To those discussing monthly vs. lump sum: Luke recognized the issue a few days ago and counted 6 months’ worth of my donations toward this matching drive, much as the original commitment was counted at 12 months (now all paid).
If you prefer to donate monthly, but also want to take advantage of matching, then just tell us you’re pledging to keep up the monthly donation for at least 6 months, and we’ll count 6 months’ worth of your matching donation to the drive, to take advantage of matching.
Luke, I’ve been donating monthly for, um, I think a couple of years now?
I so pledge, in addition to anything else I donate. PM me if you need ID to verify this.
I advise you and everyone with a similar precommitment to pick up a loan from a bank that will be paid off over the next years or decades at $1000 per month and stop regularly donating for that period, donating the loan immediately so that you can take advantage of the doubling.
Putting yourself in debt for such a purpose is bad policy.
The “doubling” is a donation drive tactic. It happens every six months or so, and it has an upper limit. Nobody should put themselves in debt in order to donate.
I think that’s his point: Precommitting to donate $X per month regardless of your personal circumstances is equivalent to taking out a loan that can be paid off at $X per month and donating the proceeds of the loan. The latter course of action is self-evidently bad; the donation of $X per month is bad for the same reasons.
On the other hand, perhaps my sarcasm detector is miscalibrated and he really means it, in which case yeah, taking out a loan to donate is stupid.
I indeed find the two cost-equivalent, I did not doubt that there are people who can precommit to donating monthly, and I figured that if someone precommits, he might as well borrow to increase efficiency. Yes, if loaning is bad, precommiting is of course bad too.
I did not realize that these things happen halfyearly. With that in mind, everyone who donates monthly should stop that, and instead save up money to donate on the next doubling. (Are the $200000 caps usually reached?)
I did not realize that these things happen halfyearly. With that in mind, everyone who donates monthly should stop that
Look, perhaps you should consider that you’re not in the best possible position to offer suggestions on the topic, given your lack of information on the topic.
For example, I remember (I don’t have a link handy, alas) someone from MIRI saying that monthly donations are better for them, since they’re a more reliable source of money that allows them to plan ahead to some extent.
Then why are the major donors rewarding sixmonthly payments?
I’m guessing it’s because they feel it increases donations among the people who don’t monthly-donate.
What sources of information on the topic would you recommend?
When in doubt about what policy is best, then perhaps ask what the beneficiaries themselves think is best policy? They have probably thought about it longer than you.
I think I’ll stop answering questions. I don’t see why you’re interested in my guesswork, rather than asking such questions to MIRI itself who could answer them more definitively.
Gather everyone with a precommitment like Rains, take the half that donate least per month, add their donations per month, make a collective loan that can be paid off with a monthly payment equal to that sum, have everyone pay off a ratio of the monthly interest equal to the ratio of their monthly donations vs the sum of all participants’ monthly donations, and donate the rest. This will work without problems if at least half the participants continue to pay. If this isnt enough, decrease the collective loan until the probability of failure is under 10^-10.
Alternatively, I advise everyone with a precommitment like Rains who also have a savings account on general principles to empty it into donating now and filling it back up over the next years/decades with the monthly donation.
Was that refering to requiring too much from the donors, or comparing the effectiveness of my suggestion to that of having your kidney taken out rather than earning money in that time?
I think that telling people to empty their savings account is bad advice of similar kind as asking them to sell their kidney, both in regards to the consequences to people and in regards to the consequences to MIRI.
The people suffer for no good reason. MIRI gets a bad rep for destroying people’s lives. Everyone loses.
No. It doesn’t follow that you must either be naked or wear a mink coat. It doesn’t follow you must either be a complete hermit or a total party animal. It doesn’t follow that you need either have an empty savings account, or put everything in it.
Humans have decreasing marginal utility with money, so even if we model donors as perfectly rational (a bad assumption, of course), it still makes sense to donate some but not all of your money. Just because people sometimes have a bias towards finding a middle ground doesn’t mean that finding a middle ground is always wrong every time.
The xkcd you linked to is a good demonstration of one of the reasons that asking people to go into debt to fund MIRI is a horrible idea.
Maybe we shall ask the major donors whether they would split a part of the $200000 off the upper limit of this actions, pledging instead to donate $1 from that fund for every dollar that will be regularly donated per month over the next years/decades? That way, the banks wouldn’t be receiving a split of the money.
Or we could ask the major donors whether one could loan from them instead, so they receive the loan interest to reward them for their pledges.
I continue to donate $1000 per month despite a 20% pay cut.
To those discussing monthly vs. lump sum: Luke recognized the issue a few days ago and counted 6 months’ worth of my donations toward this matching drive, much as the original commitment was counted at 12 months (now all paid).
Right.
If you prefer to donate monthly, but also want to take advantage of matching, then just tell us you’re pledging to keep up the monthly donation for at least 6 months, and we’ll count 6 months’ worth of your matching donation to the drive, to take advantage of matching.
Luke, I’ve been donating monthly for, um, I think a couple of years now? I so pledge, in addition to anything else I donate. PM me if you need ID to verify this.
PMed.
Thanks very much!
I advise you and everyone with a similar precommitment to pick up a loan from a bank that will be paid off over the next years or decades at $1000 per month and stop regularly donating for that period, donating the loan immediately so that you can take advantage of the doubling.
Putting yourself in debt for such a purpose is bad policy.
The “doubling” is a donation drive tactic. It happens every six months or so, and it has an upper limit. Nobody should put themselves in debt in order to donate.
I think that’s his point: Precommitting to donate $X per month regardless of your personal circumstances is equivalent to taking out a loan that can be paid off at $X per month and donating the proceeds of the loan. The latter course of action is self-evidently bad; the donation of $X per month is bad for the same reasons.
On the other hand, perhaps my sarcasm detector is miscalibrated and he really means it, in which case yeah, taking out a loan to donate is stupid.
I indeed find the two cost-equivalent, I did not doubt that there are people who can precommit to donating monthly, and I figured that if someone precommits, he might as well borrow to increase efficiency. Yes, if loaning is bad, precommiting is of course bad too.
I did not realize that these things happen halfyearly. With that in mind, everyone who donates monthly should stop that, and instead save up money to donate on the next doubling. (Are the $200000 caps usually reached?)
Look, perhaps you should consider that you’re not in the best possible position to offer suggestions on the topic, given your lack of information on the topic.
For example, I remember (I don’t have a link handy, alas) someone from MIRI saying that monthly donations are better for them, since they’re a more reliable source of money that allows them to plan ahead to some extent.
Then why are the major donors rewarding sixmonthly payments?
What sources of information on the topic would you recommend?
I’m guessing it’s because they feel it increases donations among the people who don’t monthly-donate.
When in doubt about what policy is best, then perhaps ask what the beneficiaries themselves think is best policy? They have probably thought about it longer than you.
Then shouldn’t they run the doublings in different areas/communities each month so as to normalize the resulting donations across time?
I think I’ll stop answering questions. I don’t see why you’re interested in my guesswork, rather than asking such questions to MIRI itself who could answer them more definitively.
Can you suggest a place to ask such questions publically?
Gather everyone with a precommitment like Rains, take the half that donate least per month, add their donations per month, make a collective loan that can be paid off with a monthly payment equal to that sum, have everyone pay off a ratio of the monthly interest equal to the ratio of their monthly donations vs the sum of all participants’ monthly donations, and donate the rest. This will work without problems if at least half the participants continue to pay. If this isnt enough, decrease the collective loan until the probability of failure is under 10^-10.
Alternatively, I advise everyone with a precommitment like Rains who also have a savings account on general principles to empty it into donating now and filling it back up over the next years/decades with the monthly donation.
What, no selling of kidneys?
Was that refering to requiring too much from the donors, or comparing the effectiveness of my suggestion to that of having your kidney taken out rather than earning money in that time?
I think that telling people to empty their savings account is bad advice of similar kind as asking them to sell their kidney, both in regards to the consequences to people and in regards to the consequences to MIRI.
The people suffer for no good reason.
MIRI gets a bad rep for destroying people’s lives.
Everyone loses.
Then shouldn’t everyone who donates monthly stop that and feed the money into a savings account on general principles instead?
No. It doesn’t follow that you must either be naked or wear a mink coat. It doesn’t follow you must either be a complete hermit or a total party animal. It doesn’t follow that you need either have an empty savings account, or put everything in it.
This whole crazy thread just reminds me Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate
I beg to differ.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldenMeanFallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
which applies here because of the argument presented here, and here.
Humans have decreasing marginal utility with money, so even if we model donors as perfectly rational (a bad assumption, of course), it still makes sense to donate some but not all of your money. Just because people sometimes have a bias towards finding a middle ground doesn’t mean that finding a middle ground is always wrong every time.
The xkcd you linked to is a good demonstration of one of the reasons that asking people to go into debt to fund MIRI is a horrible idea.
Maybe we shall ask the major donors whether they would split a part of the $200000 off the upper limit of this actions, pledging instead to donate $1 from that fund for every dollar that will be regularly donated per month over the next years/decades? That way, the banks wouldn’t be receiving a split of the money.
Or we could ask the major donors whether one could loan from them instead, so they receive the loan interest to reward them for their pledges.