I think there is a psychological and messaging discussion that flows from this, but I want people to poke at it for sure, and I’m feeling like population based analysis is more in line with EA than individual analysis.
Dr. Seth Mathus Ganz
Karma: 25
Closer! Without the psychology and even when comparing 10% of annual income vs 10% of net worth at death, in a population of 750k givers that represent a normal distribution of ages and normal death rates, giving 10% net worth at death produces more donated dollars per year (even in year 1) versus giving 10% of income.
Sure you could posit what would happen if nobody died but you could also posit what would happen if the value of money suddenly dropped to zero. People do die and in a large enough population this is predictable. In my model, the population of 750k people with a real world based age distribution did the trick.
What is the appropriate gauge of the effectiveness of a giving strategy if it’s not how much wealth is being moved? Yes I’m advocating for giving more but 1. It’s after you’re done enjoying it, which for a lot of people is the main reason for not giving in the first place, which should alienate less people and make the argument about the EA population skewing young less of a problem, and 2. If you have more wealth because you invested, you have more to give and more left over (for inheritance in my model). Yes you can give during life and at death. The reason I tried to model 10% of annual income vs. 10, 20… 50% at death was to see how many conventionally selfish people could be brought into the fold, have their cake during life and eat their guilt away with their death giving and have the amount of money donated in the population per unit time be the same or better. I’m definitely having trouble understanding any argument that doesn’t directly address money donated in the population over time.
I ran the numbers based on this exact population distribution and count. It’s a relatively small population and I think it misrepresents the world population of charitable people, but in any event, if you have <2k people who skew young, you’d want to ease into the shift towards donating at death to cover the first few decades, but once the pump is primed you’ll be able to go full death and outpace.
Simulated Giving Strategy for Young-Skewed Altruist PopulationWe modeled 1,806 altruists with a young-skewed age distribution (mostly 20-40). The strategy
combines modest lifetime giving with significant giving at death:
- Early career (20-40): donate ~7.5% of income.
- Mid career (40-60): donate ~2.5% of income.
- At death: donate 50% of net worth.
Results over 100 years (in billions USD):
Decade Income Donations Death Donations Pooled Wealth
10 0.07 0.05 0.95
20 0.05 0.14 3.29
30 0.03 0.24 7.74
40 0.02 0.47 15.13
50 0.02 0.60 27.09
60 0.02 3.25 41.20
70 0.03 6.90 51.47
80 0.04 5.40 58.51
90 0.04 2.36 66.34
100 0.03 2.57 75.04
Key insights:
- Income donations provide immediate but modest support.
- Death donations grow over time and ultimately surpass income-based giving.
- The pooled wealth of the population continues to grow, providing future security and flexibility.A hybrid strategy balances urgent needs today and maximizes long-term impact.
Any rough quantification? If I live my life as a non altruist, build a net worth of 10 million dollars and give 5 million away at death and am part of a population of people who, instead of giving a little here and there or giving 10% of annual salary, just build wealth, buy cars, buy a home or two, take vacations, live capitalistically but with some smug consolation that they’re going to leave half to their kids and half to effective charities, the math that I’m seeing (and showed) is that if that population is >750k, donations will be higher immediately and continue to outpace a similar financial population that does 10% annually. Plenty of assumptions and simplifications in the model.
I think we may be going round and round. The amount is related to the value by some constant, unless you’re implying a time factor, but as far as I can see, the timing concern is a red herring, as in my model the pump is already primed and wealthy enough donors are dying in week one.
I understand what you’re saying but if the norm was to build and enjoy wealth and give when you’re gone, there is no “earlier”. It’s a flow of money within and between populations. Now there is the question of whether there is more wealth building if more vs less people have it over a single lifetime. I’m interested in where all of these “sweet spots” are and converge.
If there is a population of let’s say 10 million people that are donators, then there is a certain amount of money per unit time that is being donated. To the recipients of the donation, it would matter less the individual behavior is than the behavior of the population is. So if there is a model whereby holding onto one’s wealth (and being motivated to grow it and enjoy it) results in more money per unit time donated within the population, that would seem to be more effective to me. So , assuming some sort of coordination or at least consensus about the best way to give, is based on not just that one person
I think we’re people seem to be getting tripped up with this is that everybody is not doing one thing or another in the sense that if everybody is giving at death, there is a steady stream of people dying so there is giving happening all the time. Does that make sense?
I didn’t take that into account! So yeah we have to factor in an assumption that the more we advance the average age of the giver, the less progressive the causes, with a bit of “lag” expected, for better or worse!
Can you elaborate a little bit? I wanna see what your saying.
Ok so is that the only weakness you see in the model? If so, what if we look at the entire population of donators, rather than the “EA population”. Or just do the “smoothing”? My question just has to do with pure effectiveness
I’m trying to understand why that’s true at a population level, as people in a large enough population are dying now (assuming we have enough older altruists in the cohort).
In a population of givers, if the flow of donations is higher with one va the other paradigm, the effects on B are greater. Right?
That may be a hurdle for sure and may make my model idealistic. I wonder how charitable the 45 and overs are regardless of whether they identify as EA or not
Maybe I’m not following, but if there was a general consensus and coordination (easier said than done) for giving at the end, there would be frequent enough giving by the die-ers that it mathematically eclipses the consistent giver model… at least that’s what I saw and am asking about.
I’m skimming but so far I’m surprised how qualitative the arguments are and how they seem to look at it at an individual level vs a population of altruists. Thanks!
Thank you. I was hoping there was!
I think most people are saving investing for life so I think I’m looking at it in more of a real world population than in a vacuum