Contra the Giving What We Can Pledge - EA Forum

Contra the Giving What We Can pledge — EA Forum 
 
 This website requires javascript to properly function. Consider activating javascript to get access to all site functionality. Contra the Giving What We Can pledge 

 by AlyssaVance Dec 4 2016 5 min read 80 22

 Building effective altruism Effective giving 10% Pledge Criticism of effective altruist organizations Criticism of work in effective altruism Donation pledge Giving Pledge Giving What We Can Frontpage Yesterday, there was a Facebook thread discussing arguments against the Giving What We Can (GWWC) pledge, where people promise to donate 10% of all future income to charity ( https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ ). The thread didn't seem very productive, but I do think there are strong arguments against the pledge, at least as it exists now. Hence, I thought I'd write up some of the arguments against, and try to have a better discussion here. Of course, I only speak for myself, not any of the thread participants (though I'd welcome their endorsements if they agree). There are also arguments in favor of the pledge, but since many others have already covered them, I won't be including them here.

 First, and most obviously, the pledge recommends a flat 10% donation, regardless of a person&#x27;s income. The general consensus is that utility of money goes as log(income), so giving a fixed percentage is more painful per unit of good done at lower incomes than higher ones (hence, eg., progressive income taxes). Different professions also have dramatically different ratios of direct impact to money generated. Eg., an American congressman&#x27;s salary is $174,000, but their votes in Congress are so important that even an 0.1% improvement in voting skill outweighs a $17,400 donation; hence, spending even a tiny amount of effort donating the 10% is likely not worth it. On the other extreme, a high-frequency trading job produces lots of money, but almost no direct impact. Therefore, the best donation percentage will vary hugely from person to person. Given the high human capital and low income of the median effective altruist, my guess is that for many people here, the best percentage is <1%; on the flip side, for a typical billionaire, it might be 90% or more. The GWWC pledge encourages most to donate too much, while lowballing a smaller number of large donors.

 Second, the GWWC pledge uses the phrase "for the rest of my life or until the day I retire". This is a very long-term commitment; since most EAs are young (IIRC, ~50% of pledge takers were students when they took it), it might often be for fifty years or more. As EA itself is so young (under five years old, depending on exact definitions), so rapidly growing, and so much in flux, it&#x27;s probably a bad idea to "lock in" fixed strategies, for the same reason that people who take a new job every month shouldn&#x27;t buy a house. This is especially true for students, or others who will shortly make large career change

... (truncated, 47 KB total)