We aim to increase pledge fulfillment by significantly improving the experience of the pledger journey. We also want to improve our visibility on pledge fulfillment by making it easier and more attractive for pledgers to record their donations with us.
I can definitely relate to this: One suggestion I would have is to have an easier way to just track the amount of donations without selecting causes. I also took the easy way by just selecting effektiv-spenden.org, although I split my donations up amongst their funds. Simply because I want to avoid having to to maintain 4+ donation targets as my distributions shift. I understand that it's valuable to know how the donations are distributed, but that might lead to some being discouraged or cases like me where the actual donation targets are not correct for convenience reasons.
First off: On-and-off or not, that's 6 years of donating, even if it wasn't consistent on a monthly basis. I'm sure if you add this up, you could come up with amazing numbers summarizing what good in the world you already contributed to. While the people whose lives you have helped to improve or save are not able to thank you personally for it, it was still thanks to you and it can sometimes help to visualize that. Look back with pride of what you did do, not with contempt of what you didn't!
Personally, I was the same until I discovered EA a year ago, and the central key for me was pledging. I know you mentioned not wanting to feel obligated to do it, but from my point of view, it's a good thing to cement your decision while being in the mindset. I don't view it as a negative thing, but a reminder of the dedication I once had to become less self-centered. Not everyone is naturally empathetic or altruistic, and it can be tough to stay consciously on a more generous path if you're not. especially when constantly being confronted with anti-giving mindsets and opinions.
Even if not committing with something "official", automating the donations can also help. My biggest mistake, so to speak, was that I needed to consciously donate my money each month. This naturally led to skipping and forgetting some without catching up, wildly changing the amount based on how much I currently feel like, and so on. Just deciding on some "minimal amount", setting up a recurring donation and having to actively cancel it to stop makes a big difference.
Another topic for me is trying to keep the mindset alive: Follow the charities, institutions or persons that inspired you or you feel connected with, via newsletters, LinkedIn or whatever social media you use. Seeing accomplishments regularly helps staying in touch with what you donate to, and some also add a bit of emotional flavor so that you don't just see numbers, but the actual impact campaigns have.
It can also help to re-read or re-watch what inspired you initially. e.g. I love going through Peter Singer's works from time to time because his writing style resonates with me and puts me back into the mindset I had when I decided to pledge.
Last but not least, if you feel like it, joining communities can also be incredibly helpful to have role models, feel connected, and just encourage each other.
With all that being said: I absolutely feel your struggles, I've been dealing with the same for years and only time can tell how I will feel about the pledge long-term. In my opinion, it's okay to not always be enthusiastic about being charitable - finding a minimum and sticking with it always felt worth it in the end for me, though. It's usually the fear of tomorrow that makes me unsure about it, but when looking back I never once thought "if only I saved the money I donated for x...". Instead, it's "I'm glad I was a part of this".
Thank you! In a way I was also on the fence for quite some time - I just didn't know about any official pledges, but 10% was the initial goal I slowly drifted away from. Afterwards it was not just finding out about EA and GWWC, but also several other events nudging me towards it. Most prominently a 10% increase of my salary that I was able to reflect on: Did it really improve my life in any meaningful way? The answer to that was a clear "no" and I felt that I might just as well give away what I gained, as I would not have missed it if it didn't happen.
If you're not fully behind it, there's always the possibility to go with a Trial and see how it feels. Perhaps you can slowly work towards what you consider your target, year by year. e.g. starting with what the calculator of The Life You Can Save recommends and then use salary increases to gradually climb towards it. But it's always a personal thing and so many factors behind it - it should be a moment of celebration and feeling good about the decision, not a pressured "I hope this works out" moment :).
All the best for your giving journey, I'm sure you will find a way that you feel comfortable and proud with.
It can also be framed the other way around: It's an even better opportunity to plant some seeds towards giving in people that would never have thought about it otherwise! I appreciate the kind words :).
I joined a startup company that grew over the years until it was eventually bought up by a publicly traded company, so I basically just worked at one place so far and my experience is rather limited. At least within that I can say though: Bigger companies are better, so I would aim at something that has at the very least 50 employees.
The startup time was extremely tough, as I had to do a lot of overtime and be available for customers and colleagues alike. Chances are also higher that you have to visit customers while fulfilling multiple roles and have to represent the company at events because the pool of people is so small. There was also a lot of peer pressure to join afterwork events, to the point of having to tell the CEO why you cannot come. It definitely tested my limits.
As the company size grew, I basically moved away from customer projects and instead built the product itself, which meant a lot less pressure and less need for availability and travel. Approaching the 100 employee number was kind of the golden time for me, combining the positive aspects of a startup (colleagues you can trust, strong association with the product, laid-back culture) with the ones from bigger companies (more shielded from customers by managers, less peer pressure for anything because there's now so many people). It was probably helping that I had proven myself to the relevant people already and got away with doing a lot independently, though. I basically rejected all offers/chances to move up into leadership or management positions, however, so basically holding back career opportunities to work more comfortably. My managers also tried to keep traveling demands away from me so that I can focus on my work.
After the company was bought up and the 100% remote time ended (that was kind of optimal for me), it feels like I am more at the mercy of the team tasks. In general, you have your team and mostly have to make sure that works out as long as you don't go past a senior position. You don't really need to join much outside of team events. However, you are just a number to the company and requirements can change. People come and go more frequently, buyups require sudden collaborations to integrate people and/or software, initiatives you want to do require you to convince managers instead of just doing it, etc.. Chances are also higher that you have to deal with very uncomfortable people, that colleagues don't care about the product and leave you hanging, and so on.
At the moment, the social aspects are often less of an issue for me and more the lack of care most people have. To many, it's just 9-5 and passing the hours. I'd love to work on something again that everyone is enthusiastic about. But depending on your role, this lack of enthusiasm also makes the social aspects easier because so few people care.
In short: Mid-sized companies with moderate team sizes seemed to be the best to me so far. Startups always sound the best on paper, but working there is actually the most demanding, I'd avoid them at all costs. But I'm pretty sure this all heavily depends on who is working there - the chances are just higher you won't have as many anxiety-inducing situations.
I'm not sure if any of this was helpful. All the best for you career in any case :).
I hope this is not too broad, but: Could you share aspects that put candidates higher on your priority list, and on the opposite end maybe red flags?
Some examples that come to my mind: Is being at a company for a very long time a negative or positive signal, or does it not even matter? Do a lot of certificates in the CV help, or are they irrelevant? Is a nice cover letter important to you? Maybe you have some anecdotes of unexpected things that completely changed your mind on a candidate?
I know this might be very individual and sometimes more of a "general gut feeling when seeing the whole picture" thing, but I thought there might be some helpful nuggets of wisdom!
I am a software engineer with now 10 years of experience. While I think I am doing very well, one of my biggest issues always has been socially: I am a very introverted, anxious person who is immensely stressed out by travel, afterwork and other things that are considered essential for the "family spirit" as some companies like to call it. I can communicate well and get along with people inside the work context, but I need a lot of recharge time, so to speak. While I tried to just get used to it, it exhausted me too much and didn't seem sustainable.
I've been looking into some job offerings in the EA sphere lately just out of curiosity for my future and unsurprisingly, the social aspect is usually very big. If you want to help people in poor countries, being there and seeing what you are working for is quite essential. And in general, altruism is about people connecting, so it seems natural that most jobs are very social.
Are there areas for meaningful jobs where someone like me could still fit in and do something good with their work, or is it better to stay in the corporate world in that case and give my money to those who do?
I haven't engaged with this topic much with relations to EA, this was more in a vegan context several years ago so that I don't have specific sources in mind off the top of my head. But it's typically in the direction of "It's like someone holding slaves while donating money against slavery"; or arguing that there is no such thing as merciful killing, so that just improving conditions is meaningless if we still hold them in cages and breed them just to eat/exploit them. Like kicking dogs for fun and then doing things to "kick less dogs" instead of stopping altogether, etc.
So it's still stuck in my head as a hypocritical action from me, redirecting money from other causes to one I don't even personally live up to. I can imagine seeing more nuanced takes in an EA context, hence I want to read up on this more.
First (half) year of being introduced to EA, super exciting to finally know that my donations have an impact :).
Hence I started this year very low with about 2% of my pre-tax income monthly to a local animal shelter, not knowing about EA.
Since August, I started my 10% pledge and donate to the German "center" Effektiv Spenden with an even spread for their three funds for global health, climate change and animal welfare, and a very small part to the platform directly.
On top of that I gave away 50% of bonuses I will receive beginning of next year for tax purposes early, that's 4200€ evenly spread between Against Malaria Foundation, Hellen Keller Int. and GiveDirectly. Global Health still has the strongest pull for me and I personally feel the strongest connection to GiveDirectly for how unique it is and how transparent their process is. Really makes you feel your impact and I like the idea of also improving lives dramatically instead of "just" keeping people alive under bad conditions, if that makes any sense. Some perspective for people on top of just getting by, if you will.
That being said, I will definitely think more about what causes to donate to. Especially democracy initiatives are something I am increasingly considering with the current situation in Europe, but maybe that will be on top of my 10% since I really don't know how effective that is and I might be a bit more ego-centric here wanting to do this locally.
Another "pain point" I will think about more is animal welfare - I read from many vegans that donating to it when not being vegan is hypocritical and I really get their point. Since I don't see myself becoming vegan in the near future, I might also drop that support since I'm apparently not really behind the cause. But I will have to think about this a bit more. Maybe combining it with Climate Change by supporting The Good Food Institute or something like that, I'm really not sure.
From my point of view, the biggest issue that makes this question an everlasting companion for most is uncertainty. Even if I could currently give 50% away and have the same standard, how will that look like in a few years? What if I lose my job in my 50s and struggle to find anything? What if my abilities will become meaningless because of technological advancements even earlier?
I would assume for most it's not a question of consumption vs. donations, as many essays and books make it sound. It's about the balance between how much to put into your own financial securement vs. donating. This is probably much easier to answer for promising 80,000 hours supported geniuses, but a very different picture for the Average Joe who struggled in school and to find employment in the first place. It's probably impossible to give clear answers when taking that into consideration, though.
Best of luck with those goals!
I can definitely relate to this: One suggestion I would have is to have an easier way to just track the amount of donations without selecting causes. I also took the easy way by just selecting effektiv-spenden.org, although I split my donations up amongst their funds. Simply because I want to avoid having to to maintain 4+ donation targets as my distributions shift. I understand that it's valuable to know how the donations are distributed, but that might lead to some being discouraged or cases like me where the actual donation targets are not correct for convenience reasons.
First off: On-and-off or not, that's 6 years of donating, even if it wasn't consistent on a monthly basis. I'm sure if you add this up, you could come up with amazing numbers summarizing what good in the world you already contributed to. While the people whose lives you have helped to improve or save are not able to thank you personally for it, it was still thanks to you and it can sometimes help to visualize that. Look back with pride of what you did do, not with contempt of what you didn't!
Personally, I was the same until I discovered EA a year ago, and the central key for me was pledging. I know you mentioned not wanting to feel obligated to do it, but from my point of view, it's a good thing to cement your decision while being in the mindset. I don't view it as a negative thing, but a reminder of the dedication I once had to become less self-centered. Not everyone is naturally empathetic or altruistic, and it can be tough to stay consciously on a more generous path if you're not. especially when constantly being confronted with anti-giving mindsets and opinions.
Even if not committing with something "official", automating the donations can also help. My biggest mistake, so to speak, was that I needed to consciously donate my money each month. This naturally led to skipping and forgetting some without catching up, wildly changing the amount based on how much I currently feel like, and so on. Just deciding on some "minimal amount", setting up a recurring donation and having to actively cancel it to stop makes a big difference.
Another topic for me is trying to keep the mindset alive: Follow the charities, institutions or persons that inspired you or you feel connected with, via newsletters, LinkedIn or whatever social media you use. Seeing accomplishments regularly helps staying in touch with what you donate to, and some also add a bit of emotional flavor so that you don't just see numbers, but the actual impact campaigns have.
It can also help to re-read or re-watch what inspired you initially. e.g. I love going through Peter Singer's works from time to time because his writing style resonates with me and puts me back into the mindset I had when I decided to pledge.
Last but not least, if you feel like it, joining communities can also be incredibly helpful to have role models, feel connected, and just encourage each other.
With all that being said: I absolutely feel your struggles, I've been dealing with the same for years and only time can tell how I will feel about the pledge long-term. In my opinion, it's okay to not always be enthusiastic about being charitable - finding a minimum and sticking with it always felt worth it in the end for me, though. It's usually the fear of tomorrow that makes me unsure about it, but when looking back I never once thought "if only I saved the money I donated for x...". Instead, it's "I'm glad I was a part of this".
Thank you! In a way I was also on the fence for quite some time - I just didn't know about any official pledges, but 10% was the initial goal I slowly drifted away from. Afterwards it was not just finding out about EA and GWWC, but also several other events nudging me towards it. Most prominently a 10% increase of my salary that I was able to reflect on: Did it really improve my life in any meaningful way? The answer to that was a clear "no" and I felt that I might just as well give away what I gained, as I would not have missed it if it didn't happen.
If you're not fully behind it, there's always the possibility to go with a Trial and see how it feels. Perhaps you can slowly work towards what you consider your target, year by year. e.g. starting with what the calculator of The Life You Can Save recommends and then use salary increases to gradually climb towards it. But it's always a personal thing and so many factors behind it - it should be a moment of celebration and feeling good about the decision, not a pressured "I hope this works out" moment :).
All the best for your giving journey, I'm sure you will find a way that you feel comfortable and proud with.
It can also be framed the other way around: It's an even better opportunity to plant some seeds towards giving in people that would never have thought about it otherwise! I appreciate the kind words :).
I joined a startup company that grew over the years until it was eventually bought up by a publicly traded company, so I basically just worked at one place so far and my experience is rather limited. At least within that I can say though: Bigger companies are better, so I would aim at something that has at the very least 50 employees.
The startup time was extremely tough, as I had to do a lot of overtime and be available for customers and colleagues alike. Chances are also higher that you have to visit customers while fulfilling multiple roles and have to represent the company at events because the pool of people is so small. There was also a lot of peer pressure to join afterwork events, to the point of having to tell the CEO why you cannot come. It definitely tested my limits.
As the company size grew, I basically moved away from customer projects and instead built the product itself, which meant a lot less pressure and less need for availability and travel. Approaching the 100 employee number was kind of the golden time for me, combining the positive aspects of a startup (colleagues you can trust, strong association with the product, laid-back culture) with the ones from bigger companies (more shielded from customers by managers, less peer pressure for anything because there's now so many people). It was probably helping that I had proven myself to the relevant people already and got away with doing a lot independently, though. I basically rejected all offers/chances to move up into leadership or management positions, however, so basically holding back career opportunities to work more comfortably. My managers also tried to keep traveling demands away from me so that I can focus on my work.
After the company was bought up and the 100% remote time ended (that was kind of optimal for me), it feels like I am more at the mercy of the team tasks. In general, you have your team and mostly have to make sure that works out as long as you don't go past a senior position. You don't really need to join much outside of team events. However, you are just a number to the company and requirements can change. People come and go more frequently, buyups require sudden collaborations to integrate people and/or software, initiatives you want to do require you to convince managers instead of just doing it, etc.. Chances are also higher that you have to deal with very uncomfortable people, that colleagues don't care about the product and leave you hanging, and so on.
At the moment, the social aspects are often less of an issue for me and more the lack of care most people have. To many, it's just 9-5 and passing the hours. I'd love to work on something again that everyone is enthusiastic about. But depending on your role, this lack of enthusiasm also makes the social aspects easier because so few people care.
In short: Mid-sized companies with moderate team sizes seemed to be the best to me so far. Startups always sound the best on paper, but working there is actually the most demanding, I'd avoid them at all costs. But I'm pretty sure this all heavily depends on who is working there - the chances are just higher you won't have as many anxiety-inducing situations.
I'm not sure if any of this was helpful. All the best for you career in any case :).
I hope this is not too broad, but: Could you share aspects that put candidates higher on your priority list, and on the opposite end maybe red flags?
Some examples that come to my mind: Is being at a company for a very long time a negative or positive signal, or does it not even matter? Do a lot of certificates in the CV help, or are they irrelevant? Is a nice cover letter important to you? Maybe you have some anecdotes of unexpected things that completely changed your mind on a candidate?
I know this might be very individual and sometimes more of a "general gut feeling when seeing the whole picture" thing, but I thought there might be some helpful nuggets of wisdom!
Thank you for doing this!
I am a software engineer with now 10 years of experience. While I think I am doing very well, one of my biggest issues always has been socially: I am a very introverted, anxious person who is immensely stressed out by travel, afterwork and other things that are considered essential for the "family spirit" as some companies like to call it. I can communicate well and get along with people inside the work context, but I need a lot of recharge time, so to speak. While I tried to just get used to it, it exhausted me too much and didn't seem sustainable.
I've been looking into some job offerings in the EA sphere lately just out of curiosity for my future and unsurprisingly, the social aspect is usually very big. If you want to help people in poor countries, being there and seeing what you are working for is quite essential. And in general, altruism is about people connecting, so it seems natural that most jobs are very social.
Are there areas for meaningful jobs where someone like me could still fit in and do something good with their work, or is it better to stay in the corporate world in that case and give my money to those who do?
I haven't engaged with this topic much with relations to EA, this was more in a vegan context several years ago so that I don't have specific sources in mind off the top of my head. But it's typically in the direction of "It's like someone holding slaves while donating money against slavery"; or arguing that there is no such thing as merciful killing, so that just improving conditions is meaningless if we still hold them in cages and breed them just to eat/exploit them. Like kicking dogs for fun and then doing things to "kick less dogs" instead of stopping altogether, etc.
So it's still stuck in my head as a hypocritical action from me, redirecting money from other causes to one I don't even personally live up to. I can imagine seeing more nuanced takes in an EA context, hence I want to read up on this more.
First (half) year of being introduced to EA, super exciting to finally know that my donations have an impact :).
Hence I started this year very low with about 2% of my pre-tax income monthly to a local animal shelter, not knowing about EA.
Since August, I started my 10% pledge and donate to the German "center" Effektiv Spenden with an even spread for their three funds for global health, climate change and animal welfare, and a very small part to the platform directly.
On top of that I gave away 50% of bonuses I will receive beginning of next year for tax purposes early, that's 4200€ evenly spread between Against Malaria Foundation, Hellen Keller Int. and GiveDirectly. Global Health still has the strongest pull for me and I personally feel the strongest connection to GiveDirectly for how unique it is and how transparent their process is. Really makes you feel your impact and I like the idea of also improving lives dramatically instead of "just" keeping people alive under bad conditions, if that makes any sense. Some perspective for people on top of just getting by, if you will.
That being said, I will definitely think more about what causes to donate to. Especially democracy initiatives are something I am increasingly considering with the current situation in Europe, but maybe that will be on top of my 10% since I really don't know how effective that is and I might be a bit more ego-centric here wanting to do this locally.
Another "pain point" I will think about more is animal welfare - I read from many vegans that donating to it when not being vegan is hypocritical and I really get their point. Since I don't see myself becoming vegan in the near future, I might also drop that support since I'm apparently not really behind the cause. But I will have to think about this a bit more. Maybe combining it with Climate Change by supporting The Good Food Institute or something like that, I'm really not sure.
Lots of things to think about next year.
From my point of view, the biggest issue that makes this question an everlasting companion for most is uncertainty. Even if I could currently give 50% away and have the same standard, how will that look like in a few years? What if I lose my job in my 50s and struggle to find anything? What if my abilities will become meaningless because of technological advancements even earlier?
I would assume for most it's not a question of consumption vs. donations, as many essays and books make it sound. It's about the balance between how much to put into your own financial securement vs. donating. This is probably much easier to answer for promising 80,000 hours supported geniuses, but a very different picture for the Average Joe who struggled in school and to find employment in the first place. It's probably impossible to give clear answers when taking that into consideration, though.