Joe, this is Derek, the author of the piece linked above. I think you make a good point. When I first heard Will explain "earning to give," a part of me considered it off-putting and radical, but I've come to see it as an expansive view of doing good, because I think there are a lot of people who (a) wouldn't be good at charitable work or (b) would be good at charitable work but are better at - and enjoy! - other work. For these people, it's inspiring to think they can make a huge difference, too.
There is always the question: What happens if you discourage too many wonderful, smart people from working at charities? And here, Will's answer would be, I think, that if that starts happening, then we should reevaluate the advice. But for now, I think, the earning to give philosophy carries tremendous upside for getting more people to think of themselves as essential contributors to charitable causes, no matter where they work.
As a counterpoint, a friend of mine was knocked by when she volunteered for a local charity. "What qualifications do you have?"
The question sounds elitist, but the point was that charities often have metric shitloads of untrained helping hands. What they need, right now, is people that know how to manage, run finances, computer networking. Advanced skillsets.
I actually think the 'earning to give' mindset would really just end up as more consciential salve rather than a new way of thinking, much like people already do with minor donations. "Working on Wall St" changes the way you think. Case in point: another friend of mine was in a relationship with a hardcore Anarchist for 5 years, and came from a poorish middle-class background herself. She'd worked shitty working class jobs. She was pretty exposed to the plight of the poor and aware of poverty issues. Then she got a job in banking. A year later she got a raise of $10k, and she was negative about it, bitching about "the government taking half in tax" and it going to "useless welfare". Complaining that despite her tax load (seriously, got a raise, and all she could do was complain), she still had to help out her single-mother sister with money. Welfare was worthless, why should she have to pay so much tax? She got a bit of a shock when I said "So... what about all those other women like your sister who don't have a sister in banking?".
And here in our software bubble, I have a friend who earns 50% more than the national average household income (average, not median). He talks as if he's poor - and I see similar when I read conversations here on HN. It's awfully common for a software developer to see someone else doing the same thing and making a few dollars more, to then reclassify themselves as 'poor'.
The point is that where you work and who you associate with change who you are and how you behave - and, ultimately, have a good chance of removing people from the pool of 'people who care' (like my banker friend above). I guess that it's not that she didn't care, it's just that she no longer saw...
I think that's a really important concern. At 80,000 Hours when we encourage people to earn to give we ensure they're embedded in the effective altruism community, take things like the Giving What We Can Pledge and so on - mechanisms by which to ensure that our future selves don't fail to live up to our ideals.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the rate of people becoming disillusioned when they do direct work in charities also (anecdotally seems to me) to be very high. Reason is that it's often very hard, often you don't feel like you're having much of an impact. Whereas if you enjoy working in the lucrative career you're in, the 'sacrifice' of donating even 50% isn't really that great, so it's potentially easier to continue in that path. I'm genuinely really unsure which has the greater dropout rate: earning to give, or direct charity work. If I had to bet I'd say it was direct charity work.
I actually already think that earning to give isn't the best path for most altruistic people who would be willing to work anywhere. This is a change of view from a few years ago. The reasons are: i) quite a few people are already very successfully earning to give and need really amazing opportunities to donate to; ii) a rising number of very wealthy people are donating most of their wealth (e.g. Giving Pledge). This means that on the margin we really need more talent to spend these donations well.
What I do think is:
- donating to highly effective charities (e.g. GiveWell recommendations) is a means by which anyone who's got a job in an affluent country can make a truly massive difference
- earning to give should be an option that's at least on the table for altruistically minded folks
- as you say, for people who would really enjoy very high-earning careers they shouldn't necessarily think "well I should do something I enjoy less because what I'm doing now doesn't have much social value." (I shudder when I see high-flying lawyers or financiers quitting and doing non-profit consulting outside their area of expertise). Via earning to give, these people really can have their cake and eat it.
- some careers are dual-benefit - e.g. entrepreneurship can generate huge social value in and of itself, and also be very lucrative
- for young people, the most important thing in the short term if you want to do good in the long term is to build skills, and you often build more skills in for-profits than in non-profits. While there, you should earn to give.
Overall I think that at the moment maybe 10% of the altruistic people who would be happy working anywhere should aim to earn to give long-term. It depends a lot on cause, though - some areas are more money-constrained; some more talent-constrained.
You are: a higher up at a very large company, whose process in some ways causes human suffering. Let's say the product, or byproduct causes cancer, and part of your job even, is to dispel the people who call your company out.
Who it better for you to,
(a Continue working the job, giving a very unreasonable amount of your salary to charity, which incidentally, attempts to research ways this human suffering
(b Work a different job that causes significantly less suffering (all jobs exploit someone/something else, let's be honest), but also causes you to make significantly less
(c Quit your career and join the Peacecorps full time, until retirement, using intelligent ways to invest in your previous earnings.
a2) Continue working the job for now, donate a substantial fraction of your income to charity, climb the ladder as rapidly as possible, and work to change the company in a direction you consider preferable if you think it's salvageable. (While there's a small set of jobs that are nearly irredeemable, such as the folks in a tobacco company or free-to-play gaming company researching how to make their product more addictive, there's a much larger set of jobs with a balance of questionable activities, with potentially some amount of influence over those activities.)
Interesting thought exercise: suppose you woke up tomorrow with the position (and requisite skills and connections) of running a company most people would consider irredeemable, such as a tobacco company. Could you, within a reasonable number of years, turn them into a well-respected company that's a net positive influence on society (and not just by dismantling them and donating the results)? I'd bet I could, within 8-10 years. (A bit less for a company for which the plan doesn't involve a few components of scientific research and advancement.)
You bet you could turn a tobacco company into something that's a net positive for society in 8-10 years? I'd like to see you try.
No, really, I actually would. I'm pretty sure it would do more good for humanity than working in computer science and donating your spare income to a cause you believe is an efficient use of your disposable income, even if you're particularly well paid or hit the startup jackpot...
I think what he was saying was if he woke up the CEO of a tobacco company and everyone he knew, all of his connections, everyone who worked at his company and, most importantly, the shareholders were on board with his plan... He could then pivot the company into something beneficial.
There is always the question: What happens if you discourage too many wonderful, smart people from working at charities? And here, Will's answer would be, I think, that if that starts happening, then we should reevaluate the advice. But for now, I think, the earning to give philosophy carries tremendous upside for getting more people to think of themselves as essential contributors to charitable causes, no matter where they work.