Every year I probably donate and buy ~£150 worth of stuff in charity shops. At the moment I try and do this mostly via Oxfam, because TLYCS thinks they're decent, they have shops everywhere, and putting GiftAid on donations is easy once you've set up an account. In the past this number has been quite a bit higher, maybe like £300, and plausibly could go up again

Other shops that I see a lot like Cancer Research UK or British Heart Foundation seem likely to be a lot less effective.

The amount of money involved makes me feel like spending a lot of time thinking about this isn't really worth it. But I wondered if I'm missing something obvious. Are there more effective charities that run shops in the UK, or some other way I can donate items to more effective charities? For higher ticket items I sometimes sell on eBay as you can donate the proceeds directly to a charity, saving fees and potentially increasing awareness of say AMF to whoever buys the thing. But for a pile of not valuable paperbacks or something this doesn't always seem worth the time

13

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think it's commendable that you shop at charity shops and donate proceeds from selling items, and that you're thinking about their effectiveness. I think these charities that run shops in the UK are unlikely to rank highly on cost-effectiveness because they probably score quite low on the Neglectedness aspect (they're recognisable brands, which means that more people are likely to know them and therefore donate to them), and a lot of these charities do local community work (and therefore tends to be less cost-effective than funding charity work overseas).

My approach when I buy clothes and other stuff from charity shops is mostly to reduce the harm from buying this stuff new rather than to contribute to a specific charity. Interested in your thoughts!

Yeah that's my motivation mainly--to reduce harm of new stuff, but given prices are broadly similar it seems worth buying from them (if convenient and the charity has some benefit in expectation) rather than other people on gumtree / ebay etc

It seems likely to me that Oxfam would be quite a bit more effective than a shop supporting local community work

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Until recently I thought Julia and I were digging a bit into savings to donate more. With the tighter funding climate for effective altruism we thought it was worth spending down a bit, especially considering that our expenses should decrease significantly in 1.5y when our youngest starts kindergarten. I was surprised, then, when I ran the numbers and realized that despite donating 50% of a reduced income, we were $9k (0.5%) [1] richer than when I left Google two years earlier. This is a good problem to have! After thinking it over for the last month, however, I've decided to start earning less: I've asked for a voluntary salary reduction of $15k/y (10%). [2] This is something I've been thinking about off and on since I started working at a non-profit: it's much more efficient to reduce your salary than it is to make a donation. Additionally, since I'm asking others to fund our work I like the idea of putting my money (or what would be my money if I weren't passing it up) where my mouth is. Despite doing this myself, voluntary salary reduction isn't something that I'd like to see become a norm: * I think it's really valuable for people to have a choice about where to apply their money to making the world better. * The organization where you have a comparative advantage in applying your skills will often not be the one that can do the most with additional funds, even after considering the tax advantages. * I especially don't think this is a good fit for junior employees and people without a lot of savings, where I'm concerned social pressure to take a reduction could keep people from making prudent financial decisions. * More issues... Still, I think this is a good choice for me, and I feel good about efficiently putting my money towards a better world. [1] In current dollars. If you don't adjust for inflation it's $132k more, but that's not meaningful. [2] I'm not counting this towards my 50% goal, just like I'm not counting the pay cut I took when
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal