Really interesting piece, Jack. Thanks for sticking your neck out there and being willing to tackle the tough questions. Having spent time thinking about EA governance (thanks for the link above), I think things have hugely improved, particularly at the larger orgs. The challenge in my view is the proliferation of small 1-3 person organisations with little or no trustee board and little follow-up from funders. I firmly believe everybody needs a boss to deliver to their full potential. This is based on my own personal experience (I get more done when someone is chasing me for quality output) and conversations with friends within EA. The model that some funders have of granting money and then never following up is not good for effectiveness, even before you consider potential fraud.

I’m not commenting on this change specifically, but as someone who is a long-term EA but not working in EA full-time, I find there are way too many name changes in EA. Name changes are hugely expensive (both in terms of costs, lost brand equity and confusion among ‘customers’) so should not be taken lightly.

I agree except that suitability is only part of the equation. Luck plays a very important role.

I agree and wrote about it here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nnf2GsSq9fhdRCvZj/keynesian-altruism

You narrative talks about the movement switching from earn to give to career-focused. I think that has huge survivorship bias in it. There are now many GWWC pledgers who would not call themselves EA. As the movement became bigger, the career-focused side began to dominate discourse because there’s a lot more to say if you are career-focused and trying to coordinate things rather than if you are head down earning money.

This article has a lot of downvoting (net karma of 39 from 28 votes and 3 disagree votes). Could some of the people who downvoted or disagreed explain their rationale?

You could try putting cash into a separate savings account earmarked for donation. When you are happy that you don’t need it, donate it. (But maybe over a few years for tax efficiency)

Interest rates are much higher, which is partially offset by inflation (it’s real not nominal that matters) but not entirely. Today, US Treasuries have a +1.79% yield over 5 years in real terms, so higher than the -1.28% I mention in the article but still within the long-term range of -1% to +2% that I mention in the article. Importantly, that’s still below real GDP growth expectations, so over time the amount you can buy as a proportion of global wealth declines.

I think all the points still stand albeit the numbers in the example look dated now! Anything you think should be changed?

Surely it’s not a case of either-or. EA exists because we all found that existing charity was not up to scratch, hence we do want EA to take different approaches. However, I think it’s important to also have people from outside EA (but with good value alignment) to provide diversity of thought and make sure there are no blindspots.