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 Philathropy".

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 to 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.

I don’t think you have to been a total utilitarian to believe in “saving lives”. That is because an increase in population is not the main benefit of saving lives, and indeed many interventions that we think of as “saving lives” may have no or even a negative impact on total population.

Population dynamics are complicated and not that well understood, but one thing we know is that reduced infant and child mortality has a negative effect on birth rates. Intuitively you could think of this is a de-risking effect; if a parent wants to ensure that at least one or two kids make it to adulthood, then many more births are required under a high mortality environment.

Or better yet, just give up on cookies altogether and don’t serve a notice to anyone. Like Wikipedia.