Update: I found this questionnaire from GiveWell to be very helpful
Do-It-Yourself Charity Evaluation Questions
https://www.givewell.org/charity-evaluation-questions?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Thanks for sharing this post. I think it deserves a lot more thought and discussion. When I've asked this question in the past I've been encouraged to not go down this rabbit hole because it's not effective, and I disagree. 

I run a giving pledge and often encounter people who want to give with their heart. I never want to lead with the sentiment  “The causes you care about aren’t an effective use of your resources” That's just polarizing. So I'd rather meet them in the middle.  

It makes me wonder if there’s a “loss leader” effect here: If people are encouraged to explore effectiveness in a cause area they care about (maybe a "normie" area like social justice or supporting victims of abuse), they might discover that either there’s not enough evidence of impact or that real change requires substantial research. That, in turn, could help them understand why effective organizations matter. It seems like an important part of the mindset shift.

I also notice organizations like GiveDirectly sometimes fund very visible causes, like emergency relief for widely publicized disasters (e.g., the LA wildfires). Clearly, that goes against the EA focus on highly-neglected problems. But perhaps it works as a kind of entry point: people who care about these high-profile issues can encounter GiveDirectly and then learn about other, highly effective but less-known opportunities. At least in the emergency relief space, we know GiveDirectly is doing effective work, which might help bridge that gap?

Here's what else I'd want to know more about:

• A list of questions one can ask directly of a charity with examples of what quality effective answers look like -- it should quickly point to whether or not that charity has answers
• Effective organizations that have some sort of focus on more popular issues -- like climate change, emergency relief, women and children, etc -- that way we can at least introduce more organizations than the few listed on GiveWell, The Life You Can Save, etc. 

Wow! I appreciate the vulnerability in this post. It gives me a lot of perspective on what motivates people to give back / do good. Ultimately is it the motivation that matters or the impact? Probably the latter. Recognizing that we can’t do everything, but we can always something. This is why the pledge exists in part. 

Hi Soraya - I find this interesting. As someone who donates from my regular brokerage account via manual form each month, I'd love to streamline this. I think this would be especially appealing to someone who (A) wants to donate appreciated stock with some degree of automation (B) has a number of charities they donate to regularly. For example, being able to create "rules" -- e.g. donate X shares of Y stock each month, draw from lowest cost basis". Perhaps you can receive a reminder of the action before it's completed so you can review. 

Question to clarify - is donating a percentage of profit based on actual sales? Curious how you envision this being beneficial to users. 

First, I want to be clear I'm not an investment advisor. 

But with that out of the way, I almost always lean towards the 3-fund portfolio. It's easy, low-cost, transparent, and leads to the least amount of speculation. My personal strategy is "set it and forget it". I rarely look at fund performance, I'm just playing the long game and investing in as many types of assets as possible that require minimal-to-zero effort on my part. With that said, I do tailor my 3-fund strategy to my specific financial situation - it's minimal tailoring, but I focus on my allocations (stocks vs. bonds broadly speaking) and the types of accounts I'm investing in (e.g. 401k vs. regular investment account). 

If I am to question this strategy, it's in one of the legs of the 3-fund stool. I have no major qualms with investing in the index funds that represent the stock market (maybe some moral ones but generally speaking not really). Where I pause is with Bond Funds. Stocks are meant to support growth in your portfolio (and maybe dividend payouts). Bonds? Well what are they for? To perform well when stocks are down? To provide consistent cash payments? To stabilize your portfolio? Provide inflation protection? Total Bond funds like BND try to do all of this and as a result kind of do none of this.  

So TLDR: I think it's worth considering a more tailored bond strategy that is specific to your financial situation, where as you probably don't need to be doing this with stocks. 

With all that said, the more you tailor the more you speculate!

Thanks for posting this, @Dave Cortright 🔸 —and appreciate the Yield & Spread shoutout too! It’s been five years since I reached FI, and it’s given me such a solid foundation to shape a life that feels meaningful (or at least, I hope so!). So i'm glad to see when others find value in talking about it. If you're not thinking about FI, I think it's worthwhile. Here are some of it's superpowers. 

1. FI folks know how much they need to live a happy life, which makes it easier to create space to give back
2. FI offers the freedom to choose careers more intentionally, since there's less dependence on income.
3. FI provides the flexibility to pursue high-impact projects

@Lorenzo Buonanno🔸 you might like the work of Frank Vasquez from Risk Parity Radio. Don't let the lack of design aesthetic deter you :) He's made a lot of waves in the FI community pushing for alternative approaches to the 3-fund portfolio. 

Is there a possible world to "divest" or "spin out" the non-AI work of 80k hours org? I understand that this in and of itself could be a huge haul and may defeat the purpose of the re-alignment of values -- but could the door remain open to this if someone/another org expressed interest?

Hey Jeremy - Thanks for commenting. Some of the simplicity comes from the fact that the user will have likely used a traditional FI calculator first. So there is a little learning bump if you have not! Else, there are descriptions of each input if you hover over their names. Here's some further explanation to your questions:

"Traditional retirement age" depends on where you live. In the US it's 65-67. This input is there to help with the calculations for Coast FI and to understand your wealth if you kept working until this age. It is not meant to be your retirement age goal if that's different than what's the traditional one. 

"Passive Cashflow" is separate than your income - it's for things like additional income sources like collecting rent from an investment property or a side hustle you have, 

Retirement savings should definitely be included in your portfolio value.   

Re: Social Security - There is a lot of back and forth in the FI community if this should be counted. Many say yes, some say no. To be conservative it's usually not included in this type of calculator, but I think it's well worth getting those estimates and knowing what they are. Typical FI calcs don't include this just because it's hard to build in!

"Years to FI" will output a text statement if you are FI already (years would be 0 to FI) OR if you have no chance of hitting FI with the financials you put in (years to FI would be n/a). Else it does output a number of years to FI if you are on the right path. It may just be the inputs you used? I'll double check that just in case.

Else - great catch on that error. I thought i caught it in a previous round of edits. Huge help, gonna double check everything. 

Thank you!