Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

I understand you're not the person who was asked but this seems like an odd take regardless. Assuming it's being executed appropriately, "earn to give" seems like its effectiveness is determined primarily by which charities receive donations. It's surely not as effective as finding the highest-impact ways to donate personal time and attention but this opinion is essentially that monetary donations are ineffective for charity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give

I have no idea what an "earn to give" charity even does[0]; I assume they just donate to other charities? I'd probably not bother donating to one because I can just donate to a specific charity directly, because it seems like I'm just skipping the middle-man there. Anyway, regardless of the effectiveness of earn-to-give charities, "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable, depending on the implementation.

(Alternatively, make a habit of donating time at a local soup kitchen or similar.)

0: Until I read the comment above, of course: "Both charities focus on building the earn-to-give idea into a movement." I would not personally donate to this charity, presuming its ineffectiveness, for what it's worth.

> "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable

Among Effective Altruists, we have seen that it’s a rationalization they use to justify greed. That’s the context. So parent is saying that this rationalization isn’t helping anyone.

Another way of thinking about it is, do you think the honest people living the lifestyle choice you describe, would they be out there telling people how great they are for doing it? No, they’d be focused on their work, to earn, and to give.

But here they need a “movement” to validate themselves, because at some level they know they are just selfish people.

(See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW)

> Do you mean those charities aren’t helping anyone? Or do you mean earning to give isn’t helping anyone?

> Yes.

Doesn't the "yes" mean that the person believes that "earning to give", separate from any specific charity, isn't helping anyone? The question explicitly separates the "movement" from the practice. It sounds to me like the practice is just... donating money?

> See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW

Some people do a shit job of actually donating their money and perhaps some of those people say they "earn to give" but that doesn't mean that everybody who might claim to "earn to give" does a shit job of donating their money.

But I can see that I encountered a term that carries certain baggage so I'll clarify my understanding. This is how I read the above question, and why "Yes." seems like such a strange reply.

> Do you mean earn-to-give charities aren't helping anyone? Or do you mean that charitable donations aren't helping anyone?

The anti-"earn to give" sentiment seems to be against certain "charity theater" (which is perfectly agreeable!) but it came off to me in this case as being against charity.

All I can think to reply is to focus on the context here: SBF, EA, and charities with no specific purpose other than promoting EA. In that context the glib “Yes” answer would not be interpreted as discouraging people from a genuine earning and giving lifestyle.

I understand the context. My point is that the context seems to have been explicitly removed in the question. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

The biggest EA charity I know of is GiveWell and they have a program expense ratio of 97.6%. If there's a charity you like you can do comparables. Some big ones are:

- Red Cross: 90%

- Make a Wish America: 70%

- St Jude's: 97%

- UNICEF USA: 87%

I think part of having the movement thing is to make other people aware of things. I, for one, arrived at the concept myself, but I don't think I would have correctly selected the right item without GiveWell's research.

As described, the EA and EtG are self-indulging "charities". They promote the idea that their idea is the best. What I've gleaned from past HN conversations is that they spend their take on lavish parties for their donors. I seem to recall they bought a hoity-toity mansion for said parties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com