I think there is a goldmine of advice and practical tips on this website.
But instead of aiming to retire at 30, you'll be able to donate more and still have a healthy retirement fund by not spending all your money, and investing sensibly. The site below is useful with step by step guides.
At the moment I give 10% and invest any other savings over that but I probably wont be going into a high paying job and have the benefit of free healthcare.
I may slightly disagree with Linch about retirement money. I think it gives people a lot of power in their careers and job choices if they are able to tell their manager what they actually think and if they aren't desperate to succeed in a job interview. Being financially independent can make it a lot easier to take ethical decisions and make a stand against a bad policy, without having to worry about losing your job.
That depends on how much you think you need to feel secure.
The 'Stache is great! He's actually how I heard about Effective Altruism.
I am new to EA, but it seems that a true effective altruist would not be interested in retiring. When just a $1000 can avert decades of disability-adjusted life years (years of suffering), I do not think it is fair to sit back and relax (even in your 70's) when you could still be earning to give.
Right, I'm accounting for my own selfish desires here. An optimally moral me-like person would only save enough to maximize his career potential.
My personal opinion is that individuals should save enough to mitigate emergencies, job transitions, etc. (https://80000hours.org/2015/11/why-everyone-even-our-readers-should-save-enough-to-live-for-6-24-months/), but no more.
It just seems rather implausible, to me, that retirement money is anywhere close to being a cost-effective intervention, relative to other likely EA options.
| It just seems rather implausible, to me, that retirement money is anywhere close to being a cost-effective intervention, relative to other likely EA options.
I don't think that "Give 70-year-old Zach a passive income stream" is an effective cause area. It is a selfish maneuver. But the majority of EAs seem to form some sort of boundary, where they only feel obligated to donate up to a certain point (whether that is due to partially selfish "utility functions" or a calculated move to prevent burnout). I've considered choosing some arbitrary method of dividing income between short term expenses, retirement and donations, but I am searching for a method that someone considers non-arbitrary, because I might feel better about it.
Suppose tomorrow MIRI creates a friendly AGI that can learn a value system, make it consistent with minimal alteration, and extrapolate it in an agreeable way. Whose values would it be taught?
I've heard the idea of averaging all humans' values together and working from there. Given that ISIS is human and that many other humans believe that the existence of extreme physical and emotional suffering is good, I find that idea pretty repellent. Are there alternatives that have been considered?
It seems like people in academia tend to avoid mentioning MIRI. Has this changed in magnitude during the past few years, and do you expect it to change any more? Do you think there is a significant number of public intellectuals who believe in MIRI's cause in private while avoiding mention of it in public?
© 2017 Effective Altruism Forum |
Powered by reddit