If you think that SIAI is the best charity, and you work for SIAI, should you give any money to charity?
The fact that you work for the SIAI does not change the payoffs much at all. If it would have been worthwhile donating to the SIAI if you did equivalent amount of work for Hewlett Packard and it was beneficial to donate to the SIAI then the same will still apply if you happen to work for the SIAI. (Crudely speaking at least.)
Incidentally, to the extent that your income from the SIAI is equal to what you could be getting for the same effort elsewhere actually working for the SIAI is not altruistic at all.
Plus what Phil said. Plus, even if you can get all the volunteer researchers you want, you want them to be mentally healthy, not buy into ultra-demanding self-sacrificial ideals, have something to trade to their near-mode preferences, etc.
My conclusion is that the idea that everyone should give to charity is wrong.
How many people here actually think that, with no regard to income? (Edit: i.e., think that everyone, no matter how low their income, should give to charity?)
Probably no one. What I mean to say is something more like: If someone works in cancer research, and cancer is a valid charity, then asking them to donate to charity is equivalent to asking them to take a pay cut.
The number of articles on LW about how to give to charity suggests that people think giving to charity is the default state, and/or that not giving to charity should give you a karma hit. Whereas I think something more like: If you’re giving money to charity, it’s an indication that you have chosen for your profession work that is not directly helpful to others, and are making up for that with the money you earn at your hopefully more-profitable profession.
I’m not sure what you mean by “with no regard to income” in this context. However, I do think, as I noted, the model of a thing called “the charity sector” over here, a bloblike mass of “donors” here and a not very differentiated flow of money from one to the other is rather too susceptible to lost purposes. Charities are organisations set up for people to achieve ends, not an end in themselves. I realise fungible money makes things way more efficient even as it homogenises them away from this ideal, of course.
Incidentally, to the extent that your income from the SIAI is equal to what you could be getting for the same effort elsewhere actually working for the SIAI is not altruistic at all.
If he is able to do useful work for SIAI that not many others can do, it would be better for him to work there and donate than to work elsewhere and donate the same amount. Yes?
The fact that you work for the SIAI does not change the payoffs much at all. If it would have been worthwhile donating to the SIAI if you did equivalent amount of work for Hewlett Packard and it was beneficial to donate to the SIAI then the same will still apply if you happen to work for the SIAI. (Crudely speaking at least.)
Incidentally, to the extent that your income from the SIAI is equal to what you could be getting for the same effort elsewhere actually working for the SIAI is not altruistic at all.
But then you should instead donate to them by taking a pay cut, so they don’t have to pay taxes on the money they give you that you give back to them.
But you’ve already taken a pay cut by working at SIAI! By this logic, and induction, anyone who works for the SIAI, should work full-time, for free.
And if not logic then at least random free-association. In a similar vein anyone who donates to a charity should take vows of poverty!
Why does SIAI pay taxes!? Shouldn’t they be registered as a 501(c)3? They would qualify under the “testing for public safety” category, I think.
SIAI is a 501(c)(3), but income tax doesn’t work any differently for employees of nonprofits (AFAIK).
I think there may be some ‘not looking like a cult’ advantages to (at least on paper) paying researchers proper wages.
Plus what Phil said. Plus, even if you can get all the volunteer researchers you want, you want them to be mentally healthy, not buy into ultra-demanding self-sacrificial ideals, have something to trade to their near-mode preferences, etc.
There are lots of advantages to paying researchers proper wages, chief among them, getting proper researchers.
My conclusion is that the idea that everyone should give to charity is wrong.
How many people here actually think that, with no regard to income? (Edit: i.e., think that everyone, no matter how low their income, should give to charity?)
Probably no one. What I mean to say is something more like: If someone works in cancer research, and cancer is a valid charity, then asking them to donate to charity is equivalent to asking them to take a pay cut.
The number of articles on LW about how to give to charity suggests that people think giving to charity is the default state, and/or that not giving to charity should give you a karma hit. Whereas I think something more like: If you’re giving money to charity, it’s an indication that you have chosen for your profession work that is not directly helpful to others, and are making up for that with the money you earn at your hopefully more-profitable profession.
I’m not sure what you mean by “with no regard to income” in this context. However, I do think, as I noted, the model of a thing called “the charity sector” over here, a bloblike mass of “donors” here and a not very differentiated flow of money from one to the other is rather too susceptible to lost purposes. Charities are organisations set up for people to achieve ends, not an end in themselves. I realise fungible money makes things way more efficient even as it homogenises them away from this ideal, of course.
IAWYC, except there’s one bit I’m not sure about.
If he is able to do useful work for SIAI that not many others can do, it would be better for him to work there and donate than to work elsewhere and donate the same amount. Yes?