Hide table of contents

Until recently I thought Julia and I were digging a bit into savings to donate more. With the tighter funding climate for effective altruism we thought it was worth spending down a bit, especially considering that our expenses should decrease significantly in 1.5y when our youngest starts kindergarten.

I was surprised, then, when I ran the numbers and realized that despite donating 50% of a reduced income, we were $9k (0.5%) [1] richer than when I left Google two years earlier.

This is a good problem to have! After thinking it over for the last month, however, I've decided to start earning less: I've asked for a voluntary salary reduction of $15k/y (10%). [2] This is something I've been thinking about off and on since I started working at a non-profit: it's much more efficient to reduce your salary than it is to make a donation. Additionally, since I'm asking others to fund our work I like the idea of putting my money (or what would be my money if I weren't passing it up) where my mouth is.

Despite doing this myself, voluntary salary reduction isn't something that I'd like to see become a norm:

  • I think it's really valuable for people to have a choice about where to apply their money to making the world better.

  • The organization where you have a comparative advantage in applying your skills will often not be the one that can do the most with additional funds, even after considering the tax advantages.

  • I especially don't think this is a good fit for junior employees and people without a lot of savings, where I'm concerned social pressure to take a reduction could keep people from making prudent financial decisions.

  • More issues...

Still, I think this is a good choice for me, and I feel good about efficiently putting my money towards a better world.


[1] In current dollars. If you don't adjust for inflation it's $132k more, but that's not meaningful.

[2] I'm not counting this towards my 50% goal, just like I'm not counting the pay cut I took when I stopped earning to give.

Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky

145

8
0
21

Reactions

8
0
21
Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for writing this! I also voluntarily reduced my salary for several years (and lived partly off my savings) and had been meaning to write about this for some time but never got around to it. It's always been somewhat puzzling why this isn't more common. While it probably shouldn't become a norm for the reasons you outline, my sense is that more EAs should consider this option (though I may be underestimating how common it is already).

I agree with all the downsides you list but I could imagine there are also other upsides to voluntary salary reduction. For example, it can signal your commitment to both your organization and to taking altruistic ideas seriously—following the logic where it leads, even when that means doing unconventional things. This might inspire others.

I also worry that we might be biased to overestimate the downsides of voluntary salary reductions: Donating creates tangible satisfaction—the concrete act of giving, the tax receipt, the social recognition, etc. Taking a lower salary offers none of these psychological benefits and can even feel like a loss in status and recognition.

I agree that we might overestimate the downsides, but those psychological and status benefits you mentioned are real benefits and can't be discounted I don't think.

Why don't you consider the reduction as part of of your donations? Unlike taking a direct-work job (where the counterfactual and non-monetary compensation questions are complicated and any estimate will involve a lot of guesswork)[1] your salary reduction is from a known very well-understood baseline.

I'm sympathetic overall to your desire for this not to become a norm in EA, due to the concerns you listed, but I would (and do) count it towards my donation target, and would generally advise others to do so.

  1. ^

    There's an argument in your case that your counterfactual salary is extremely clear. I would expect for most people taking a salary reduction, the answer is much harder. I'd estimate that half of people I've heard of leaving EtG jobs would have had a hard time being happy at that job any more, and many more people are like me where I haven't worked in industry for 7 years and so I would have to guess, which makes it a bit of a weird norm question if a peer of mine gets to claim a 50% reduction, but I have no idea if I could have made double my (reduced) salary in industry in a very distant counterfactual world.

I do list this on my donations page, but I'm trying to be pretty conservative in what I count as my donations: only the actual money I actually donate. So I don't count it towards my 50% and put it in grey italics like my employer donation matches, donations in exchange for work, the PayPal 1% match, and other counterfactual money moved that I don't fully include.

I think it's fine (and probably good) if others are less strict about this, though!

A possible comparison is to dollar-a-year men, successful business leaders who go to work for the government for basically zero.

Thanks for writing about this! I've thought about this as well, but there are a couple of reasons I haven't done this yet. Primarily, I've been thinking more lately about making sure my time is appropriately valued. I'm still fairly early-mid career, and as much as it shouldn't matter, taking a salary reduction now probably means reduced earnings potential in the future. This obviously matters less if you don't plan on working for a non-highly impactful non-profit in the near future or if you're later in your career, but I think this is worth thinking about even if you're financially secure.

I think the sort of people who frequent this forum tend to be a bit too keen to work for not much because they think the work is so important, kind of like an 'impact discount', and I think historically effective non-profits have been a bit too keen to offer impact discount salaries. This seems to be less of an issue in the last 3 years in my experience, maybe because EA-aligned orgs are getting better funded. 

I think taking impact discounts probably harm our impact in the longer term. It's not just about the money per se, but about the perception of value. Unfortunately, people tend to see your hourly rate as a reflection of how much value you provide. Young people should probably care about this a bit more, but granted it's a tough job market and it's probably a much lower priority than just getting a job.

It also, of course, depends on whether you think your current employer is the most effective place to be sending your counterfactual dollars. It's plausible that one might work at a highly impactful non-profit, but they think that another non-profit they could donate to is twice as effective (or whatever the ratio is based on their marginal tax rate, but it's probably not more than double).

I suppose this is only tangential to your post, but seeing it reminded me of something I was just recently reflecting on. I wanted to look into whether anyone has written on here in support of reducing their cost of living so that they can sustain themselves on fewer work hours in order to volunteer more of their time. It seems like a variation on Earning to Give—in the sense that by lowering costs you make it easier to earn what you need so that you can give more of your time. I'm interested in reading some of the links you included because even though not directly tied to my own reflection they seem relevant in a way that I find stimulating.

I proposed something related to this, trying to get around some of the issues you mention above. Essentially, a way to have your employer re-purpose some of your salary towards an external charity. 

 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
Applications are currently open for the next cohort of AIM's Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program in August 2025. We've just published our in-depth research reports on the new ideas for charities we're recommending for people to launch through the program. This article provides an introduction to each idea, and a link to the full report. You can learn more about these ideas in our upcoming Q&A with Morgan Fairless, AIM's Director of Research, on February 26th.   Advocacy for used lead-acid battery recycling legislation Full report: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/reports/lead-battery-recycling-advocacy    Description Lead-acid batteries are widely used across industries, particularly in the automotive sector. While recycling these batteries is essential because the lead inside them can be recovered and reused, it is also a major source of lead exposure—a significant environmental health hazard. Lead exposure can cause severe cardiovascular and cognitive development issues, among other health problems.   The risk is especially high when used-lead acid batteries (ULABs) are processed at informal sites with inadequate health and environmental protections. At these sites, lead from the batteries is often released into the air, soil, and water, exposing nearby populations through inhalation and ingestion. Though data remain scarce, we estimate that ULAB recycling accounts for 5–30% of total global lead exposure. This report explores the potential of launching a new charity focused on advocating for stronger ULAB recycling policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The primary goal of these policies would be to transition the sector from informal, high-pollution recycling to formal, regulated recycling. Policies may also improve environmental and safety standards within the formal sector to further reduce pollution and exposure risks.   Counterfactual impact Cost-effectiveness analysis: We estimate that this charity could generate abou
sawyer🔸
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Note: This started as a quick take, but it got too long so I made it a full post. It's still kind of a rant; a stronger post would include sources and would have gotten feedback from people more knowledgeable than I. But in the spirit of Draft Amnesty Week, I'm writing this in one sitting and smashing that Submit button. Many people continue to refer to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind as "frontier AI labs". I think we should drop "labs" entirely when discussing these companies, calling them "AI companies"[1] instead. While these companies may have once been primarily research laboratories, they are no longer so. Continuing to call them labs makes them sound like harmless groups focused on pushing the frontier of human knowledge, when in reality they are profit-seeking corporations focused on building products and capturing value in the marketplace. Laboratories do not directly publish software products that attract hundreds of millions of users and billions in revenue. Laboratories do not hire armies of lobbyists to control the regulation of their work. Laboratories do not compete for tens of billions in external investments or announce many-billion-dollar capital expenditures in partnership with governments both foreign and domestic. People call these companies labs due to some combination of marketing and historical accident. To my knowledge no one ever called Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Netflix "labs", despite each of them employing many researchers and pushing a lot of genuine innovation in many fields of technology. To be clear, there are labs inside many AI companies, especially the big ones mentioned above. There are groups of researchers doing research at the cutting edge of various fields of knowledge, in AI capabilities, safety, governance, etc. Many individuals (perhaps some readers of this very post!) would be correct in saying they work at a lab inside a frontier AI company. It's just not the case that any of these companies as
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
The belief that it's preferable for America to develop AGI before China does seems widespread among American effective altruists. Is this belief supported by evidence, or it it just patriotism in disguise? How would you try to convince an open-minded Chinese citizen that it really would be better for America to develop AGI first? Such a person might point out: * Over the past 30 years, the Chinese government has done more for the flourishing of Chinese citizens than the American government has done for the flourishing of American citizens. My village growing up lacked electricity, and now I'm a software engineer! Chinese institutions are more trustworthy for promoting the future flourishing of humanity. * Commerce in China ditches some of the older ideas of Marxism because it's the means to an end: the China Dream of wealthy communism. As AGI makes China and the world extraordinarily wealthy, we are far readier to convert to full communism, taking care of everyone, including the laborers who have been permanently displaced by capital. * The American Supreme Court has established "corporate personhood" to an extent that is nonexistent in China. As corporations become increasingly managed by AI, this legal precedent will give AI enormous leverage for influencing policy, without regard to human interests. * Compared to America, China has a head start in using AI to build a harmonious society. The American federal, state, and municipal governments already lag so far behind that they're less likely to manage the huge changes that come after AGI. * America's founding and expansion were based on a technologically-superior civilization exterminating the simpler natives. Isn't this exactly what we're trying to prevent AI from doing to humanity?