Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by warrenjordan
1 min readNo answers 2

5

Career choiceCommunityEarning to give
Frontpage

I've been working in healthcare technology for 5+ years and am hitting a crossroads in terms of where I want to go in my career. Ever since discovering EA, I've been questioning whether I want to prioritize direct work vs. earn-to-give.

The core reason why I work in health tech is to make a difference by improving or saving people's lives. I used to believe that my direct work was the only way to make that difference. Now that I know there is other options, I'm conflicted.

For example, should I take a higher-earning role at a Facebook or Google-like company to donate more to effective charities or take a lower-pay role at a health tech company which will lessen my donations?

Of course there's other factors that would have to weigh in my decision - culture, work-life balance, rate of growth of career capital, remote flexibility, etc.

However, the path of earn-to-give is making me seriously consider other industries. If there's a company out there that is a great fit to my values and is higher-earning, but doesn't provide much impact as a health tech company would - I'll probably take it.

Now, that's not to say I will work at a company that does harm. I'd still want my company to be neutral or do some amount of good, but doesn't necessarily have to provide as much impact as a health tech company. Whereas before EA, impact mattered the most to me so I solely applied to health tech companies.

Any thoughts from those who have experienced this dichotomy throughout their career? Most ideal would be to have both, but I'm sure those positions are extremely competitive.

5

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


Comments2
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Ahrenbach5
0
0

Hi,

I don’t have a solid answer to your question, but I do have a suggestion for a way to distinguish between the impactful health tech companies. If it is a health tech company that produces technology that primarily benefits wealthy western people, the direct impact probably does not outweigh the good that could be done by earning more and donating to groups that directly benefit the global poor along health dimensions.

It sounds like you might have a comparative advantage in health tech though that would enable you to do a lot of good working for a health tech organization that produces technology that benefits the global poor. Just a distinction to consider.

Reply
warrenjordan1
0
0
It sounds like you might have a comparative advantage in health tech though that would enable you to do a lot of good working for a health tech organization that produces technology that benefits the global poor

Yeah, that's another option I can build career capital for. Most of the health tech jobs in the market is towards US healthcare problems, which is what my experience is in. A goal, one day, would be to work for or start a global health non-profit leveraging technology to scale a validated health intervention (e.g tech-enabled AMF).

But to build that career capital, I don't think I need to work in healthcare my entire career. It'd probably be better to build that capital across a breadth of industries. That's an assumption though and need to network with others to confirm that.

Reply
More from warrenjordan
81
What are some good charities to donate to regarding systemic racial injustice?
Q
warrenjordan
· · 1m read
24
24
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at
Relevant opportunities
View more