• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Arguing About Banking

    June 3rd, 2013
    earning_to_give, giving  [html]
    Discussion about earning-to-give often turns into discussion of whether working in finance is harmful. Would you be doing so much harm by speculating on staple foods that you can't do good on balance? Is it even legitamate to talk about "doing good on balance"? For example, in the HN discussion of Jason Trigg who works for a HFT company so that he can give more to the AMF, we see:
    scotty79:
    Meanwhile his employers will drain the third world by speculating on food based derivatives.
    piokoch:
    ... his everyday job leads in the long run to financial crises and to poverty that cannot be equalized by all wallstreet workers giving money to charities.
    genofon:
    ... instead of working to make the world a better place let's speculate on everything, trying to rip of as much as we can so then we can give our money away. It's like working as a lumberjack and then use your wages to plant other trees, you will never be able to replant what you destroyed previously.
    Overall the HN discussion is pretty good, and these aren't a high proportion of the comments, but this objection is very common. What to do?

    Most people within the effective altruism community are consequentialists used to thinking quantitatively. In that mindset these objections come down to the question of whether the marginal harm created by taking the job on Wall Street is greater than the marginal benefit of donating the additional money to effective charities. And then there's the question of replaceability: by taking this job are you replacing someone else who would have caused pretty much the same harms while not doing anything nearly as valuable with the money? Even then, are we sure the financial industry is causing net harm?

    It's worth taking a step back, however, and asking how we got to talking about this. Financial jobs are where a small number of bright activists can plausably make the most money, and these jobs are unpopular enough that many such activists wouldn't normally consider them. Finance as a high earning career is out of reach for nearly everyone, however, so there's not that much benefit to convincing the world at large to accept it as a good match for earning to give. Instead the examples of people in clearly beneficial jobs like Boris Yakubchik (high school math teacher) and Julia Wise (social worker at a prison) are both much less controversial and much more attainable for the typical reader. Earning to give, as an idea, doesn't require a strong consequentialist view where the direct effects of your job are outweighed by the good your donations do.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Governance in Rich Liberal American Cities

    Matt Yglesias has a blog post called Make Blue America Great Again, about governance in rich liberal states like New York and California. He talks about various good government issues, and he pays a lot of attention specifically to TransitMatters and our …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 19, 2020

    Collections: Why Military History?

    This week, I want to talk about the discipline of military history: what it is, why it is important and how I see my own place within it. This is going to be a bit of an unusual collections post as it is less about the past itself and more about how we st…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 13, 2020

    Misalignment and misuse: whose values are manifest?

    Crossposted from world spirit sock puppet. AI related disasters are often categorized as involving misaligned AI, or misuse, or accident. Where: misuse means the bad outcomes were wanted by the people involved, misalignment means the bad outcomes were wan…

    via Meteuphoric November 13, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact