Hide table of contents

Before, I thought: Is there need for retirement fund? I work for EA till my body can't physically afford, and after that, I think I can end my life. Because if you can't work anymore, what's the meaning of living? However, there's a flaw of this thinking, which is my question talking about:

Ideally, I plan to stay healthy and continue contributing to EA work until around age 90.

However, let’s consider a less optimistic scenario: suppose my productivity starts to decline around 65, but I can still work—say, at 50–70% capacity—until 90.

Here’s the question: who would pay me during this 65–90 period?

In most non-EA jobs (except for professors or doctors), people are typically fired or let go after 65–70 if their productivity declines.(they are forced to retire).

But for those working in EA organizations or funded through EA grants, would funders (e.g., Open Philanthropy, LTFF, etc.) still provide financial support if someone continues valuable but significantly reduced-capacity work into their 70s or 80s?

Right now, the EA community has very few elderly members, so we don’t have real examples of how this works in practice.

In short:

Will aging EAs still be paid for lower-productivity contributions? Or will they have to rely on personal retirement savings?

And if so, how should that affect how much we save for retirement during our working years?

Thanks for your replying very much, it would be very meaningful for me. Also I believe this is a neglected topic so it may. be meaningful to EA community as well

15

0
1

Reactions

0
1
New Answer
New Comment

2 Answers sorted by

A few thoughts here from someone who has thought a lot about retirement.

1. I'm not sure where you are located now or where you are planning to grow old, but some countries have better safety nets than others. In the US it's smart to plan for retirement. In Europe, less planning may be required (large blanket statement, I know)

2. I think it's reasonable to suspect that at some point you may age out: this could be do to physical limitations, mental limitations, a desire to slow down, or simply put, you may be less valuable in any field. Since it's hard to predict what the future holds and growing old isn't an option, at minimum, you should be planning for some level of financial security. And P.S. you shouldn't look at this negatively, it's just smart planning. It's similar to eating healthy or working out. Take care of yourself.

3. Consider backing into how much money you might need in your old age -- specifically what does your budget look like when you are old, and how much would you need in a retirement portfolio to fuel passive income to sustain yourself? Start out with a retirement calculator like this one

4. Coming up with a sound financial plan will ease the burden of your initial question. In fact, if you are less financially reliant on EA-related jobs, you may actually be able to expand your options as to what you can do in the future and per chance, have a greater impact.

5. If you do end up in a position where you have more than enough later on in life, you can always give more away and continue to work. 

Your thought process seems binary: e.g. do I keep working or do I save for retirement. There are a whole variety of options within these two paths!

I agree with Rebecca, and I also really appreciated the thoughtful points from Julia Wise and DenkerBerger.

I wanted to add a few personal reflections, replying to your post and your comment. 

In practice, I don’t think EA funders are likely to provide ongoing grants to people whose productivity has significantly declined. Funding is usually tied to impact, not years of service. That’s why I think it’s our personal responsibility to prepare for retirement, rather than expecting the movement to support us later in life.

I used to think similarly to you — that climate change or other global risks might make saving for retirement pointless. But when I looked more closely at the data, I realised that’s not certain at all. I started contributing to a pension and found it can actually be very tax-efficient (in the UK, it can save up to nearly 50% of what you’d otherwise pay in tax).

If you start early, you don’t need to contribute much — even 3–5% can make a big difference over time, plus your workplace is likely to match it, so it's "free money". I regret not starting sooner because now I have to contribute more to catch up.

I also agree with Julia that life can change a lot as you age. You may want to help a family member or do an unpaid project you are passionate about. Also, when you’re older, health issues or other needs may come up more often. My father-in-law recently needed a £16k hip replacement and had to remortgage his house to pay for it. Having savings for unexpected expenses like that can be life-changing.

Another reason I want to be financially stable in later life is that it gives me more freedom to choose how to make an impact — for example, mentoring younger people, helping a new charity get started, or volunteering on my own terms.

I know it can feel discouraging to think about aging or being less productive, but many people find new ways to contribute meaningfully later in life. Having some financial security can make that easier and less stressful.

Some people may be able to rely on family support or inheritance, but for most of us, starting early with small pension contributions may be a good choice. 

Comments3
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

The reason of thinking up this question (This is not directly related to the question so I put in common section here):

I'm currently an 18-year-old guy that's having hard time between double majoring on medicine and CS(computer science) and single major on CS.

One advantage of medicine is its high salary. In fact my parents think it's necessary to save retirement funds for like one million dollars, so they strongly advice me to do double major in medicine. Before, I thought: Is there need for retirement fund? I work for EA till my body can't physically afford, and after that, I think I can suicide. Because if you can't work anymore, what's the meaning of living? However, there's a flaw of this thinking, which is my question talking about.

Many of us have found our goals and desires shift a lot over time. I think there are some commitments flexible enough to be a good idea (like I'm happy I took the 10% pledge), while others lock you in in ways that won't be good for your long-term impact. My own sense of the best ways to have impact has changed a lot over time. This is also true for many others in the community.

Aside from other things that people value after retiring, there are forms of mentorship and contribution that can last long after you're no longer doing a standard workweek. Peter Singer is 79 and retired as a university professor but still seems to have a busy speaking and writing schedule. The closing speaker at EAG Boston 2023 was then-93-year-old geneticist Matthew Meselson, speaking about his work preventing biowarfare and about preventing future pandemics.

I agree with Denkenberger that there's a lot of uncertainty about what life will look like in a few decades, including uncertainty about any given career, if careers will even be a thing, if money will be less useful or more useful, etc.

Being pulled between your parents' wishes and your own is always tough! Wishing you the best in your decisions.

@Julia_Wise🔸 There are lots of reasons that living can have meaning even without work. In fact, there's a book about that. Having some savings is very valuable to give you the flexibility of switching careers or for unforeseen circumstances. Also, it may be very valuable if there is a good AI outcome. But I do think that the possibility of transformative AI means we should save less for retirement.

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities