I am wondering what is a reasonably complete set of the psychological difficulties people have with earning-to-give. I am particularly interested in cases where for a person it seems like earning-to-give could be as high or higher impact than direct work, but it doesn't nearly feel that way. Personal disclosures of seemingly-irrational and raw attitudes are encouraged; consider posting under an anonymous alt account if that will let you post one. Common-knowledge data on how people actually feel is important.
Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Reactions
New Answer
New Comment
4 Answers sorted by
I'm not in a position where EtG would seem reasonable, but I can imagine the psychological obstacles which would arise if I was in that position. E.g.:
If you're one of the x-risk-oriented people (like me), rather than, say, global-poverty-oriented, your money wouldn't typically go to people who are much worse off than you, in Africa and elsewhere. It would typically go to support people like AI and generalist researchers, content creators, event organizers, and their support staff—people who are notably better off than you. They spend their days doing work which feels meaningful and enjoyable, often they live (and pay rent!) in the Bay Area, surrounded by fellow EAs and Rationalists, and they enjoy the high social status that the EA community assigns to people who do direct work.
Meanwhile, you spend 8 hours a day doing… well, a job. The people there might be nice enough, but probably not exactly your kind. You're probably working on something that (roughly speaking) doesn't matter. And your future prospects are gloomy: if you really give away a significant portion of your income, rather than saving up, you'll keep toiling as a wage slave for deeecaaadeees before you can afford to retire.
This is indeed something that might make rational sense (if you're somehow particularly ill-equipped for direct work), but it just feels… unfair?
I wanted to write something similar. I saved up the money that I donated by buying cheaper food and living in cheaper places. It all felt a bit pointless when I saw that the orgs that I donated to spend some of that money on fancy offices in expensive areas. But if I remember correctly, it wasn't a big deal as I continued donating to them. I thought that from an utilitarian POV it could be the right decision on their part.
I also want to say that I'm not sure that I now enjoy my job as a researcher at an EA org more than I enjoyed earning to give as a programmer. I thought that doing something directly meaningful would be much more enjoyable and make me more motivated day-to-day, but it's not happening. I think that what matters more (at least for me) is the nature of the task and whether it's easy to get into a flow.
As for social status, I always felt that even in EA circles (e.g. at EA Globals) it mostly depends on how charismatic/socially smooth you are and that what you do for a living has little impact on it. Maybe it's different in places other than the UK, I don't know. I guess I'm saying all these things because I want to show earning-to-givers that the other side might not be as glamorous as it can seem.
4
+1
I think this dynamic is a great example of utilitarian morality diverging from intuitions about a what constitutes the Good Life.
i.e. "toil away at a random job you don't really care about to subsidize other well-off people doing more interesting work" definitely doesn't pass the smell test for "this is what the Good Life looks like."
This post gives an excellent description of some challenges of earning to give:
https://80000hours.org/2015/06/why-i-stopped-earning-to-give/
This post is from 2015, but I think the reasoning is still valid. The author stopped earning to give because he 1) performs better working for a cause he believes is important than for the business he used to work for, 2) does not see excellent giving opportunities and could have more impact by doing something else, 3) had different values than his colleagues.
I sort-of earn to give myself and have similar challenges, but I can overcome them and enjoy being with my colleagues even if their values aren't exactly the same - there are always work-related or everyday life topics we can exchange about. I don't agree that there is a lack of giving opportunities, in 2015 it might have been true. Nowadays more charities and cause areas have been evaluated and there are the EA Funds.
[edited to add a little more nuance]
My E2G experience:
In the summer of 2016, I decided to continue self- and university training as a software engineer instead of switching to study biotechnology (I was accepted for two bachelor programs). The main influencers of the decision was my high uncertainty in having an impact in the latter case (relative to a much less risky E2G career), made more salient by my chronic depression.
Having been working as full-time software developer in Berlin since summer '18, I find the job^ de-moralizing, the environment of the "common" people intellectually toxic and my impact in terms of reducing suffering in the world (via E2G in this case) insignificant. I think, dedicated EAs can do better than spending their productive time like this.
If I manage my worsening mental health, I will quite this summer to find a better EA application of my life. (I would like to switch from software engineering to a different field, but due to my Russian citizenship and the official training, I don't yet see how I could get a visa in any promising country.)
^ The company does media monitoring SaaS business. I felt desperate enough to accept the offer.
An answer from personal experience:
It can feel frustrating to be separated from your impact. People in EA have some capacity to resist this, in that we're more likely to give money to help strangers and non-cute animals and people who live in the future, but that doesn't mean we're immune.
Giving money from my basement in Wisconsin while I earned-to-give just didn't feel as good as going to work every day does now. I knew intellectually that I was probably making an impact, but I didn't have any mental image of what the impact looked like, or an especially clear story I could tell myself. Now that I work for CEA, I see the "story" every day, and I've seen dozens of examples of my work being directly linked to impact.
An answer from theory:
It can be hard to trust other people to do good. I'd guess that EA has an unusually high proportion of people who, consciously or not, endorse statements like "if I don't do it, no one will" or "to get something done right, you've got to do it yourself".
Even if it's likely that the person running Organization X is probably better at it than me, I still might have lingering thoughts of "if I could pay myself to run Org X instead of paying them, the world would be better off".
Curated and popular this week
·
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger.
Executive summary
See also a summary on Twitter / X.
The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions.
A dual imperative
→ Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to:
* Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges
* Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups
* Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis
→ But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could:
* Be exploited, subverting independent government action
* Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems
* Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines
Summary of the recommendations
1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI
Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should:
* Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.:
* Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced)
* Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services)
* Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices
* Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.:
* On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
·
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands.
True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.)
We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to:
* Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward
* Provide timelines for project transitions
* Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives
What’s changing
We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are:
* GWWC Canada
* Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership
* GWWC Groups
* Giving Games
* Charity Elections
* Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking
* The Donor Lottery
* Translations
* Hosted Funds
* New licensing of the GWWC brand
Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable.
How this is relevant to you
We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.
Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details.
Thank you for your continued support as we
·
We are excited to share a summary of our 2025 strategy, which builds on our work in 2024 and provides a vision through 2027 and beyond!
Background
Giving What We Can (GWWC) is working towards a world without preventable suffering or existential risk, where everyone is able to flourish. We do this by making giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm.
Focus on pledges
Based on our last impact evaluation[1], we have made our pledges – and in particular the 🔸10% Pledge – the core focus of GWWC’s work.[2] We know the 🔸10% Pledge is a powerful institution, as we’ve seen almost 10,000 people take it and give nearly $50M USD to high-impact charities annually. We believe it could become a norm among at least the richest 1% — and likely a much wider segment of the population — which would cumulatively direct an enormous quantity of financial resources towards tackling the world’s most pressing problems.
We initiated this focus on pledges in early 2024, and are doubling down on it in 2025. In line with this, we are retiring various other initiatives we were previously running and which are not consistent with our new strategy.
Introducing our BHAG
We are setting ourselves a long-term Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually, which we will start working towards in 2025.
1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually would be roughly equivalent to ~100x GWWC’s current scale, and could be achieved by 1% of the world’s richest 1% pledging and giving effectively. Achieving this would imply the equivalent of nearly 1 million lives being saved[3] every year.
See the BHAG FAQ for more info.
Working towards our BHAG
Over the coming years, we expect to test various growth pathways and interventions that could get us to our BHAG, including digital marketing, partnerships with aligned organisations, community advocacy, media/PR, and direct outreach to potential pledgers. We thin
An answer from personal experience:
It can feel frustrating to be separated from your impact. People in EA have some capacity to resist this, in that we're more likely to give money to help strangers and non-cute animals and people who live in the future, but that doesn't mean we're immune.
Giving money from my basement in Wisconsin while I earned-to-give just didn't feel as good as going to work every day does now. I knew intellectually that I was probably making an impact, but I didn't have any mental image of what the impact looked like, or an especially clear story I could tell myself. Now that I work for CEA, I see the "story" every day, and I've seen dozens of examples of my work being directly linked to impact.
An answer from theory:
It can be hard to trust other people to do good. I'd guess that EA has an unusually high proportion of people who, consciously or not, endorse statements like "if I don't do it, no one will" or "to get something done right, you've got to do it yourself".
Even if it's likely that the person running Organization X is probably better at it than me, I still might have lingering thoughts of "if I could pay myself to run Org X instead of paying them, the world would be better off".