# Effective giving

New Shortform New Post
Sorted by New & upvoted, Posts collapsed
125
· 19h ago · 9m read
21
Austin
· 11h ago · 3m read
101
brb243
· 2d ago · 30m read
67
· 5d ago · 1m read
107
· 7d ago · 2m read
248
· 16d ago · 4m read
32
· 3d ago · 2m read
307
· 1mo ago · 6m read
623
· 2mo ago · 5m read

# Shortforms

8
11d
SOME TAKES ON PATIENT PHILANTHROPY Epistemic status: I’ve done work suggesting that AI risk funders be spending at a higher rate [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/yZXNkf5uGBWzGfJzd], and I'm confident in this result. The other takes are less informed! I discuss * Whether I think we should be spending less now * Useful definitions of patient philanthropy * Being specific about empirical beliefs that push for more patience   * When patient philanthropy is counterfactual * Opportunities for donation trading between patient and non-patient donors WHETHER I THINK WE SHOULD BE SPENDING LESS NOW In principle I think the effective giving community could be in a situation where we should marginally be saving/investing more than we currently do (being ‘patient’).  However, I don’t think we’re in such a situation and in fact believe the opposite. My main crux is AI timelines; if I thought that AGI was less likely than not to arrive this century, then I would almost certainly believe that the community should marginally be spending less now.  USEFUL DEFINITIONS OF PATIENT PHILANTHROPY I think patient philanthropy could be thought of as saying one of: 1. The community is spending at the optimal rate  - let’s create a place to save/invest so ensure we don’t (mistakenly) overspend and keep our funds secure. 2. The community is spending above the optimal rate - let’s push for more savings on the margin, and create a place to save/invest and give later I don’t think we should call (1) patient philanthropy. Large funders (e.g. Open Philanthropy) already do some form of (1) by just not spending all their capital all this year. Doing (1) is instrumentally useful for the community and is necessary in any case where the community is not spending all of its capital this year. I like (2) a lot more. This definition is relative to the community’s current spending rate and could be intuitively ‘impatient’. Throughout, I’ll use ‘patient’ to refer to (2): t
60
4mo
3
9
18d
Hi everyone, I am Jia, co-founder of Shamiri Health, an affordable mental health start-up in Kenya. I am thinking of writing up something on the DALY cost-effectiveness of investing in our company. I am very new to the community, and I wonder if I can solicit some suggestions on what is a good framework to use to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of impact investment into Healthcare companies. I think there could be two ways to go about this: 1) take an investment amount, and using some cashflow modeling, we can figure out how many users we can reach with that investment and calculate based on the largest user base we can reach, with the investment amount; or 2) we can do a comparative analysis with another more mature company in a different country, and use its % of population reach as our "terminal impact reach". Then, use that terminal user base as the base of the calculation.  The first approach is no doubt more conservative, but the latter, in my opinion, is the true impact counterfactual. Without the investment, we will likely not be able to raise enough funding since our TAM is not particularly attractive for non-impact investors. The challenge to using the latter is the "likelihood of success" of us carrying out the plan to reach our terminal user base. How would you go about this "likelihood number"? I would think it varies case by case, and one should factor in the team, the business model, the user goal, and the market, which is closer to venture capital's model of evaluating companies. What is the average number for impact ventures to succeed?  TLDR:  1. What is the counterfactual of impact investing? The immediate DALY that could be averted or the terminal DALY that could be averted? 2. What is the average success rate of impact healthcare ventures to reach their impact goal?
11
1mo
4
12
3mo
2
Two houses (the forum and EA twitter), both alike in dignity, are being brought together in a time of great need. We're at $35,980 on our fundraiser [https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/fundraisers/ea-meme-2022] for GiveWell and ACE and there are only 3 days left, please donate! Especially if you have$44,020 laying around and you want to see Dustin on the 80k podcast disclaimer: *long discussion of counterfactualness and tax implications*
15
3mo
I thought we could do a thread for Giving What We Can pledgers and lessons learnt or insights since pledging!  I'll go first: I was actually really worried about how donating 10% would feel, as well as it's impact on my finances - but actually it's made me much less stressed about money - to know I can still have a great standard of living with 10% less. It's actually changed the way I see money and finances and has helped me think about how I can increase my giving in future years.
13
1mo
3
MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMALL DONORS I think there are benefits to thinking about where to give (fun, having engagement with the community, skill building, fuzzies)[1] but I think that most people shouldn’t think too much about it and - if they are deciding where to give - should do one of the following. 1 Give to the donor lottery I primarily recommend giving through a donor lottery and then only thinking about where to give in the case you win. There are existing arguments for the donor lottery. 2 Deliberately funge with funders you trust Alternatively I would recommend deliberately ‘funging’ with other funders (e.g. Open Philanthropy), such as through GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund. However, if you have empirical or value disagreements with the large funder you funge with or believe they are mistaken, you may be able to do better by doing your own research.[2]  3 If you work at an ‘effective’[3] organisation, take a salary cut Finally, if you work at an organisation whose mission you believe effective, or is funded by a large funder (see previous point on funging), consider taking a salary cut[4]. I DON’T RECOMMEND (a) Saving now to give later I would say to just give to the donor lottery and if you win: first, spend some time thinking and decide whether you want to give later. If you conclude yes, give to something like the Patient Philanthropy Fund, set-up some new mechanism for giving later or (as you always can) enter/create a new donor lottery. (b) Thinking too long about it - unless it's rewarding for you Where rewarding could be any of: fun, interesting, good for the community, gives fuzzies, builds skills or something else. There’s no obligation at all in working out your own cost effectiveness estimates of charities and choosing the best. (c) Thinking too much about funging, counterfactuals or Shapley values My guess is that if everyone does the ‘obvious’ strategy of “donate to the things that look most cost effective[5]” and you’re broadly
3
2mo
1
I'm wondering whether anyone here has used particular tools or frameworks for balancing future financial targets (buying a home, having children, etc) with current giving. For instance, one might: 1. Simply give X% of their income every year, and make their financial goals fit within their adjusted income. 2. Estimate how much capital and cash flow they might need given certain life goals, and then work out how much they need to save in order to meet those targets, donating everything else they make. 3. Save more early in their career and donate more mid or late career, expecting early savings to help build wealth and meet financial goals and unlocking more donations later on.