Until recently I thought Julia and I were digging a bit into savings to donate more. With the tighter funding climate for effective altruism we thought it was worth spending down a bit, especially considering that our expenses should decrease significantly in 1.5y when our youngest starts kindergarten.
I was surprised, then, when I ran the numbers and realized that despite donating 50% of a reduced income, we were $9k (0.5%) [1] richer than when I left Google two years earlier.
This is a good problem to have! After thinking it over for the last month, however, I’ve decided to start earning less: I’ve asked for a voluntary salary reduction of $15k/y (10%). [2] This is something I’ve been thinking about off and on since I started working at a non-profit: it’s much more efficient to reduce your salary than it is to make a donation. Additionally, since I’m asking others to fund our work I like the idea of putting my money (or what would be my money if I weren’t passing it up) where my mouth is.
Despite doing this myself, voluntary salary reduction isn’t something that I’d like to see become a norm:
I think it’s really valuable for people to have a choice about where to apply their money to making the world better.
The organization where you have a comparative advantage in applying your skills will often not be the one that can do the most with additional funds, even after considering the tax advantages.
I especially don’t think this is a good fit for junior employees and people without a lot of savings, where I’m concerned social pressure to take a reduction could keep people from making prudent financial decisions.
Still, I think this is a good choice for me, and I feel good about efficiently putting my money towards a better world.
[1] In current dollars. If you don’t adjust for inflation it’s $132k
more, but that’s not meaningful.
[2] I’m not counting this towards my 50% goal, just like I’m not counting the pay cut I took when I stopped earning to give.
How does this interact with MA’s salary transparency laws? If you are in a role where no one else shares your title, then no problem. Otherwise, this could enable an employer to pressure others to take pay cuts or smaller raises, or it could force them to tell prospective new employees a much lower lower bound in the salary range for the role they’re applying to.
Pretty sure the salary transparency law doesn’t apply to us, because you need 25+ MA employees. Even if it did, though, I think it would mostly mean giving moderately wider salary ranges? Which I expect would be fine; our two current open positions [1][2] have ranges of 23% and 30%.
[1] https://securebio.org/careers/2024-lab-tech/
[2] https://securebio.org/careers/2024-director-operations/