Hi Joseph, I am not trying to get you to sign the GWWC pledge or anything (and I am not a pledger myself), but would you mind giving an example budget and balance sheet showing the scenario you are describing? I'd be interested in understanding the income, expenses, and assets of someone in the situation that you have in mind, as well as what would constitute an adequate "nest egg".

If we're talking about people who literally have no income... then it does seem odd to ask how much they are donating. Though I also think that if the question were asked, it would be an okay answer to say, "I'm not donating right now because I don't have any income." Do you disagree? I would also ask, are there very many such people applying to EA jobs? How do they feed, clothe, and shelter themselves?

As for HCOL... As I wrote in a cousin comment to this one, I was able to donate 10% after tax while working minimum wage in a an HCOL area and TBH I don't have a ton of sympathy for those who say that they can't afford to do so today. For example, if we look at the SF Bay Area (the most expensive metro area in the country), the total cost of living is only about 15% less than the US average. The California minimum wage is $16.50/hour, which is about $28,000 after tax, or about $24,000 adjusted for cost of living. That is still richer than 92% of the people in the world!

As for feelings of financial insecurity/instability... I think someone in the above situation is rich enough to be able to both save for the future and give to charity. Do you disagree?

Just to be clear, I am certainly not arguing that there are no people in the United States that aren't rich enough to donate to charity. Those with expensive or debilitating medical issues, for example, might not be able to make enough money to donate. And those with recent criminal records, or crushing debt relative to income, also might not be able to — though this category seems  like mostly a consequence of past decisions? And anyway, I would ask again, are there so many people like this applying to EA jobs?

someone in the top 10% ($20k/year) and someone in the top 1% (>$60k/year) have very different abilities to donate

I mean, I agree with this, but also, I was able to donate 10% after tax when I was making around $14k/year working minimum wage. At the time I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and shared a not-great apartment with 2 other people, though I did have my own bedroom.

Asking the question, "how much money did you donate", with no room for context, doesn't seem like a great interview question to me — I would think it would be much more interesting to ask, "how do you decide how much to donate" or similar. My main disagreement, though, is with the idea that there are very many people applying to rich-country white-collar jobs who are simply not "able to donate".

How should those vote who are already living in a high-income country with freedom, good infrastructure, and effective governance?

(I ask this without attempting to imply anything about precisely which countries qualify).

Should those with impressive backgrounds click "Disagree" here?

(I ask this without attempting to imply anything about whether or not my own background counts as "impressive").

I mean, I don't think there is anyone (or hardly anyone) who is applying to EA jobs and who is not rich by global standards. What do you have in mind when you're thinking of those who are not "able to donate"? Unless by "EA job applications" you're referring to like "GiveDirectly Field Officer" or something, in which case I agree, that would be a weird question to ask (but, I feel, still not completely unreasonable?).

If I have not really seen any hiring practices at all, or not seen them recently, should I abstain?

Thanks for this comprehensive and well thought out post.

I wonder if any of the Taiwan watchers here have a sense for why Taiwan's military is so poorly run? My impression is that if we were to get into another proxy war in Taiwan, the situation would be much more like Vietnam than like Ukraine — the Taiwanese military just doesn't seem to have much of a fighting spirit, despite the dire straights the island is in. For example, although Taiwan has universal conscription, I've read that the experience is more like going to a boy scout camp than joining the military. One might only fire weapons on a few occasions. Is my understanding wrong? Does the Taiwanese government think that trying for a "real" military is unnecessary because they are sure to lose in a ground war?

It feels like some kind of milestone to see Open Philanthropy funding Charity Navigator, whose previous CEOs once called EA "Defective Altruism" and an "Elitist Philanthropy".

But, I'm not sure which direction the milestone is. Is it that EA ideas have become so accepted that they are now even embraced by Charity Navigator? Or is it that EA has become so diluted that it's funding anything and everything, even Charity Navigator?

I'd say two things:

1. If you are aware of unethical or illegal behavior at the company, I would suggest raising it through internal or external whistleblower channels. For example, you could raise this to your compliance officer or to the firm's attorneys. There are definitely internal channels available to you to report things, even anonymously. Furthermore, there are many external reporting options available to you, some of which might compensate you in the event the company is fined. For example, there are whistleblower programs associated with the SEC, CFTC, FCPA, and AML, which can pay whistleblowers up to 30% of sanctions. If you are considering seeking whistleblower compensation, I would suggest speaking with an attorney first.
2. As far as your specific position at Wells Fargo, I would suggest that it depends on a couple of factors. One is whether your specific role is important to enabling these scandals. For example, if you became aware of LIBOR manipulation, but are working as a bank teller, then I don't think there is any ethics-based reason for you to resign. The other consideration is how the bank would respond to your absence. For example, if the bank were to hire someone to replace you, who would be better at your job, or less likely to raise a whistleblower complaint, or otherwise worsen the scandal, then arguably it would be better for you to stay. Essentially this second consideration asks, what is the counterfactual if you were to resign, and would that be better or worse overall?

Finally, though you asked about ethics, I would also suggest that you consider the effects of your actions on your career. For example, having your name publicly out there as a whistleblower could limit your career options in some ways. On the other hand, you probably don't want to have a position on your resume that is later shown to have been associated with some scandal.