Hide table of contents

If I told you to imagine a member of the top 1 percent in your head, what would they look like?

Perhaps you’d think of a famous movie star decked out in a fancy dress or tuxedo on the red carpet. Maybe you’d picture your favourite athlete who just signed a lucrative contract. Or, for those readers who prefer specifics, maybe you’d think of a famous billionaire like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk.

But, in the midst of our thought experiment, did you ever think of yourself?

That’s right. If you’re reading this right now, I reckon there is a decent chance that you’re in the top 1% — especially if you live in the United States and work a full-time job.

That is to say, if you earn more than $58,000 per year after tax, you’d be in the top 1 percent globally. Even if you cut that by half to just $29,000 per year (about $14 per hour), you’d still find yourself in the top 5 percent.

You might find this shocking. You almost certainly don’t feel as rich as Bezos and his contemporaries. Unfortunately, I’m not here to tell you that you’re actually a billionaire. I am here to tell you, however, that whether or not you feel rich, you are rich — at least comparatively speaking. This statistical reality is due to the stark income gap between rich and poor countries. In fact, over 700 million people — more than twice the population of the US — earn less than $1.90 per day (adjusted for purchasing power).

In making this point, I don’t intend to sneer at you or claim that you are oblivious to your comparative wealth. Rather, I’m trying to illuminate how little others around the world have. And, as I will show, this has interesting implications. It means that you — yes you, the individual reading this right now — can make a tremendous impact on the lives of the less fortunate, even if you aren’t Jeff Bezos.

I think that is an exciting opportunity, and I hope by the end of this article you will feel the same way.

Charity is not just for the ultra-wealthy

It is common to think that our ability to help the needy is inadequate when we compare ourselves to the ultra-rich, especially when we consider issues that seem too big to solve — like global health challenges, stagnant economic development, and insufficient access to education. It is easy to think that real charitable impact is solely reserved for the kinds of people who go to fancy fundraisers, buy avant-garde artwork, and have university buildings named in their honour.

Thankfully, that isn’t the case. Let me show you the how, and then the why.

The how

The impact created by regular people can be tremendous, so long as we donate to the most effective charities, not ones that are merely good. I say tremendous without hyperbole because the very best charities are often much better than average ones and thus give a much higher return on investment with every dollar donated.

We can extend this idea by considering charities that operate outside of our local communities, cities, and countries. Due to the fact that a dollar goes much further in developing countries — for example, Burundi, which had a GDP per capita of $262 USD in 2019 — than in developed ones, our potential for impact can be monumental.

A brief vignette from Will MacAskill, a co-founder of Giving What We Can and the effective altruism movement, explains this idea brilliantly. It goes as follows:

Imagine a happy hour where you could either buy yourself a beer for five dollars or buy someone else a beer for five cents. If that were the case, we’d probably be pretty generous — next round’s on me!

Will goes on to call this idea the “100x Multiplier”, where those of us who live in rich countries can expect to do at least one hundred times as much to benefit others in developing countries as we can do to ourselves with each dollar we spend. That $58,000 salary I mentioned earlier ends up closer to $5 million when we consider our ability to help the poorest, so long as we donate it to the right places.

The why

Let’s say you’ve found everything I’ve mentioned thus far to be convincing. A question might still linger: Why should we do anything about it? Billionaires and governments have a much greater potential for impact than we do, and we already pay taxes that go to foreign aid. That is a logical and mathematical reality that I will not attempt to refute.

But the fact remains that it is important for us to think about what we can do regardless of what others do. We can’t wait for billionaires to solve the world’s most pressing problems, nor should we. Even if they decide to donate, we should not allow them to monopolize charity. We can lead by example and take action to show governments and the ultra-wealthy what our values are.

To add to this, many of us still feel an urge to be altruistic beyond the money we pay in taxes each year. This is especially true for Americans, who donated over $400 billion in 2018. That number — which is roughly equal to Norway’s nominal GDP that same year — is enough to make Bezos blush. For readers who contributed to that $400 billion figure, ask yourself where you’ve historically donated, and if you are aware of the impact your donations have made. If you have no idea what your donations have actually done, or you’ve primarily donated to those around you, there’s a good chance your donations can go much further, and that you can significantly improve the lives of thousands of people in other parts of the world.

Wrapping up

If you take one thing away from this article, I hope it is a sense of excitement at how much potential you have to make a tangible and widespread impact. While it is exceedingly unlikely you’ll have a library named after you, you can still change the lives of thousands of people globally over the course of your life. And if you were to ask me, I’d say having a library named after you is overrated in comparison.

In summary:

  • Earning a yearly salary of $58,000 in the US puts someone in the top 1% globally
  • Our ability to help the poorest people in the world is tremendous, and that is a very exciting prospect
  • The best charities are significantly better than good ones, so we should be more mindful as to where we donate
  • Donating to charities in poorer countries can magnify our impact even further
  • Charity should not be reserved solely for the mega-rich or for the government
  • If you’re someone who already donates regularly, it might be a good idea to take some time to evaluate the effectiveness of the charities you donate to
  • Over the course of our lives, we can impact the lives of thousands of others around the world

Some next steps:

7

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
This is a crosspost for The Case for Insect Consciousness by Bob Fischer, which was originally published on Asterisk in January 2025. [Subtitle.] The evidence that insects feel pain is mounting, however we approach the issue. For years, I was on the fence about the possibility of insects feeling pain — sometimes, I defended the hypothesis;[1] more often, I argued against it.[2] Then, in 2021, I started working on the puzzle of how to compare pain intensity across species. If a human and a pig are suffering as much as each one can, are they suffering the same amount? Or is the human’s pain worse? When my colleagues and I looked at several species, investigating both the probability of pain and its relative intensity,[3] we found something unexpected: on both scores, insects aren’t that different from many other animals.  Around the same time, I started working with an entomologist with a background in neuroscience. She helped me appreciate the weaknesses of the arguments against insect pain. (For instance, people make a big deal of stories about praying mantises mating while being eaten; they ignore how often male mantises fight fiercely to avoid being devoured.) The more I studied the science of sentience, the less confident I became about any theory that would let us rule insect sentience out.  I’m a philosopher, and philosophers pride themselves on following arguments wherever they lead. But we all have our limits, and I worry, quite sincerely, that I’ve been too willing to give insects the benefit of the doubt. I’ve been troubled by what we do to farmed animals for my entire adult life, whereas it’s hard to feel much for flies. Still, I find the argument for insect pain persuasive enough to devote a lot of my time to insect welfare research. In brief, the apparent evidence for the capacity of insects to feel pain is uncomfortably strong.[4] We could dismiss it if we had a consensus-commanding theory of sentience that explained why the apparent evidence is ir
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
Introduction I have been writing posts critical of mainstream EA narratives about AI capabilities and timelines for many years now. Compared to the situation when I wrote my posts in 2018 or 2020, LLMs now dominate the discussion, and timelines have also shrunk enormously. The ‘mainstream view’ within EA now appears to be that human-level AI will be arriving by 2030, even as early as 2027. This view has been articulated by 80,000 Hours, on the forum (though see this excellent piece excellent piece arguing against short timelines), and in the highly engaging science fiction scenario of AI 2027. While my article piece is directed generally against all such short-horizon views, I will focus on responding to relevant portions of the article ‘Preparing for the Intelligence Explosion’ by Will MacAskill and Fin Moorhouse.  Rates of Growth The authors summarise their argument as follows: > Currently, total global research effort grows slowly, increasing at less than 5% per year. But total AI cognitive labour is growing more than 500x faster than total human cognitive labour, and this seems likely to remain true up to and beyond the point where the cognitive capabilities of AI surpasses all humans. So, once total AI cognitive labour starts to rival total human cognitive labour, the growth rate of overall cognitive labour will increase massively. That will drive faster technological progress. MacAskill and Moorhouse argue that increases in training compute, inference compute and algorithmic efficiency have been increasing at a rate of 25 times per year, compared to the number of human researchers which increases 0.04 times per year, hence the 500x faster rate of growth. This is an inapt comparison, because in the calculation the capabilities of ‘AI researchers’ are based on their access to compute and other performance improvements, while no such adjustment is made for human researchers, who also have access to more compute and other productivity enhancements each year.
 ·  · 21m read
 · 
Introduction ~440 billion shrimps are farmed each year [1]. This is over 5x the total number of all farmed land animals put together [2]. Many farmed shrimps suffer from conditions that can and should be addressed, such as poor water quality, high stocking densities, inhumane slaughter methods, and avoidable mutilations (such as eyestalk ablation) [3]. Shrimp Welfare Project is an organisation of people who believe that shrimps are capable of suffering and deserve our moral consideration [4]. We aim to cost-effectively reduce the suffering of billions of farmed shrimps. This post is essentially an expanded version of our 2025 Funding Proposal.  If you want the TL;DR version of this post, I'd recommend reading that. (Shr)Impact and Vision Shrimp Welfare Project has four workstreams, two of which we consider our Core or Foundational workstreams - those are Corporate Engagement and Farmer Support. Two more are relatively new, but we think they have a lot of potential, and those are Research & Policy, and Precision Welfare. For each workstream, I want to talk you through: * Our mission statement for the workstream * The problem we’re trying to solve through this workstream, * The strategy we’re taking to solve the problem, * The successes we’ve had so far * And our vision for 2030 Core: Corporate Engagement Catalysing industry-wide adoption of pre-slaughter stunning by buying and deploying electrical stunners to early adopters to build towards a tipping point that achieves critical mass. Problem (and Context) When we started Shrimp Welfare Project, we planned to originally work only directly with farmers. However, we soon became aware that unlike a lot of fish farming, which is often produced and consumed domestically, shrimps instead were bought and sold on the global market. In particular, most shrimps are farmed in the Global South (in places like Ecuador, India, and Vietnam), and then exported to countries in the Global North (such as those in Euro