{"items": [{"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759192934152", "anchor": "fb-759192934152", "service": "fb", "text": "Isn't it possible that encouraging more giving is still the highest impact way forward? Just because we've been doing it relatively well doesn't mean it's time to shift focus, does it?", "timestamp": "1448815710"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759192934152&reply_comment_id=759193083852", "anchor": "fb-759192934152_759193083852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ There are various reasons to believe that talent constraints are worth focusing on more. See this article, which Jeff linked to: https://80000hours.org/.../why-you-should-focus-more-on.../", "timestamp": "1448815952"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759192934152&reply_comment_id=759193423172", "anchor": "fb-759192934152_759193423172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oof, it's long. I'm probably not going to read it. But you're right, the reasoning here is a lot deeper than \"we've been encouraging giving relatively well so it's time to shift focus.\" Thanks!", "timestamp": "1448816240"}, {"author": "Ajeya", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759193368282", "anchor": "fb-759193368282", "service": "fb", "text": "What sorts of rituals, rhetoric, and activities might unite a movement that's focused on pursuing diverse careers to do good? I think it's valuable to shift from giving to careers, but extremely important to figure out how we can limit some of these disadvantages before we do that too quickly.", "timestamp": "1448816188"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759206442082", "anchor": "fb-759206442082", "service": "fb", "text": "Wow, this brought out the spammers in a hurry.", "timestamp": "1448820123"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759206442082&reply_comment_id=759222240422", "anchor": "fb-759206442082_759222240422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Whoops, fixed.", "timestamp": "1448825041"}, {"author": "Brian", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114156500057804356924", "anchor": "gp-1448828950694", "service": "gp", "text": "I wonder how much of this talent is local knowledge? If most of the work to be done is in Africa (for example), it seems like most of the practical skills needed (language, culture, and local know-how) are possessed by Africans, and people without that experience aren't going to be of much help? At least this seems to be the case with GiveWell's top charities. A foreigner will need to hire local help, which seems rather inefficient.", "timestamp": 1448828950}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652", "anchor": "fb-759281007652", "service": "fb", "text": "[Jeff can probably predict what I'm going to say...] What is your objective? If you want to make the world a better place for the people who are getting screwed the worst, then money isn't the answer. When I was in Kenya, there were almost no poor people. Now there are millions. The population has also quadrupled. I don't know how to fix that, but just giving money won't do it.", "timestamp": "1448831667"}, {"author": "Ajeya", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759281317032", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759281317032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Global poverty has actually been declining steadily for decades: http://ourworldindata.org/.../growth-and.../world-poverty/ You're right that \"just giving money\" probably didn't contribute hugely to it, but well-targeted, well-researched donations have been responsible for saving or transforming tens of millions of lives.", "timestamp": "1448831918"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759290309012", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759290309012", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Statistics say what you want them to a great deal of the time. Let's stick with numbers we're confident about. I'm confident that millions of American students are graduating with massive debt--something which didn't happen when I was young. There are beggars on our streets who weren't there before. 4,000,000 people lost their houses to banks over the past 10 years. Welfare cheques are absurdly small. The average American is significantly worse off today on almost every measure. So I find those happy statistics... doubtful. (That being said, the original problem remains no matter which is more true.)", "timestamp": "1448837029"}, {"author": "Nix", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759303402772", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759303402772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I do not buy your argument that statistics are easier to manipulate than anecdotal stories. But less us assume that what you say is true -- poverty is getting worse on a global and local level. Is that a reason to throw our hands up in despair? Why not continue to fight it, when we know that we can vastly improve some peoples lives?", "timestamp": "1448845186"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759311371802", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759311371802", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bil, I don't hear any suggestions here for helping at all - I accept that donations to, say, public health are not going to solve all the world's problems, but they seem like a good step forward. Definitely what I would want for my daughter if we lived somewhere without basic healthcare. When you say Americans are \"worse off\", when are you comparing us to? I'm pretty thrilled to be living now and not in, say, 1900. http://www.givinggladly.com/2012/06/way-it-was.html
Nix, unfortunately at least some of the decline of poverty comes from the World Bank moving the goalposts to put the \"extreme poverty\" line higher than it was: http://www.aljazeera.com/.../exposing-great-poverty...
But more concrete measures like child mortality are also falling.", "timestamp": "1448848088"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759344555302", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759344555302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Julia, my impression is actually that the World Bank is shifting goalposts in the *other* direction. The 2000 definition of extreme poverty was \"under $1.25\" (PPP adjusted)
The current definition is under $1.90: http://www.theguardian.com/.../world-bank-extreme-poverty...
Note that $1.25 in 2000 dollars is $1.73 in 2015 dollars (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), suggesting that the extreme poverty line has shifted ~10% upwards. And yet we STILL have made substantial progress in eradicating extreme poverty. This is a happy story indeed.", "timestamp": "1448872194"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759361661022", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759361661022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The gist of what I was aiming for is to agree with Jeff and reiterate that it's more important to be involved than simply donate. (And I admire the !#$!@#$ out of you and Jeff.)", "timestamp": "1448891196"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759363497342", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759363497342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan , you're right, I was misunderstanding the way the numbers went - thanks! Though even with PPP it's really hard to tell what the numbers mean in different places.", "timestamp": "1448892761"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759281007652&reply_comment_id=759365453422", "anchor": "fb-759281007652_759365453422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bil, I don't agree that \"more important to be involved than simply donate\" is a good representation of what Jeff said.
Also, I don't know if it's what you intended, but to me the phrase \"simply donate\" comes across as upsettingly disparaging of the kind of good that happens when donations cure people of parasitic worms, prevent children from dying of malaria, or prevent chickens/pigs/etc. from suffering and dying on factory farms.", "timestamp": "1448894280"}, {"author": "\u05e0\u05d7", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652", "anchor": "fb-759287494652", "service": "fb", "text": "Personally I'm a big fan of donating time to LOCAL problems, wherever you're located. My own interests are in volunteering to teach and mentor STEM subjects, but to me the added sustainability-community-building bonus of helping an organization nearby outweighs the benefits of funding, say, hygiene for women and children in Malaysia. But I'm not sure how logical this actually is.", "timestamp": "1448834924"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759302948682", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759302948682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The main downside of prioritizing local organizations is because the poorest people don't live near rich people they don't get help.", "timestamp": "1448844873"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759313058422", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759313058422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I happen to have been born in a rich country and community, but I try to look at it as a neutral observer - if I'm looking at the world to decide who would most benefit from help, is it the people with poor sanitation in Malaysia or the people with less-than-ideal STEM education in the neighborhood of Harvard? Probably not the latter.
That said, for people who have more time than money to give, it's possible to find ways to volunteer in one's local community and rarely possible to find useful ways to volunteer for the places most in need.", "timestamp": "1448848797"}, {"author": "\u05e0\u05d7", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759315124282", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759315124282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Local meaning like general region. Cambridge is local (by my definition) to Roxbury for instance. But point well taken.", "timestamp": "1448850261"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759315922682", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759315922682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ :( The poorest people in the world don't live in Roxbury either. Per-capita income in Roxbury is about 75x that in the Central African Republic for instance (sources: http://www.bestplaces.net/.../massachu.../west_roxbury/02132, http://data.worldbank.org/.../NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD/countries...)", "timestamp": "1448850920"}, {"author": "\u05e0\u05d7", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759320498512", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759320498512", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Right. And that's exactly the point of my original comment: should I be paying for people in *extreme* poverty in another country to have better, healthier lives? Is that an optimally effective way to create positive change in the world?
My concern is that sponsoring people on the other side of the planet isn't inherently sustainable the way tutoring students in my area of the world is.", "timestamp": "1448854278"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759352424532", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759352424532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Ben: That's West Roxbury, which is much richer than Roxbury by US standards. Your point still stands, though, but it's 33x instead of 75x. ($19k vs $44k).
http://www.bestplaces.net/.../massachusetts/roxbury/02119", "timestamp": "1448885201"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759352499382", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759352499382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Nika: What makes tutoring local students more sustainable than, say, funding public health interventions in other countries? They both seem mostly limited by our resources (time/money) and desire to help.", "timestamp": "1448885381"}, {"author": "\u05e0\u05d7", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759287494652&reply_comment_id=759370114082", "anchor": "fb-759287494652_759370114082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ As much as globalization makes international interventions possible, i *feel* (and this is exactly what I'd like some sort of quantitative analysis to replace) like it's better (more effective?) to build local relationships, like the ones I have with the students I tutor, than the \"relationship\" I'd have with the people I could help through funding a public health program.
An extremely cynical side of me says that if I help a local student go to college, she can have a much bigger positive impact on the world than if a whole village of people get sick and die slightly less often. I'm very curious especially with things like MIRI how we can evaluate the impact of our limited resources.", "timestamp": "1448897660"}, {"author": "Bill", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522", "anchor": "fb-759304525522", "service": "fb", "text": "Isn't a talent gap ultimately a funding gap? If you offer high enough salaries won't you be able to attract the talent that you need?", "timestamp": "1448845570"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759305907752", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759305907752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If you're trying to decide whether to earn to give or do something more directly the difference matters.", "timestamp": "1448846020"}, {"author": "Bill", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759307045472", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759307045472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ True. I guess I'm also skeptical that there are so few projects where funding gaps are the main problem. Given all the advantages of the earn to give model, especially its flexibility, I'm still not convinced that EA should shift its focus to a more direct work model.", "timestamp": "1448846321"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759307180202", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759307180202", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's more of an \"on the margin prefer direct work\" than \"no more earning to give\".", "timestamp": "1448846403"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759316790942", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759316790942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bill, one way that \"a talent gap [is] ultimately a funding gap\" could fail to hold is if we don't/can't do a good job efficiently compensating particular activaties that do good. For example, perhaps it's hard to use money to incentivize purely profit-motivated people to create new effective charities. It looks to me like we don't have the organizational/financial infrastructure for identifying/creating/growing new non-profits that we do for profit-making enterprises. So if you're not charitably inclined but have a great idea for an effective charity (and the matching skillset), is it worth trying in the hopes of getting rich off it? (Seems like no.)
If this is correct, then you'd expect potentially-effective new charities to be undersupplied by the current system, and there's not an easy/obvious way to use more donations to fix that.
As an aside, it seems possible a robust market in \"impact credits\" (http://www.benkuhn.net/impact-purchase) could solve the inefficiency and make it closer to true that \"a talent gap [is] ultimately a funding gap\", but I'm not sure.", "timestamp": "1448851365"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759344350712", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759344350712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"For example, perhaps it's hard to use money to incentivize purely profit-motivated people to create new effective charities.\" The vast majority of people out there aren't purely profit-motivated, but lifestyle considerations are generally a pretty significant part of career choice.
I really would like some empirical data on whether we have a shortage of people willing to do direct work for sufficiently increased job opportunities and compensation. For example, numbers of masters in global health who are underemployed or employed in higher paying roles that are unrelated to global health. (The underlying assumption being that almost all global health majors will want to work in global health if it lets them have a comfortable lifestyle).
Note that by direct work, Ben and Jeff are mostly referring to speculative plays like scientific research and politics (also possibly nonprofit entrepreneurship, but I am less convinced about this point than Ben is). Earning-to-give is still almost certainly a significantly better altruistic option than the Peace Corps.", "timestamp": "1448871660"}, {"author": "Bill", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759358572212", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759358572212", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Give Directly have almost limitless room for more funds given their model?", "timestamp": "1448889434"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759360503342", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759360503342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Bill: They do, so if you think giving money to people is the best way to help then we're going to be funding constrained for a long time. [1] But GiveWell thinks bednets and deworming are probably 10x more valuable than cash transfers [2] so building out more charities that can do higher leverage work should be more valuable than more money to GiveDirectly.
[1] And Todd does agree: https://80000hours.org/.../why-you-should-focus-more-on.../ has \"Important caveat: I\u2019m addressing this post towards people who already think they can do substantially more good than cash-transfers to the world\u2019s poorest people (e.g. via GiveDirectly). This intervention has huge room for more funding, so if you think that\u2019s the best thing that can be done, then funding is the main problem.\"
[2] http://blog.givewell.org/.../our-updated-top.../...", "timestamp": "1448890163"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759361027292", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759361027292", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"The vast majority of people out there aren't purely profit-motivated\"
I agree - \"purely profit-motivated\" was mainly a thought experiment to think about how good our infrastructure for incentivizing good works with money is. Most people are largely motivated by money in choices about work, though, so I think it has broad relevance.
Lifestyle considerations can go both directions, I think, and will vary by person.", "timestamp": "1448890629"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759304525522&reply_comment_id=759361251842", "anchor": "fb-759304525522_759361251842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"whether we have a shortage of people willing to do direct work for sufficiently increased job opportunities and compensation\"
I agree that's a good question. Note that even if you didn't find lots of global health majors doing other things, it's still very plausible that increased compensation would bring more people into the field.", "timestamp": "1448890879"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759347334732", "anchor": "fb-759347334732", "service": "fb", "text": "You alluded to this, but I think I will make this point explicit: In some sense, everybody can \"earn-to-give.\" Pretty much every healthy person in the first world is capable of getting a job that pays more than their expenditures, and the delta could at least in theory be given to the most effective charities. Obviously some people (those working in finance or tech entrepreneurship, for instance) are better at it than others, but the difference is one of degree and not of kind.
On the other hand, even though 80,000 Hours is moving away from replaceability, it's not clear that a mediocre (or less than mediocre. 50% of people are below the median!) politician or NGO worker is actually creating counterfactually positive value.", "timestamp": "1448876953"}, {"author": "Tom", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852", "anchor": "fb-759348272852", "service": "fb", "text": "\"We've been doing well enough at earning to give and influencing foundations that it's getting harder to find giving opportunities that are primarily bottlenecked on funding.\"
Is there a good summary of the evidence for this somewhere? GiveWell's recommended charities have enormous room for more funding. Even if they did run out of this, there'd still be hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty, so I expect GiveWell would be able to find other charities which could productively help these people.
\"Over time, however, doing good via your career has been becoming a bigger part of effective altruism, with yesterday's 'why you should focus more on talent gaps, not funding gaps' being closer to how people are thinking about things now.\"
I agree that some people have focused more on this, but it's not clear that they've provided solid arguments for their view. In practice, effective altruism still seems to primarily involve donating for most people. I'm not aware of convincing suggestions for non-donation-focused careers that most EAs could go into and thereby do more good than if they earned to give. Peter's excellent post on this topic is relevant: http://effective-altruism.com/.../peter_hurford_thinks.../", "timestamp": "1448878754"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759353123132", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759353123132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Benjamin recently wrote up a good post on this: https://80000hours.org/.../why-you-should-focus-more-on.../", "timestamp": "1448885774"}, {"author": "Benjamin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759353941492", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759353941492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Peter's post also has a lot of mistakes, many of which he accepts in the comments. See the comments by AGB, Will, myself and Rob.", "timestamp": "1448886289"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759365463402", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759365463402", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Benjamin \"Lots of mistakes\" is one way to put it. ;)
-
Tom: As Ben says in his post, \"Important caveat: I\u2019m addressing this post towards people who already think they can do substantially more good than cash-transfers to the world\u2019s poorest people (e.g. via GiveDirectly). This intervention has huge room for more funding, so if you think that\u2019s the best thing that can be done, then funding *is the main problem.*\"
It sounds like you want an argument that we can do better than cash transfers.", "timestamp": "1448894309"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759370134042", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759370134042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Tom: Ben also posts seven reasons why you should earn to give, and I think those reasons actually fit a fair number of people (for example, I fit 2, 3, 4, maybe 6, and 7).
\"1. You especially want to pursue a career that has little direct impact, but still want to do good. e.g. you love architecture and really want a job in the area, but don\u2019t think you\u2019ll have much direct impact in architecture.
2. You\u2019re a really good fit for a very high earning option, like tech entrepreneurship or quant trading.
3. You\u2019re extremely uncertain about which causes to support, and so you want to save money and decide where to donate it later.
4. You want to build career capital, and decide that working in business is the best way to do so.
5. You\u2019re only prepared to devote a proportion of your resources to helping the world, and that proportion is less than would be required to get expertise in a talent gap.
6. You\u2019re a major advocate for earning to give, e.g. there has been press coverage about you pursuing it.
7. You\u2019re already part way down the path and it\u2019s going well.\"", "timestamp": "1448897673"}, {"author": "Tom", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759385982282", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759385982282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yep, despite the comments that Ben mentions I still broadly agree with Peter's post on ETG. This is indeed in part because I think that most people can do most good by donating to global poverty charities (including but not limited to cash transfers), and that so far we only know of a relatively small number of opportunities to do valuable direct work, which it doesn't make sense for most EAs to go into.
The different views that people have about what causes and opportunities to do good are most valuable seem to explain many of the different views in this area.
I read 'Why you should focus more on talent gaps, not funding gaps'. It was very interesting and thoughtful, and contained several good points which shifted my view somewhat. But I'm still not aware of convincing specific suggestions for a set of careers that most EAs could do more good in than if they earned to give. I'd love to hear such a list!", "timestamp": "1448907576"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348272852&reply_comment_id=759482493872", "anchor": "fb-759348272852_759482493872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The thing I liked most about Ben's post is that soon we'll be moving into what you might call the \"Good Ventures era\". If GV were to fill the major funding gaps of GW-recommended charities, then GW-aligned EA donors would have to have a big reckoning with whether cash transfers do enough good to warrant continued high levels of personal donations. (Maybe they do! But it's a much less compelling case than saving a statistical life for a few thousand dollars, especially with the ROI a lot lower than was generally guessed a few years ago.)
But, the latest GiveWell blog post pre-empts these thoughts, in the section titled 'Coordination issues': http://blog.givewell.org/.../good-ventures-and-giving.../
(My summary/wording follows.)
GW don't want to create a setup in which GV closes all funding gaps for all recommended charities, leaving individual donors wondering if there's any point to donating. GW figure that, while the GV total funds dwarfs what individuals are currently donating, the latter still has the chance to grow considerably over the next few years and be a useful source of additional money moved.
(I would add that it's perhaps useful for GW to keep outsiders interested, just so that GW attract the sort of public scrutiny that is one of the pillars of their reputation.)
Furthermore, Holden says he can easily imagine a future (longer-term) in which Open Phil is moving $400mn or even $1bn annually: http://blog.givewell.org/.../should-the-open.../
So, at least in Holden's vision, it's plausible that GV can start making appropriately large grants, while still leaving much more room for individual donors than we would currently fill.", "timestamp": "1448978463"}, {"author": "William", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759348632132", "anchor": "fb-759348632132", "service": "fb", "text": "Great post thanks!!", "timestamp": "1448879338"}, {"author": "Benjamin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354460452", "anchor": "fb-759354460452", "service": "fb", "text": "I agree with these points - they are a major downside of moving more towards talent gaps than funding gaps. I have some more discussion here: https://80000hours.org/.../why-you-should-focus-more.../...", "timestamp": "1448886519"}, {"author": "Robert", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872", "anchor": "fb-759354749872", "service": "fb", "text": "Firstly, I think you're underestimating the difficulty of providing evidence based careers advice. It's not only an immature field, but I also find it difficult to imagine how it could be made rigorous. Certainly the Benjamin post linked to by you goes no further than saying that certain career choices \"could plausibly turn out to be much better than what we're already working on\". I realise it's intended as a sketch of possible ideas, but the sketch doesn't include sketching a hypothetical evidence base on which such decisions could be made without resorting to people's guts.
Secondly, while I recognise that many interventions are not funding constrained, I would take considerable convincing to believe that it's hard to find opportunities which are primarily bottle-necked by funding. I notice for example that GiveWell expressly state that their \"top charities\" are all underfunded. Todd even caveats his post by noting that there is huge room for more funding for GiveDirectly.
Thirdly, a lot of the mooted opportunities to do good through direct work are things which very many people are already trying to do. For instance, enormous numbers of people found charities and nearly all of them do so in the belief that their new charity will be effective. Founding a charity which GiveWell would recommend is really hard and I would expect that only a handful of exceptional people would be able to do it. Similarly, lots of people would like to improve government policy and entry into the civil service fast-stream is highly competitive, so it doesn't seem likely that a particular individual making that choice rather than another will have a high impact (also consider that government policy is democratically constrained). You yourself have noted (in your 2012/04/03 post) that people tend to overestimate their own abilities, so it seems foolish to make career decisions based on the assumption that the person deciding will be significantly more effective at whatever it is they're trying to do than all the other people already trying to do that thing.", "timestamp": "1448886955"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759363197942", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759363197942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"I also find it difficult to imagine how it could be made rigorous.\"
Charity evaluation has similar problems. How do I know the real long term effects improving salt iodization? The question isn't \"can we make this fully rigorous\" but \"can we make this robust enough that using it means we're confident we're having a large positive impact compared to not using it?\".
\"the sketch doesn't include sketching a hypothetical evidence base on which such decisions could be made without resorting to people's guts\"
While Todd doesn't get into it in that blog post, he and 80,000 Hours have made progress here. For example, see https://80000hours.org/.../how-to-assess-the-impact-of-a.../
\"I would take considerable convincing to believe that it's hard to find opportunities which are primarily bottle-necked by funding. ... noting that there is huge room for more funding for GiveDirectly\"
There are definitely opportunities that are funding-limited, but the question is whether we can do more good by putting more funding into them or through some other way. GiveWell thinks AMF is ~10x more cost-effective than GiveDirectly [1] so identifying, expanding, or creating more organizations like that should go farther.
\"For instance, enormous numbers of people found charities and nearly all of them do so in the belief that their new charity will be effective.\"
Most people who found charities are not trying to found one GiveWell would be likely to recommend. For example, most founders don't start by considering what interventions are out there with strong evidence but no strong organization working on it.
\"Founding a charity which GiveWell would recommend is really hard and I would expect that only a handful of exceptional people would be able to do it.\"
I still agree with this, though.
\"lots of people would like to improve government policy and entry into the civil service fast-stream is highly competitive, so it doesn't seem likely that a particular individual making that choice rather than another will have a high impact\"
Todd describes his thinking in [2], but you're right that just going into civil service wouldn't be enough if you just did the same thing other people who go into the civil service do. Either you need to be significantly better at doing the job as normally conceived (which you're right we shouldn't expect most people to be), or you need to be able to apply EA-like considerations in a way that means allocating government spending in a way someone without an EA orientation wouldn't have pushed for.
[1] http://blog.givewell.org/.../our-updated-top.../...
[2] https://80000hours.org/.../policy-oriented-civil-service-uk/", "timestamp": "1448892482"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759368113092", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759368113092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Founding a charity which GiveWell would recommend is really hard and I would expect that only a handful of exceptional people would be able to do it. Similarly, lots of people would like to improve government policy and entry into the civil service fast-stream is highly competitive\"
I agree with this point a lot. I'm often unsure who the target audience for an 80k blog post is, and Ben's latest is one of these cases (worthy post though it is regardless). I get the impression that they're talking to Oxbridge/Ivy-League super-ambitious go-getters who might actually have a chance at achieving some lofty EA goals. As, e.g., a small number of people have managed to do with earning to give six figures a year after graduating.
(Founding a charity that gets recommended by GiveWell is a step up again though. I'd guess that the sort of niches that GiveWell would like to be filled soon are more likely to be created by someone(s) with existing experience in the non-profit sector rather than the mostly young crop of recent graduates in the EA community.)
In the broader EA community, the number of people donating large amounts is pretty small -- in the last survey, only something like a quarter of self-identified EA's who gave both donation and salary numbers hit the GWWC target of 10% of income donated.
Usually in EA circles, people with regular jobs donating 10% to cost-effective charities is talked up as a really great thing to do (and I agree that it is, self-serving as that may be). On the other hand, 80k seem to tailor themselves towards people who want to devote their _lives_ to effective altruism, whether by earning to give enormous amounts, or through some as-yet not-well-defined career paths through the public service/non-profit/for-profit/whatever.
And so (it looks to me) they sort of treat the people donating ~10% as a background -- something to take into account if you're one of the super-ambitious go-getters they're talking to. Which I'm fine with -- people with lots of earning potential and/or great business/organisational skills are potentially very valuable, and it's good if they can be pointed/point themselves in a good direction for the world.
But it does end up with 80k looking like a particularly small and elite niche inside broader EA (albeit a valuable one), and I don't know how much prominence they ought to have in the movement as a whole.
(80k people will probably disagree with me, but those are my impressions.)", "timestamp": "1448896496"}, {"author": "Robert", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759378058162", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759378058162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ By definition, there are no charities as effective as the most effective charity, so it doesn't seem like much of a benchmark. Trying to create a new charity as effective as AMF seems about as realistic a goal as trying to found a company as successful as Google. Similarly, it seems intuitively obvious that once you start trying to give effectively, you will fairly quickly exhaust the best opportunity, and you'll then have to move on to the second best and so on, so the first \u00a3billion you give will be significantly more effective than the second \u00a3billion. It doesn't follow that giving the second \u00a3billion won't be worthwhile.
Looking at this post http://blog.givewell.org/.../15/charities-wed-like-to-see/ I have to think that I'm not going to be the best person to set up (e.g.) a highly effective vitamin A supplementation programme. As the person setting up the programme, you'd hire researchers, diplomats, fund-raisers, field operatives and administrators (all of whom can readily be hired) and your role would essentially be managing the whole thing and ensuring that everyone is working as effectively as possible. The skills needed to do that are essentially management skills. Since management consultants exist, it seems we can get it back to money. I would guess if you offered a salary of \u00a3250k a year rising to \u00a31m a year for any year in which the organisation was GiveWell recommended, you would be able to recruit someone suitable.
I note that in Todd's 2015/11/13 post, one of his action points is to apply to work at Evidence Action, which from what I can see seems to be broadly aiming at establishing effective charities. But when I follow that link, I see that that organisation is at least more prominently seeking donations than seeking staff. When I look at the list of vacancies, they seem mostly to be things which will likely be done just as well by non-EAs, so if I can give them some money they can probably hire two people who will each be just as effective as I would be. (Also it seems that the submission deadline for most of those vacancies has past, so I'm not sure how many actually exist.)", "timestamp": "1448902510"}, {"author": "Robert", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759384135982", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759384135982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also, this seems to be solving a problem we don't have. The link you provided to GiveWell's 2015/11/18 post states that after receiving the recommended grant from Good Ventures, AMF will have an execution level 1 funding gap of $27.5m and they expect other donors to give approximately $15m (in total), which means there will still be significant funding gap. Furthermore, I note that GiveWell's top charities (including AMF) have significantly increased capacity for funding as against last year, and it seems at least possible that their capacity for funding will continue increase as they receive more support. Todd's 2015/07/26 post indicates that planned ETG donations for 2015-18 run at about $3m a year, which seems like it must be insufficient to fully fund even the single top recommendation of GiveWell.", "timestamp": "1448906766"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759393522172", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759393522172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Robert: Good Ventures wants to ramp up their giving substantially, and many people earning to give are near the beginnings of their careers. Because career decisions take many years to play out we can't just be going based on this year's room for more fundings.", "timestamp": "1448913331"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759394230752", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759394230752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ David: I'm a bit puzzled by your claim \"I'm often unsure who the target audience for an 80k blog post is\". I get that names aren't everything, but it *is* a site called \"Eighty Thousand Hours\", an intentional synonym for \"The Entirety of Your Career\". Perhaps I'm just being naive, but it seems obvious to me that they're writing for \"people who want to devote their *lives* to effective altruism\", that thus, yes, they should be a targeted niche, and that they should be prominent in certain circles and less so in others.
(sorry for the thread-jump; Facebook's two-level nesting is frustrating sometimes)", "timestamp": "1448913885"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759394495222", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759394495222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Ross: on the other hand it's not always clear when 80k is targeting anyone who wants a highly altruistic career vs the subset of those with elite backgrounds.", "timestamp": "1448914129"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759354749872&reply_comment_id=759394624962", "anchor": "fb-759354749872_759394624962", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff: Ah, that's what I was missing.
I'm now pondering whether there's any safe-for-public-consumption (or, I guess, useful) way of making that distinction in discussion about {available, attainable, effective} EA career paths.", "timestamp": "1448914307"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1448889681570", "service": "gp", "text": "@Brian\n\u00a0What seems inefficient about working with local knowledgeable people?", "timestamp": 1448889681}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759374445402", "anchor": "fb-759374445402", "service": "fb", "text": "I was thinking just the other day that it's actually a tad odd that when we talk about effective altruists we're talking both about givers and doers. I mean, it makes sense on some level, but it makes intentions like \"grow the EA movement\" kind of vague, because different approaches could yield mostly-doers or mostly-givers, and so if we're trying to debate whether or not we should grow the EA movement (or how fast) we need to also make sure we are clear on which kind of people we're mostly attracting.", "timestamp": "1448900699"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=759374445402&reply_comment_id=759374510272", "anchor": "fb-759374445402_759374510272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (this extends to other ways to break down EAs too, I suppose)", "timestamp": "1448900713"}, {"author": "Brian", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114156500057804356924", "anchor": "gp-1448910267212", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm in favor of working with local people. I'm uncertain whether it's worthwhile for a volunteer from another country to start working in Africa, unless they are a doctor or something like that.\n
\n
\nTo argue in favor of \"doing\" for a foreigner, we need to show that the level of skill they bring to the job compensates for the expense of taking care of a foreigner and the opportunity cost of not hiring more local workers instead.\n
\n
\nPerhaps, if there is a talent gap, it needs to be filled by helping more Africans learn the relevant skills?\u00a0It might help to come up with some specific examples of talent gaps.", "timestamp": 1448910267}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1448914297873", "service": "gp", "text": "@Brian\n\u00a0\nhttp://blog.givewell.org/2015/10/15/charities-wed-like-to-see/\n has an overview of some organizations that givewell would fund if they existed. \u00a0They don't currently exist, so it's hard to turn money into progress on those interventions right now.", "timestamp": 1448914297}, {"author": "Brian", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114156500057804356924", "anchor": "gp-1448932207111", "service": "gp", "text": "Okay, makes sense. Founding a new charity that meets GiveWell's standards is certainly a tough job.", "timestamp": 1448932207}, {"author": "Rachel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/759189151732?comment_id=760264381962", "anchor": "fb-760264381962", "service": "fb", "text": "amen", "timestamp": "1449439105"}]}