Comment author: Denkenberger 24 September 2017 01:33:07AM 0 points [-]

Was there any discussion about effective volunteering?

Comment author: Denkenberger 07 September 2017 02:44:06AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for all your work. Will you be reporting on the forum donations as a percent of income?

Comment author: Denkenberger 29 August 2017 01:10:19AM 4 points [-]

This is similar to the US poverty line. In the book Strangers Drowning, which featured some EAs, there was a guy trying to live on the global average income in ~1980. That was really extreme because inflation adjusted global per capita income has risen a lot since then.

Comment author: ThomasSittler 24 August 2017 09:31:26PM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: Denkenberger 26 August 2017 12:02:13AM *  1 point [-]

Thanks!

Rough summary % of US population

Giving 10%+: Time: 7%; Pay cut: 20%; Donate: 6%

Giving 20%+: Time: 2%; Pay cut: 10%; Donate: 0.6%

This is based on 40 hours per week free time. The take away (that I believe is robust despite uncertainty explained below) is that people are much more willing to take a big pay cut than to donate a similar percent of money. So if we could get people over the psychological barrier, we might be able to convince 20% of people to be EAs.

Furthermore, at least in the US, donating 10% of your pretax (adjusted gross income) is a smaller economic hit than taking a 10% pay cut because not all income is taxed. This would mean even more than 20% of people take a pay cut that is equivalent to donating 10%.

Volunteering source: bins are not perfect.

Pay cut source, government employment source, nonprofit employment source. Of course there can be other differences in employment like job security, benefits, and hours. However, this is not accounting for people who choose a lower paying field for the impact, so it gives some idea.

Giving source: percentages are for religious giving, which is ~half of giving in US, so I doubled the percentages to get the people giving that amount to any charity: rough.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 24 August 2017 03:25:12AM 1 point [-]

You could look at the forthcoming 2017 EA Survey data, or try looking at the past 2015 EA Survey and 2014 EA Survey.

In response to comment by Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) on Open Thread #38
Comment author: Denkenberger 24 August 2017 09:36:48PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, but I was referring to the rates of taking a lower salary (e.g. to nonprofit or government), etc in the general population. I am talking to people who are outside of EA at this point and not sure about committing to donating 10%.

In response to Open Thread #38
Comment author: Denkenberger 22 August 2017 10:20:51PM 3 points [-]

I have found it helpful in talking about donating large percentages of salary to be able to point out how many people do similar amounts of sacrifice. One comparison that has been made was with being vegetarian. But this is hard to compare and still only a few percent of people. More common is people taking a 10% pay cut for positive impact of their job, or donating 10% of their free time (which I am saying is roughly 40 hours per week if one has a full-time job (comments here)). I tried to get some rough estimates of the rates of these behaviors, but has anyone else done it more rigorously or would like to do it?

Comment author: Denkenberger 20 August 2017 01:49:57AM 1 point [-]

I think ITN is good for scoping problems, but many think it shouldn't be used for interventions. So for interventions, I think quantitative models like this one are valuable.

Comment author: MichaelPlant 15 August 2017 02:58:38PM 0 points [-]

Okay. So the source I found was probably wrong. I can't see how this has any significance on the argument, so it would have been more useful to say "this isn't important for the argument, but just so you know ... "

Comment author: Denkenberger 16 August 2017 09:20:37PM 0 points [-]

If illicit drugs were greater expenditure than grains, that would be amazing. But I agree, not that important to the argument.

Comment author: Denkenberger 15 August 2017 11:25:01PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks - very interesting. Could an EA pay for drug medical studies in Portugal? It seems like there are millions of people working on marijuana legalization, and many critics of the war on drugs. I know you are looking more holistically, but overall it doesn't seem that neglected.

For those who think something else is more important, I would be very grateful if you could produce some (very rough) estimates of how many times more cost effective money to their preferred cause is than DPR.

Some people would say ~10^40 times (computer consciousnesses and spreading intergalactically). Of course there are many reasons why this vision may not pan out, but it does seem like we should have a non-negligible probability that we are alone in the galaxy (or even the visible universe) and that we can and have the will to colonize the stars if we don't destroy ourselves. These qualifiers might only take a few orders of magnitude off. Then even if you do not believe in the tractability of AI, there are many other concrete interventions that could reduce existential risk, like asteroid defense and alternate foods. So basically I do not believe the prior of cost effectiveness of global poverty interventions should be strong, so I don't think we should adjust these expected value calculations downward nearly as much as some proposed models have done.

Also, if one does not value the far future, there are other claims of cost effectiveness better than global poverty.

Comment author: Denkenberger 15 August 2017 02:04:44AM *  1 point [-]

According to 2005 data, production was valued at $13 billion, the wholesale industry priced at $94 billion and retail estimated to be worth $332 billion. The wholesale valuation for the drugs market is higher than the global equivalent for cereals, wine, beer, coffee, and tobacco combined.

I couldn't see the full report from your link, but global grain (cereal) production is around 2.2 billion tons per year. Wholesale price fluctuates, but it is around $1/kg, so ~$2 trillion per year. This is more than an order of magnitude bigger than your illicit drug wholesale value.

View more: Next