Thanks for clarifying, I think the arguments makes sense! The FAQ is clear on this and it’s good to see some of it’s background.

I can accept that it’s a tricky situation and the overall best way to handle it is to consider a resign.

Yes, the wellbeing argument still applies even after the paycut if you’re still substantially above the regional minimum. But if you compare it to your original wage, given that you only committed to a barely noticable sacrifice, which the paycut itself likely even surpasses signifficantly, that additional 10% might just be too big of an ask.

However if one is also just fine with earning around the lower wage and even donating from that, then I think considering something like taking the further pledge may also be an interesting idea.

I might be underthinking this but to me the 10% pledge is only about acknowledging that I earn significantly above the minimum wage in the region and hence giving up on 10% will likely not have a significant effect on my wellbeing.

Then for factoring in the tradeoffs related to direct work, a starting point I could think of so far is if funding would be available to cover them. If you think about it, you decided to take a tradeoff to pursue a direct work opportunity. You could have also just kept earning and started donating the difference to a fund. Now imagine someone else comes with a funding application to the same fund. This other project has the exact same expected returns as your direct work project. The only difference is that this other project requires funding. Assume that the amount required is the same as the difference you'd donate. You might see where this goes. The two projects are equivalent from the fund's perspective (for each project to get done the fund is worse off by X money). This means - if I did not mess it up - you taking the tradeoff for the project is at least as good as donating the difference to the fund (assuming the fund would be happy to trade off this amount of money for the project you are doing).

So I'm not sure if taking a tradeoff like this would technically count for the pledge, but I think the result would be at least as good as donating the difference to a given fund. And so far I assumed that this is what matters.

(Note that I also had a likely not too successful attempt of writing up this idea from a different perspective)

Great to hear that there's something in mind. Also thanks for highlighting the difficulties. I definitely wanted to use software for it but if it's not as easy as it first sounds, then I'll just save myself from the struggle and leave it to an experienced person.

Just re-found this piece, looking forward to reading it!

Are there plans to have an audio version? I remembered at the Avoding the Worst post there were suggestions on how to convert text to audio. If it's not in progress/planned I might give it a try.

+1 part-timer here. I was very frustrated back then. Having learnt a lot of interesting ideas about using one’s career for social impact I felt that I do not have sufficient time to explore these ideas to the depth I wanted to. I wanted to head towards a transition but I felt that I got stuck. So earlier this year I told my employer that I’m thinking of quitting because of this (note that I’m in a furtunate position of having experience that is currently in high demand, so I could relatively easily find a job similar to my previous if needed). But they suggested that I could do part-time instead if I wanted to and I accepted their offer.

It did not just give me time to explore the research around high-impact careers but now also allows me to spend signifficant time on applications, work trials and volunteering projects for testing my fit and upskilling.

One thing that I’m still thinking about is that I was in a fortunate position of being able to afford this financially. It just does not feel right that I decided to “spend” these resorces (my time/the salary I did not earn) on this “project” without crosschecking with experts (e.g. grantmakers) that my “project” meets the bar of being an effective use of these resources. (Tried to summarize this here as my first forum post https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4TiBZxD7NLsSTsHDn/career-investments-vs-giving-in-the-short-term)

I think the effect you describe makes sense, you can’t just grow a field arbitrarily fast.

But I think it might be useful to talk more about wheter we still think that trying to get into one of these very competitive programmes is currently still the best use of the talented people who are happy to use their career to do the most good.

Thank you for taking a look and for the suggestions! Not saying I've tried super hard to talk these through with an advisor but my attempts did not get much attention so far.

Completely agree that one should prioritize long-term impact. I'm just saying that in case of a temporary funding constraint, choosing not to donate may prevent other, at least equally promising candidates who are in need of funding from investing into their own careers.

Great to have a virtual event as well! I may have missed but I can’t find which timezone is the event aligned with? Thanks!