Comments
Just to clarify, when you say EA-aligned here, do you mean roles within the EA ecosystem itself, the types of roles posted on the 80k job board, or more broadly any role where someone could plausibly have high impact on an EA-relevant cause area?
In farmed animal welfare, for example, there are many neglected, high-impact roles across government, media, environmental organizations, industry, and other spaces that I believe EAs are not applying to. This might be because of limited visibility, unclear signaling about whether these roles “count” as EA-aligned, lower perceived prestige or social validation within the community, and a tendency to default to more familiar, well-mapped pathways rather than exploring messier or less clearly defined options that require more independent judgment.
This makes me wonder whether part of the perceived talent bottleneck is less about a lack of opportunities overall, and more about how EA-aligned career paths are defined, signaled, and encouraged. If many impact-relevant roles sit outside EA organizations but are not widely recognized or supported as legitimate EA pathways, that could help explain why motivated candidates feel stuck even while important positions remain unfilled.
That said, if someone is indeed applying to roles where they could make an impact in a relevant cause area, outside of the EA ecosystem, and still not having luck over an extended period, that’s where I start to question interview skills, application quality, references, and other factors. While there is a lot of career support available in the EA space, I’m not sure we offer enough sustained 1:1 career coaching.
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!