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

142

7
0
21

Reactions

7
0
21
Comments8


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.

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

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!

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
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
This post summarizes a new meta-analysis from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab. We analyze the most rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to reduce consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). We conclude that no theoretical approach, delivery mechanism, or persuasive message should be considered a well-validated means of reducing MAP consumption. By contrast, reducing consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) appears to be an easier target. However, if RPM reductions lead to more consumption of chicken and fish, this is likely bad for animal welfare and doesn’t ameliorate zoonotic outbreak or land and water pollution. We also find that many promising approaches await rigorous evaluation. This post updates a post from a year ago. We first summarize the current paper, and then describe how the project and its findings have evolved. What is a rigorous RCT? We operationalize “rigorous RCT” as any study that: * Randomly assigns participants to a treatment and control group * Measures consumption directly -- rather than (or in addition to) attitudes, intentions, or hypothetical choices -- at least a single day after treatment begins * Has at least 25 subjects in both treatment and control, or, in the case of cluster-assigned studies (e.g. university classes that all attend a lecture together or not), at least 10 clusters in total. Additionally, studies needed to intend to reduce MAP consumption, rather than (e.g.) encouraging people to switch from beef to chicken, and be publicly available by December 2023. We found 35 papers, comprising 41 studies and 112 interventions, that met these criteria. 18 of 35 papers have been published since 2020. The main theoretical approaches: Broadly speaking, studies used Persuasion, Choice Architecture, Psychology, and a combination of Persuasion and Psychology to try to change eating behavior. Persuasion studies typically provide arguments about animal welfare, health, and environmental welfare reason
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is 99% automation of fully-remote jobs in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math dataset (thou