Jeff_Kaufman

Karma: 1,824

Jeff_Kaufman 13 Nov 2021 16:43 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Natália Mendonça’s comment on: Should Earners-to-Give Work at Startups Instead of Big Companies?
Now I’m just confused about what companies were talking about! Stripe is 12 years old, has 4k people, and is worth ~$100B. Is it just that it is still private?

I would have counted it as a big company and not a startup in thinking about this post, but maybe that’s not how the author intended it?

Jeff_Kaufman 13 Nov 2021 14:14 UTC
7 points
on: Should Earners-to-Give Work at Startups Instead of Big Companies?

Say a startup offers you an equity package that’s worth $X per year at the current valuation. At the same time, a big company offers you a salary that’s $X higher than your salary would be at the startup. Both compensation packages have the same face value.

Your post is very detailed so I could have missed where you expand on this, but I think this initial assumption is off. Face value compensation at the top tech companies is generally much higher than what you would get at a startup. Have a look at https://levels.fyi

Jeff_Kaufman 16 Oct 2021 11:16 UTC
10 points
on: Effective Altruism, Before the Memes Started
Aside: I’m confused by the “who does not have an account on the EA Forum. I’m posting this on his behalf, and will reply to comments with his replies if/when he responds to them.” Anyone can make an account here, it’s only a few steps, and it’s very fast.

Jeff_Kaufman 2 Oct 2021 3:23 UTC
4 points
in reply to: EricHerboso’s comment on: Issues with Giving Multiplier
Holden specifically put forward the claim that this kind of influence matching is a type of non-illusory matching. He even suggests the very concept that Giving Multiplier is doing
Holden wrote “the matcher makes a legitimate commitment to give only if others do, in an attempt to influence their giving”. That’s not what’s happening here: the matchers are donating regardless of whether others do. Additionally, I’m quite pessimistic about people being able to make legitimate commitments in this regard, since predicting what you would otherwise do with the funds is typically very difficult.
(I also think glossing Holden’s “perhaps … you should fight back” as “you should fight back” gives the wrong impression.)

Jeff_Kaufman 2 Oct 2021 3:16 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Issues with Giving Multiplier
Isn’t (2) is in conflict with (1)? That the counterfactual donations are all coming from the donors and not the matchers is not what (I would predict) the donors believe.

Jeff_Kaufman 2 Oct 2021 3:13 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Issues with Giving Multiplier
it should be pretty obvious that almost all donation matchings that are advertised as such are at least a bit fake
Obvious to who? Both Giving Multiplier and (last week) GiveWell are targeting matches to people new to effective giving. My guess is that if you interviewed people right after they donated in these matching campaigns and asked them whether they thought the match was real, they would say it was.
Also note that both GiveWell and Giving Multiplier are putting a lot of argument behind the position that their matches are real. (If they offered illusory matches and were upfront about them being illusory I would not have a problem)

Issues with Giving Multiplier

Jeff_Kaufman29 Sep 2021 21:40 UTC

25 points

9 comments6 min readEA link

(www.jefftk.com)

Jeff_Kaufman 26 Sep 2021 11:39 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: What should “counterfactual donation” mean?
If you spend your personal luxuries budget in full every year, this sounds like #9, and I agree it’s fine to call it counterfactual.

Jeff_Kaufman 23 Sep 2021 13:01 UTC
4 points
in reply to: JP Addison’s comment on: GiveWell Donation Matching
I’d love it if you crossposted that post
Done! https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nz2scND85oFyTXTGo/what-should-counterfactual-donation-mean
I think there’s another category before 9, which is “Donate to a charity not commonly supported by EAs, such as the World Wildlife Fund or Habitat for Humanity.”
Yes, I think that’s fine as long as we all agree that the impact of donating to an AA charity is very much higher than donating to one of those charities.

What should “counterfactual donation” mean?

Jeff_Kaufman23 Sep 2021 12:59 UTC

36 points

6 comments2 min readEA link

Jeff_Kaufman 23 Sep 2021 11:07 UTC
9 points
in reply to: lukefreeman’s comment on: GiveWell Donation Matching

In this case it’s definitely counterfactual (it wouldn’t have gone to a GiveWell charity)

I don’t think that should count as counterfactual, actually. Even though the money would not have gone to a GiveWell charity, it would have done something similarly valuable, so the donor cannot reason that their impact is higher. Compare this to when an employer offers to match $X per person, and doesn’t put any restrictions on what charity you donate to. In the latter case, this really is more impact, and should factor into decisions like “should I be earning to give”.

( I wrote some about this a few years ago, with some discussion: https://www.jefftk.com/p/what-should-counterfactual-donation-mean)

Jeff_Kaufman 23 Sep 2021 0:34 UTC
6 points
in reply to: lukefreeman’s comment on: GiveWell Donation Matching
This is a coherent view, but I doubt it’s how GiveWell is approaching it? Specifically, I would be quite surprised if GiveWell chose to advertise a “true” match just with the goal of preventing criticism. GiveWell has historically been comfortable with a pretty high level of transparency, and if they thought illusory matching was acceptable I would expect them to say so. Instead, they say the opposite: their post introducing their donation matching starts by describing their issues with conventional matching offers.
Note that GiveWell is giving up quite a lot in potential donations by insisting on a “true” match, since it means their pool of matching funds will only support small gifts by first-time donors.

GiveWell Donation Matching

Jeff_Kaufman21 Sep 2021 22:50 UTC

35 points

7 comments2 min readEA link

(www.jefftk.com)

Jeff_Kaufman 24 Apr 2021 0:59 UTC
6 points
in reply to: willbradshaw’s comment on: Concerns with ACE’s Recent Behavior
Thanks! I missed that was disputed

Jeff_Kaufman 22 Apr 2021 3:14 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: College and Earning to Give
Combine this with the destitute medicare strategy, and have them adopted by grandparents: https://www.jefftk.com/p/adapting-to-means-testing

Jeff_Kaufman 21 Apr 2021 22:50 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Arepo’s comment on: Concerns with ACE’s Recent Behavior
making this claim
I’m confused: the bit you’re quoting is asking a question, not making a claim.

Jeff_Kaufman 17 Apr 2021 20:02 UTC
2 points
in reply to: balex’s comment on: College and Earning to Give
I haven’t seen other resources that talk about the cost of college this way, but I also don’t spend much time looking at financial planning advice?
The approach in this post is only relevant to a pretty small fraction of people:
- Your children need to be likely enough to be admitted to the kind of institution that commits to meeting 100% of demonstrated financial need, or otherwise has a similar “100% effective tax rate” that it’s worth considering.
- You need to not be very interested in saving money for your own future use. The CSS Profile suggesting 5%/y for parental assets means that with three kids at 4y each you might be asked for 60% of assets. (Note that the CSS profile does ask about parental retirement accounts, and some schools do consider those assets).
- Your earnings need to be low enough just before and during college, either because your career has never been highly lucrative or because you are willing to change your line of work for that time period.
I think this is likely enough that a 529 plan or similar does not make sense for our family, but I’m planning to revisit when my kids are getting close to high school (and I have a better sense of their academic standing) before considering a career change.