it otherwise! I appreciate the kind words :).
Christoph Eggertđ¸
Karma: 124
I joined a startup company that grew over the years until it was eventually bought up by a publicly traded company, so I basically just worked at one place so far and my experience is rather limited. At least within that I can say though: Bigger companies are better, so I would aim at something that has at the very least 50 employees.
The startup time was extremely tough, as I had to do a lot of overtime and be available for customers and colleagues alike. Chances are also higher that you have to visit customers while fulfilling multiple roles and have to represent the company at events because the pool of people is so small. There was also a lot of peer pressure to join afterwork events, to the point of having to tell the CEO why you cannot come. It definitely tested my limits.
As the company size grew, I basically moved away from customer projects and instead built the product itself, which meant a lot less pressure and less need for availability and travel. Approaching the 100 employee number was kind of the golden time for me, combining the positive aspects of a startup (colleagues you can trust, strong association with the product, laid-back culture) with the ones from bigger companies (more shielded from customers by managers, less peer pressure for anything because thereâs now so many people). It was probably helping that I had proven myself to the relevant people already and got away with doing a lot independently, though. I basically rejected all offers/âchances to move up into leadership or management positions, however, so basically holding back career opportunities to work more comfortably. My managers also tried to keep traveling demands away from me so that I can focus on my work.
After the company was bought up and the 100% remote time ended (that was kind of optimal for me), it feels like I am more at the mercy of the team tasks. In general, you have your team and mostly have to make sure that works out as long as you donât go past a senior position. You donât really need to join much outside of team events. However, you are just a number to the company and requirements can change. People come and go more frequently, buyups require sudden collaborations to integrate people and/âor software, initiatives you want to do require you to convince managers instead of just doing it, etc.. Chances are also higher that you have to deal with very uncomfortable people, that colleagues donât care about the product and leave you hanging, and so on.
At the moment, the social aspects are often less of an issue for me and more the lack of care most people have. To many, itâs just 9-5 and passing the hours. Iâd love to work on something again that everyone is enthusiastic about. But depending on your role, this lack of enthusiasm also makes the social aspects easier because so few people care.
In short: Mid-sized companies with moderate team sizes seemed to be the best to me so far. Startups always sound the best on paper, but working there is actually the most demanding, Iâd avoid them at all costs. But Iâm pretty sure this all heavily depends on who is working thereâthe chances are just higher you wonât have as many anxiety-inducing situations.
Iâm not sure if any of this was helpful. All the best for you career in any case :).
I hope this is not too broad, but: Could you share aspects that put candidates higher on your priority list, and on the opposite end maybe red flags?
Some examples that come to my mind: Is being at a company for a very long time a negative or positive signal, or does it not even matter? Do a lot of certificates in the CV help, or are they irrelevant? Is a nice cover letter important to you? Maybe you have some anecdotes of unexpected things that completely changed your mind on a candidate?
I know this might be very individual and sometimes more of a âgeneral gut feeling when seeing the whole pictureâ thing, but I thought there might be some helpful nuggets of wisdom!
Thank you for doing this!
I am a software engineer with now 10 years of experience. While I think I am doing very well, one of my biggest issues always has been socially: I am a very introverted, anxious person who is immensely stressed out by travel, afterwork and other things that are considered essential for the âfamily spiritâ as some companies like to call it. I can communicate well and get along with people inside the work context, but I need a lot of recharge time, so to speak. While I tried to just get used to it, it exhausted me too much and didnât seem sustainable.
Iâve been looking into some job offerings in the EA sphere lately just out of curiosity for my future and unsurprisingly, the social aspect is usually very big. If you want to help people in poor countries, being there and seeing what you are working for is quite essential. And in general, altruism is about people connecting, so it seems natural that most jobs are very social.
Are there areas for meaningful jobs where someone like me could still fit in and do something good with their work, or is it better to stay in the corporate world in that case and give my money to those who do?
I havenât engaged with this topic much with relations to EA, this was more in a vegan context several years ago so that I donât have specific sources in mind off the top of my head. But itâs typically in the direction of âItâs like someone holding slaves while donating money against slaveryâ; or arguing that there is no such thing as merciful killing, so that just improving conditions is meaningless if we still hold them in cages and breed them just to eat/âexploit them. Like kicking dogs for fun and then doing things to âkick less dogsâ instead of stopping altogether, etc.
So itâs still stuck in my head as a hypocritical action from me, redirecting money from other causes to one I donât even personally live up to. I can imagine seeing more nuanced takes in an EA context, hence I want to read up on this more.
First (half) year of being introduced to EA, super exciting to finally know that my donations have an impact :).
Hence I started this year very low with about 2% of my pre-tax income monthly to a local animal shelter, not knowing about EA.
Since August, I started my 10% pledge and donate to the German âcenterâ Effektiv Spenden with an even spread for their three funds for global health, climate change and animal welfare, and a very small part to the platform directly.
On top of that I gave away 50% of bonuses I will receive beginning of next year for tax purposes early, thatâs 4200⏠evenly spread between Against Malaria Foundation, Hellen Keller Int. and GiveDirectly. Global Health still has the strongest pull for me and I personally feel the strongest connection to GiveDirectly for how unique it is and how transparent their process is. Really makes you feel your impact and I like the idea of also improving lives dramatically instead of âjustâ keeping people alive under bad conditions, if that makes any sense. Some perspective for people on top of just getting by, if you will.
That being said, I will definitely think more about what causes to donate to. Especially democracy initiatives are something I am increasingly considering with the current situation in Europe, but maybe that will be on top of my 10% since I really donât know how effective that is and I might be a bit more ego-centric here wanting to do this locally.
Another âpain pointâ I will think about more is animal welfareâI read from many vegans that donating to it when not being vegan is hypocritical and I really get their point. Since I donât see myself becoming vegan in the near future, I might also drop that support since Iâm apparently not really behind the cause. But I will have to think about this a bit more. Maybe combining it with Climate Change by supporting The Good Food Institute or something like that, Iâm really not sure.
Lots of things to think about next year.
From my point of view, the biggest issue that makes this question an everlasting companion for most is uncertainty. Even if I could currently give 50% away and have the same standard, how will that look like in a few years? What if I lose my job in my 50s and struggle to find anything? What if my abilities will become meaningless because of technological advancements even earlier?
I would assume for most itâs not a question of consumption vs. donations, as many essays and books make it sound. Itâs about the balance between how much to put into your own financial securement vs. donating. This is probably much easier to answer for promising 80,000 hours supported geniuses, but a very different picture for the Average Joe who struggled in school and to find employment in the first place. Itâs probably impossible to give clear answers when taking that into consideration, though.
Big fan of this idea and I already applied the principle to my bonuses. Iâve been thinking about things like a âluxury taxâ (i.e. whenever I buy something for myself, I have to donate a certain percentage), but this approach seems much more stable and motivating in comparison.
I simply used a classical Excel spreadsheet. Honestly, even a physical notebook is okay. I donât think any particular app will be so convenient that it all of a sudden makes you go through with it when it didnât work before. The most important thing is to establish noting your expenses down as a habit. So e.g. every evening after dinner, you sit down and write down all your expenses of the day, plus check your bank account for any expenses. 1-2 months can already be enough as long as you are aware of the yearly peaks to have a general overview.
For visualization, creating a Sankey diagram helps a lot, which can be done on dozens of websites. When seeing such a diagram, you get a pretty good idea of how your expenses are distributed and if some area might need some cutting down, plus seeing how big the cut from donations actually is from your budget.
As an omnivore who wants to eat lots of protein for fitness, I would love to agree with this and just keep on piling up chicken breasts on my plate. However, I think there are some factors ignored here. Most of them have already been addressed, but Iâd like to add another that I did not find so far:
Not eating meat has not only an effect in terms of less demand for meat, it also increases demand for alternatives. This should, in my opinion, not be underestimated, as it also makes the diet change much easier.
For example: In Germany, we have a company called RĂźgenwalder MĂźhle. The origins of this company go back to a butcher shop back in 1834 and consequently, they always sold meat-based products. However, in 2014 they introduced vegetarian and vegan alternatives that were so great in terms of taste, quality and nutritional value that the demand was incredibly high. By now, these products bring in more revenue for them than the meat products. Obviously, this company will now focus more and more on the alternatives and they keep expanding their catalogue, often times with very high protein. This makes it much easier for a person like me to consider alternatives, and leads people to consume less meat even if they donât have any moral motivation to go vegan.
I doubt that any realistic amount of donations can top this. Sure, e.g. The Good Food Institute is basically trying to go into this direction, but at the end the demand needs to be there for it to work out long-term. Similar to voting in democracies, I think the âsmall effectâ of our decisions can have quite an impact here that is hard to replace with donations.
Iâd be curious about the emotional journey of increasing the giving percentages.
I just made my 10% pledge very recently and am really struggling to find the right percentage to donate. Currently, with a 65k ⏠base income, I just go with the 10% pre-tax and put 50% of my bonuses post-tax on top.
One month, I think I am donating too little. The next month, Iâm scared of saving too little. It sometimes feels hard to justify to myself that increasing it further is the right thing to do, since everyone I know saves most of the money for themselves and thereâs essentially 0 positive feedback for donating. The money is just gone.
Could you describe how these decisions to increase came to be and what it did to you emotionally? Did you have times of doubt, or did every step feel right?
Error