Comments
I have thought about this a lot. My view is that this is an EA ecosystem issue. Right now 80,000 for example is putting a lot of focus on AI safety, rightly so I think. But there are only so many AI safety focused roles and organizations. So, these roles quickly fill. I think the problem is that EA is focused on issue areas most people are not thinking about, that is what makes it important. But also, what creates a low demand for roles. As opposed to (insert any booming industry) that is asking for more supply. Hopefully, this changes so that all of the motivated people in the community can best use their skills.
Some of these people should probably consider earning to give? This has perhaps been de-emphasised more recently, but the counterfactual impact can be very good if there’s not clear match in direct work.
Additionally I suspect that the “structural issue” is often simply funding constraints.
I agree that earning to give can be a very valid and high-impact path, especially when there isn’t a clear personal fit for direct work.
My hesitation is that this often gets framed as an “easier” or more available alternative, when in practice the same structural dynamics frequently apply. Careers that genuinely offer strong earning potential—beyond what someone would likely donate anyway—are often just as competitive, credential-dependent, and constrained as EA-aligned roles themselves (e.g. top tech, finance, or specialized professional tracks). So for many people, the bottleneck simply shifts rather than disappears.
I also think this intersects with your point about funding constraints. If the ecosystem is funding-constrained rather than talent-constrained in many areas, then earn to give makes a lot of sense at the margin. But if access to high-earning roles is itself limited, we may still be leaving a large amount of motivated human capital underutilized—both in direct work and in earning to give.
That’s why I keep coming back to the possibility that the core issue isn’t just individual career choice, but a mismatch between motivation, available roles, and the systems we’ve built to translate one into the other.
One of the big ideas that I take from the old days of effective altruism, is that strategically donating 10% of the median US salary can save more lives than becoming a doctor in the US over one's career.
Same logic applies to animal welfare, catastrophic risk reduction, and other priorities.
I also think this ties back to the broader question I was raising. If a large share of motivated people end up defaulting to earn-to-give not because it’s their best fit, but because pathways into direct impact work are bottlenecked or unclear, that may still point to a structural issue—even if earn-to-give remains net positive in expectation.
So yes, I think the question of “would you be satisfied with a normal job and donating 10%?” is a crucial one. My concern is less about whether that option is impactful in theory, and more about whether the ecosystem is doing enough to help people find durable, high-fit ways to contribute—whether through direct work, earning to give, or something in between.
I think it’s a bit tricky to reason about “the ecosystem” on a global level.
Directionally I’d say earning-to-give deserves more popularity (perhaps even as a default, given direct work seems oversubscribed) and more community support and, yes, it’s hard and can feel less rewarding to find a well paying job and to donate a large fraction of your income!