This is in fact already one of our focus projects! The list is at https://impact.hackpad.com/Projects-aRiPtncmuKS
Tom_Ash
Karma: 1,151
Here are some new organisational blogs added on Pablo’s site:
AI Impacts
Animal Ethics
Centre for the Study of Existential Risk
Charity Entrepreneurship
Effective Altruism UNSW
Foundational Research Institute
GBS Switzerland
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute
Intentional Insights
Open Philanthropy Project
Sentience Politics
Stiftung für Effektiven Altruismus
Good question. It’s easiest to answer in money terms: a very rough answer is $80 (which buys 7 hours non-management staff time at $6.46 an hour, plus the volunteer time we can parlay that into, plus some management time). That includes a healthy amount of safety buffer. If anyone would like to donate it, they could contact peter@peterhurford.com
EA project updates for Dec 2015/Jan 2016
Thanks, I’ll get the current CS team to look into this!
Can you tell us roughly what income you’re looking at through ETG? :)
Thanks Gleb! Anyone else who wanted to share this (and others’ job postings) would also be helping out.
Yep, you’ll be in the queue and everyone will hear about interviews, etc. at roughly the same time. :)
Given that the top 1% in the US have a household income of $400,000, I’d strongly favour earning to give. The most relevant post on this is Peter Hurford thinks that a large proportion of people should earn to give long term (the second most upvoted article here ever).
I find it difficult for example when dealing with a large number of emails on a variety of topics.
Batching email on similar topics can help. But I don’t think it’s worth the time except when it feels like the batching is efficient on its own merits.
Ouch, and she studied English at Cambridge! Those Oxbridge degrees aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. :p
For those already in Vancouver (or who know people who are), here’s flagging that you’d maximise your chances if we heard from you as soon as possible.
One issue is the possibility that better research is more likely to bring in more funding than explicitly focusing on fundraising or outreach. This is somewhat supported by the much larger amount of funding that an organization like GW has moved (compared to Charity Science). We are currently very uncertain about whether this is true or not and can see a strong case for both viewpoints.
We can’t straightforwardly work out how valuable future (marginal) research by GiveWell or others is, as this seems quite different from the value of their historic research and basic maintenance of this. My personal sense is that outreach is more valuable at this point, though that’s of course uncertain.
That’s covered here:
Although the specific details of staff’s backup plans are confidential, the co-founder estimates of the total counterfactual impact of Charity Science employees/volunteers are close to ~$500k at the upper bound for all current combined staff/volunteer counterfactuals over the last 2.5 years. This number is extremely soft and based on limited evidence. Using this estimate one could up the counterfactuals included costs of Charity Science to $580k
We’ll share the full results soon, including all non-confidential raw data. :)
LEAN is capturing it in our annual questionnaire for group organizers, and also our monitoring and evaluation of meetup.com accounts in particular (many of which we provide).
LEAN is capturing it in our annual questionnaire for group organizers.
I’m sympathetic to that position in the domestic context. But what about when the owners of companies (e.g. multinationals or shareholder-owned companies) are in the developed world yet make many of their profits in the developing world? We might well want developing countries to capture some of that tax.
Interesting piece. Improving taxation (particularly of large/multinational companies) in the developing world is interesting and possibly neglected. It’d at least be interesting to see how tractable it is and how one would go about working on it. It fits well with the fact that EAs are typically more radically cosmopolitan than the leftists who criticise them for ignoring domestic taxation and wealth inequalities, and could provide a good comeback to these.
Here’s giving a shoutout to Giving What We Can for making their calculations for the lifetime value of a member public—I’ve been finding them very useful recently for evaluating the value of projects!