I agree and wrote about it here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nnf2GsSq9fhdRCvZj/keynesian-altruism

You narrative talks about the movement switching from earn to give to career-focused. I think that has huge survivorship bias in it. There are now many GWWC pledgers who would not call themselves EA. As the movement became bigger, the career-focused side began to dominate discourse because there’s a lot more to say if you are career-focused and trying to coordinate things rather than if you are head down earning money.

This article has a lot of downvoting (net karma of 39 from 28 votes and 3 disagree votes). Could some of the people who downvoted or disagreed explain their rationale?

You could try putting cash into a separate savings account earmarked for donation. When you are happy that you don’t need it, donate it. (But maybe over a few years for tax efficiency)

Interest rates are much higher, which is partially offset by inflation (it’s real not nominal that matters) but not entirely. Today, US Treasuries have a +1.79% yield over 5 years in real terms, so higher than the -1.28% I mention in the article but still within the long-term range of -1% to +2% that I mention in the article. Importantly, that’s still below real GDP growth expectations, so over time the amount you can buy as a proportion of global wealth declines.

I think all the points still stand albeit the numbers in the example look dated now! Anything you think should be changed?

Surely it’s not a case of either-or. EA exists because we all found that existing charity was not up to scratch, hence we do want EA to take different approaches. However, I think it’s important to also have people from outside EA (but with good value alignment) to provide diversity of thought and make sure there are no blindspots.

Doesn’t CEA know any?

Do you get 1 karma just for posting this comment? 😂

Estonia doesn’t surprise me. It’s very tech-heavy and EA skews heavily to tech people