I work as Software Tester in the Railway Industry and donate a part of my income.
I got into EA in 2012, took the 10 Percent pledge in 2015.
As of autumn 2024, I am also mentor at Giving For Animals. Feel free to reach out if youād like to chat about donating or a giving pledge.
FWIW: definitely not a world vision, but Ozyās blog is the most heart-warming thing Iāve read after the recent US elections.
Some thoughts on what would help. Some of them are already happening.
funding circles. Note that most official funding circles I know require a large budget and are therefore inaccessible for mid-sized donors.
Related: a small group of like-minded donors evaluating a specific organization. Donors could reach out to each other and organize themselves.
Give each other recommendations. If you have expertise of specific cause area and you can recommend organizations (especially when you donāt have a conflict of interest with them), do talk about it to potential donors during networking events. Or, if you are a donor, do ask.
EA funds can publish a more detailed public write-up of their grants, so that interested donors can follow up. Especially interesting when they canāt give as much as they want due to funding constraints.
Impact markets, if implemented well.
The two local effective giving organizations I know best (Effektiv Spenden and Doneer Effectief) offer donor advising. However, they might be limited to the cause areas they are working in themselves.
Agree with c)
Jeff Kaufmann posted a different version of the same argument earlier than me.
Some have argued that earning to give can contribute to funding diversification. Having a few dozen mid-sized donors, rather than one or two very large donors, would make the financial position of an organization more secure. It allows them to plan for the future and not worry about fundraising all the time.
As earn to giver, I can be one of those mid-sized donors. I have tried. However, it is challenging.
First of all, I donāt have expertise, and donāt have much time to build the expertise. I spend most of my time on my day job, which has nothing to do with any cause I care about. Any research must be done in my free time. This is fine, but it has some cost. This is time I could have spent on career development, talking to others about effective giving, or living more frugally.
Motivation is not the issue, at least for me. Iāve found the research extremely rewarding and intellectually stimulating to do. Yet, fun doesnāt necessarily translate to effectiveness.
Iāve seen peer earn to givers just defer to GiveWell or other charity evaluators without putting much thought into it. This is great, but isnāt there more? Others said that they talked to an individual organization, thought āsounds reasonableā, and transferred the money. I fell for that trap too!
There is a lot at stake. Itās about hard-earned money that has the potential to help large numbers of people and animals in dire need. Unfortunately, I donāt trust my own non-expert judgment to do this.
So I find myself donating to funds, and then the funding is centralized again. If others do the same, charities will have to rely on one grantmaker again, rather than a diverse pool of donors.
What would help to address this issue? Here are a few ideas, some of them are already happening.
funding circles. Note that most funding circles I know require a large budget and are therefore inaccessible for most earn to givers.
Related: a small group of like-minded donors evaluating a specific organization.
Give each other recommendations. If you have expertise of specific cause area and you can recommend organizations (especially when you donāt have a conflict of interest with them), do talk about it to potential donors during networking events. Or, if you are a donor, do ask.
EA funds can publish a more detailed public write-up of their grants, so that interested donors can follow up. Especially interesting when they canāt give as much as they want due to funding constraints.
Impact markets, if implemented well.
Thank you for updating the article with 2023 numbers!
(Commenting this as a signal boost for potential readers.)
Question: Donāt Founderās Pledge and Longview also direct funding to AI safety? There might be more. ECF is small but Longview might advise donors who donāt use the fund.
One element in 80kās definition of ETG that I like a lot is:
Work a job thatās higher earning than they would have otherwise
In my view, ETG is a career choice. If you choose to ETG, you choose to spend your time on acquiring money to donate and you choose not to do something else with that time.
You may choose to:
not volunteer or become politically active and spend your time on paid work instead
not take lower paid direct impact job
ā¦ and you donate (roughly) the difference in income. This can be a high amount or a low amount, depending on your circumstances.
This may work for the US, but tax rates and caps differ per country. Also, exceeding the cap can make a lot of sense.
I am looking forward to pick a charity once I received an allocation and weigh in the opinion of others and myself. It may not be to my preferred cause, but I still have the freedom to pick a charity within the cause.
Thatās a great way to learn.
I can see myself recommending EH to beginner donors, donors who havenāt thought through their cause prioritization yet, and donors who are very thoughtful relative to their budget.
Yes, but at a different margin.
I live in a culture where working part-time (even among people who are healthy and are not parents, and have comfortable office jobs) is quite common. I sometimes feel that I need to justify myself that I choose to work full time. People talk about their vacations and hobbies all the time. That can trigger FOMO, but I do a lot of fun things myself too. My bar for unpaid leave is high (twice in my career a month in between jobs to find a new place and move).
Reducing my work hours from 40 to 32 would increase my happiness slightly but reduce my donation budget by a lot. I DO feel obliged to maintain my ability to work 40 hours. It is sustainable for me. Sometimes I struggle to work 40 hours and I feel bad about myself. As long as this recovers quickly, itās fine.
I DO NOT feel obligated to work more than 40 hours on my day job. Why:
cultural reasons
overworking is discouraged by my colleagues
longer presence at work does not make pay rises and promotions more likely
I tried and failed: experienced productivity loss and other issues when I worked more.
Note: for me ābeing the change I want to seeā is actually working 40 hours rather than 32, given the circumstances I am in. YMMV.
Signed up. I am a little concerned about voters who donāt think through their cause prioritization carefully enough and the causes being not granular enough so voter canāt indicate their priority well.
You could have āwild animal welfareā, āalternative proteinsā,āfish and invertebrate welfareā, āimproving wellbeing on farmsā and āreducing animal consumptionā instead of just āanimal welfareā. That makes everything more complex though.
Thank you, Luke, for your contribution to what GWWC has become todayā¦ with so many pledgers and and all the local initiatives I have seen appear around me. It is the community I feel most at home in (of all EA-adjacent groups).
I wish all the best for you and your son (I had the honor to meet him in a recent video call).
Congratulations, Vincent!
262.5 kilometers, thatās a LOT!
There was virtually no wind early in the morning, which was also the reason I started so early. Later in the day it would be windier and I knew from the training that with too much wind the balance becomes very difficult.
I remember that you were concerned about the wind (we met at the Tien Procent Club event). How was this later on the day? Or do you have perfect wind-balancing skills?
(have not watched the video fully). I agree with you.
Multiple things can be true at the same time
People who live in global poverty are are very poor
Many people in developed countries are among the top 10-1 percent richest globally and donāt realize that they comparatively rich
If these people donate a bit, they can help extremely poor people by a lot.
Living in relative poverty in rich countries is hardāeven if people are globally ārichā. (I donāt have experience with that myself, but I have consumed a bit of media on relative poverty in my own and nearby countries in Western Europe, out of curiosity. I might still be completely wrong when I imagine what itās like). Some features of a rich society make living in relative poverty even harder. For instance, sharing a small house with a large number of people is made illegal.
Itās good when people know these things!
I donāt know where you live, but donating $10k while being on the top ~20% percentile globally sounds a lot. It does not help to donate so much to be unable to afford your living costs. It is simply not sustainable. Maybe donating a small bit is feasible. If donated well, a tiny amount already help people a lot, and I find donating very fulfilling. It also helps creating a culture where giving is normal, and not something weird.
Wealth is distributed insanely unequally. Billionares exist. They can donate much more with a much less sacrifice to themselves. They should (and pay taxes), do so thoughtfully, and keep their egoās and individual preferences on the background.
Iām really sad to hear you feel that 80k isnāt talking to you.
Hm, maybe I exaggerated a bit, the reality is a more complicated, I should have phrased it differently.
But it would be nice if we could just all feel glad about our contributions.
Oh yes!
Your comment makes me smile :)
FWIW: I moved back for reasons fully in line with my (mixture of altruistic and non-altruistic) values and for kickstarting the Dutch EA community I would really really assign the credits to other people. Big thanks to them.
I agree with Jason though, in general terms.
some of them (3, 5, 6, 7) already need quite a bit of knowledge. I am not saying they are not worth doing!
I am an older āmediocre EAā.
I learnt about EA in 2013. I never felt that 80k was talking to me, simply because my talent set is ā¦ well, mediocre (plus some cultural things). Also, at 23, my CV was already unimpressive enough that it would be hard to catch up. The best thing I can do for the world, is to be born with a different brain.
I have a normal job as software tester and I call it āearning to giveā. I have been in normal jobs for 10 years. I never interned or worked at an organization aiming for direct impact, and barely even volunteered. I am very satisfied with my involvement in the community and the way I try to do good in the world.
Some other things I do:
being very excited about effective giving. I love to consume content about charities, charity evaluations, etc.
keep working fulltime so I have a decent donation budget. I live in an area where working part time is common even among some healthy non-parents. Working fulltime is already a challenge because I get distracted and overwhelmed easily. My job requires me to reliably get things done. I can be very reliable as long as I am not stressed out.
attend EAGx (no EAG please) and local retreats, chat with others about effective giving and earning to give. Sometimes these are people earlier in their career, or newer in the community, or have reasons to not dedicate themselves too much. I can make time for anyone. One might call it āmentoringā. (data point: I never got rejected for any event)
aim for small, very small, steps towards career progress. Aiming for big steps has failed.
be frugal. Keep track of my budget. Frugality matters. I donāt overdo it.
engage with the local community at in person events. People are much less intimidating in real life than on the internet. I rarely have the feeling that I am the least smart person in the room (partially, because I donāt care).
I canāt help smiling even though it s*cks. Donating is complicated.
A few years ago, I spent the last working day of the year rushing on a bicycle between 2 bank offices in order to get a donation through (successfully).
Always leave a few days of extra time before 31 December...
If animal welfare is a priority cause for you, the Animal Advocacy Careersā Bottlenecks survey is helpful.
As another way of understanding this trade-off, we asked meta respondents the following question: āImagine an individual who is skilled and motivated enough to be a good (but not outstanding) candidate for roles in effective animal advocacy nonprofits. I.e., after a few applications, they are likely to secure a role, but they are not likely to be substantially better than the next best candidate, at least in their first paid role. How much money would you estimate that that person would have to be able to donate per year, on average, to effective animal advocacy nonprofits, to be indifferent (from an impact perspective) between focusing on a career āearning to giveā vs. a career in animal advocacy nonprofits?ā[28] The average answer given was $28,200, with a range from $100 to $90,000.[29]
Donāt take these numbers literally. But it can give you some guidance.
It depends on the living costs, but my impression is that there are people earning (much!) less 100k/āyear for whom ETG is the best they can do.
For other cause areaās I donāt know, sorry.
I made two small donations via Every.org and regret it. By default, your profile and donations are public, and itās not immediately obvious (a privacy issueāespecially if you make a potentially controversial donation as an individual), which I find unethical. Additionally, Every.org sends a lot of spam if you miss the opt-out button. These are known as UX dark patterns.
Next time, Iāll email the charity to ask if I can use conventional payment methods (if the donation is large enough) or simply refrain from donating.
Being public about oneās donations can be beneficial, but donors should have easy control over what they make public and what they donāt. I encourage organizations to think twice before using Every.org.
Thankfully, our local effective giving organization and the GWWC platform donāt have these issues.