|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
0
0
Reactions
0
0
More posts like this
Comments16
As someone who is somewhere between Peter's stance on what proportion of us should earn to give (EtG), (ratio of EtG:direct-work between 1:1 and 9:1) and 80,000 Hours (80k) position (ratio of 1:9), if you think you're within shouting distance of being in the top 1% of American income earners, I concur with Tom you should definitely favour earning to give. You have a strong comparative advantage for EtG compared to most of us who consider it, and I expect others who are just as able but aren't inclined towards high-earning fields, e.g., software or finance, have a comparative advantage to doing direct work relative to you. You have the sort of potential that would likely cause even 80k to recommend you pursue earning to give.
If you're interested in improving civilisation's prospects in the long-run, skills that would be useful might include forecasting, risk assessment, technology policy, and tech engineering including AI and synthetic biology. If you're interested in also improving global development, being talented at design of crops, or vaccines, or various other things would be useful. If you're a talented project manager of small projects, you could also lead philanthropic projects relating to any of the above.
If you have already undertaken some training to do one of those roles, it might be better to do direct philanthropic work in one of those roles, rather than earning funds in some other role to hire someone else who may be less effective.
Given that the top 1% in the US have a household income of $400,000, I'd strongly favour earning to give. The most relevant post on this is Peter Hurford thinks that a large proportion of people should earn to give long term (the second most upvoted article here ever).
I am nowhere near $400,000.
I should probably have been more precise. I am single, and among single earners, I am at about the 98th percentile and have had job offers above the 99th percentile. However, I am somewhere around the 94th percentile of household incomes, where the 99th percentile is around $400,000.
I don't know what you mean by "through ETG".
I estimate that I could get a salary+bonus of roughly $250K with a few months of searching at the moment. And by estimate, I mean that I literally turned down a job for that amount of money.
I really should have just said that up front instead of being coy.
Unless you concretely know you can make a bigger difference filling a talent gap, I'd encourage earning to give if you're within shouting distance of being a 1%er.
I haven't yet looked into this sufficiently to estimate effectiveness, but I would like to put it on the radar in case someone else is currently in a position to do so: Mosul dam engineers warn it could fail at any time, killing 1m people
.impact is looking for a volunteer to work with us to publish the results from our 2015-2016 EA Survey, the sequel to the EA Survey from last year.
You don't need to know anything about statistical programming to do this work -- all you need to know is how to draw effective conclusions from data, and having taken a few classes in the social sciences should be sufficient! I will supply you with all the fully cleaned data and all the tables and all you have to do is write up the report with the data and help us draw conclusions. You can even follow last year's report pretty closely and it shouldn't be that much work.
We're looking to have the report done by the end of March. Work can be done remotely from anywhere with an internet connection. While we'd love a volunteer willing to do the work for free to build skills and help the EA movement, we understand the importance of compensation. Therefore, we would be happy to pay for work at good rates upon request (though this money would be money otherwise going to top EA charities).
If you're interested in helping out with the EA survey or a similar data analysis project, you can apply using this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1n92eaCgPUh009RbNF7uZbQHjKXfXkApC1ZPTVO-QvYQ/viewform
As someone who is somewhere between Peter's stance on what proportion of us should earn to give (EtG), (ratio of EtG:direct-work between 1:1 and 9:1) and 80,000 Hours (80k) position (ratio of 1:9), if you think you're within shouting distance of being in the top 1% of American income earners, I concur with Tom you should definitely favour earning to give. You have a strong comparative advantage for EtG compared to most of us who consider it, and I expect others who are just as able but aren't inclined towards high-earning fields, e.g., software or finance, have a comparative advantage to doing direct work relative to you. You have the sort of potential that would likely cause even 80k to recommend you pursue earning to give.