Despite not being compelled by anyone to attempt this, I'm someone who has engaged in some level of "sacrificial giving" relative to my income (and in the full absence of any religious requirement) -- I've been steadily unemployed for years and have had to rely on loved ones to support me as I try to assemble enough of a respectable portfolio of finalized texts to be able to feed myself through more than randomly emerging odd jobs.
While in the literal sense I qualify as someone with a disability, I tend to resent using that word for someone with my normally demonstrated capacities. (I would rather not get into my shortcomings here).
Despite the fact that I only reliably get about $100/month to spend on anything I want while living rather ascetically, I've now (conservatively) helped around 2,200 highly poor people through "ripple effects" and I plan to help at least 2,500 poor folks by my 33rd birthday. I am 31 today. (In terms of direct help recipients, I've assisted about 1,500, if I recall the numbers correctly).
If you're willing to engage in a written exchange about the merits of sacrificial giving and some of the responsibilities involved in doing it consistently even when it feels costly, feel free to send me a message at any time.
I've often called myself a low-grade Effective Altruist, but in light of the fact that I ended up donating much more than many EAs on an income-aware basis, maybe I should just call myself an Effective Altruist without couching that identity in a precautionary label.
As I've written elsewhere:
"Here are some things I've done to maximize the donations I could give to efficient charities within the past few years:
- for 7 months a year, when desiring hot drinks, drink cheap instant coffee or cheap chamomile tea instead of Keurig k-cups or anything fancier than that
- habitually get video games that cost $0.00 to $4 instead of $20 or more
- stay single (in the romantic sense) to avoid squandering money on a partner
- buy and frequently use a $70 Chromebook laptop instead of a moderately luxurious computer that could cost $300 to $600
- intermittently rent non-new movies via Vudu / Fandango at Home instead of going to movie theaters
- invest enough time (& a little money) in learning about health-boosting lifestyle practices to avoid unexpectedly accumulating or imposing medical debt
- if in search of new fashion items, buy unbranded clothes in bulk, or buy a cheap shirt from a foreign website that offers excellent introductory deals;
- when craving a new identity-disclosing necklace, (not that I want more than a couple of them), spend less than $10 or $12 total on it
- clarify to family that they don't have to spend money on me on my birthday or holidays; if they *really* want to buy me anything they can spend $25 or less per major important day
- if craving unfamiliar books, buy cheap ($3 to $6) used books from eBay instead of buying any newly released books, which can often cost at least 4 or 5 times more despite having not stood the test of time
- (I am still working on this, but):
when in search of experiential novelty, simply look up new free-to-read articles or YouTube videos instead of buying another video game or book
- (I'm also still working on this one):
when feeling an impulse to spend money, write a private essay or private handful of poems instead of buying anything.
The sense of accomplishment that follows a creative act gradually defeats the pleasure derived from buying non-essential items to secure a temporary sense of fulfillment.
The end result of these combined commitments is, once again, more money efficiently granted to some of the most needy people.
And the lasting internal outcome I derive from having voluntarily helped lots of poor people is a stable and continuous internal quietness that demolished my previously troubling, constant psychological insecurity.
I haven't been a total saint: during the last year I definitely wasted money on non-essential stuff, and I wasted money on video games that could've been replaced with the watching of free YouTube video-essays about deservedly esteemed games.
But I did more than most people might expect of someone in my personal economic condition, or someone with my long-term health-status.
So I now enjoy a previously untapped level of peace."
Methinks these thresholds should be thought of not as voluntary donations but as compulsory taxes. Taxes that could spent on fundamentally tackling sociial justice issues.
“Faced with an ethical argument that requires us to give away much of our income….”
There is no such sound argument. The attempt in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is paradoxical.
“My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life.”
Respect for individual liberty is the main thing that needs to be promoted.
“And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty.”
To the extent that markets are free they have been solving this problem. Extreme poverty is almost entirely caused by political intervention, not lack of charity.
What is worse than the extreme poverty that free markets (including free trade), insofar as they have been allowed politically, have been causing to disappear?
I fully agree with problem statement, but I have doubts about the suggested approach. The high earners usually invest their excess money. Those investments, provided they go well, create jobs and additional wealth. Using the money for other purposes (more urgent purposes perhaps) would probabably lead to a short term improvement, but sacrificing the long term.
Having defined thresholds makes the enterprise of giving feel more realistic and actionable, taking it out of the category of loft ambition where one finds fondled objects of the mind like "learn the piano" that often get deferred indefinitely. Knowing that I'd never "need" to give so much it would jeopardise my financial security reduces the fear that's preventing me from taking the plunge.
One quick clarification: are these thresholds based on the cost of living in the US? Do you recommend people adjust according to purchasing power parity? $81,000 in India means something completely different than $81,000 in Norway...
I like these guidelines a lot. Have you ever considered a % of wealth as a guideline for those at the very upper end of the wealth scale? I find that's more relevant once wealth exceeds an amount that places you in the top 0.1% and when you might not have a salary. That's how i think about it.
I donate 10%, and my income barely enters your lowest tier. :-p
Being single and carless in countries with low-ish cost of living let me save enough to do that easily.
Thank you for writing this, Peter.
Despite not being compelled by anyone to attempt this, I'm someone who has engaged in some level of "sacrificial giving" relative to my income (and in the full absence of any religious requirement) -- I've been steadily unemployed for years and have had to rely on loved ones to support me as I try to assemble enough of a respectable portfolio of finalized texts to be able to feed myself through more than randomly emerging odd jobs.
While in the literal sense I qualify as someone with a disability, I tend to resent using that word for someone with my normally demonstrated capacities. (I would rather not get into my shortcomings here).
Despite the fact that I only reliably get about $100/month to spend on anything I want while living rather ascetically, I've now (conservatively) helped around 2,200 highly poor people through "ripple effects" and I plan to help at least 2,500 poor folks by my 33rd birthday. I am 31 today. (In terms of direct help recipients, I've assisted about 1,500, if I recall the numbers correctly).
If you're willing to engage in a written exchange about the merits of sacrificial giving and some of the responsibilities involved in doing it consistently even when it feels costly, feel free to send me a message at any time.
I've often called myself a low-grade Effective Altruist, but in light of the fact that I ended up donating much more than many EAs on an income-aware basis, maybe I should just call myself an Effective Altruist without couching that identity in a precautionary label.
As I've written elsewhere:
"Here are some things I've done to maximize the donations I could give to efficient charities within the past few years:
- for 7 months a year, when desiring hot drinks, drink cheap instant coffee or cheap chamomile tea instead of Keurig k-cups or anything fancier than that
- habitually get video games that cost $0.00 to $4 instead of $20 or more
- stay single (in the romantic sense) to avoid squandering money on a partner
- buy and frequently use a $70 Chromebook laptop instead of a moderately luxurious computer that could cost $300 to $600
- intermittently rent non-new movies via Vudu / Fandango at Home instead of going to movie theaters
- invest enough time (& a little money) in learning about health-boosting lifestyle practices to avoid unexpectedly accumulating or imposing medical debt
- if in search of new fashion items, buy unbranded clothes in bulk, or buy a cheap shirt from a foreign website that offers excellent introductory deals;
- when craving a new identity-disclosing necklace, (not that I want more than a couple of them), spend less than $10 or $12 total on it
- clarify to family that they don't have to spend money on me on my birthday or holidays; if they *really* want to buy me anything they can spend $25 or less per major important day
- if craving unfamiliar books, buy cheap ($3 to $6) used books from eBay instead of buying any newly released books, which can often cost at least 4 or 5 times more despite having not stood the test of time
- (I am still working on this, but):
when in search of experiential novelty, simply look up new free-to-read articles or YouTube videos instead of buying another video game or book
- (I'm also still working on this one):
when feeling an impulse to spend money, write a private essay or private handful of poems instead of buying anything.
The sense of accomplishment that follows a creative act gradually defeats the pleasure derived from buying non-essential items to secure a temporary sense of fulfillment.
The end result of these combined commitments is, once again, more money efficiently granted to some of the most needy people.
And the lasting internal outcome I derive from having voluntarily helped lots of poor people is a stable and continuous internal quietness that demolished my previously troubling, constant psychological insecurity.
I haven't been a total saint: during the last year I definitely wasted money on non-essential stuff, and I wasted money on video games that could've been replaced with the watching of free YouTube video-essays about deservedly esteemed games.
But I did more than most people might expect of someone in my personal economic condition, or someone with my long-term health-status.
So I now enjoy a previously untapped level of peace."
Have a wonderful day.
Methinks these thresholds should be thought of not as voluntary donations but as compulsory taxes. Taxes that could spent on fundamentally tackling sociial justice issues.
“Faced with an ethical argument that requires us to give away much of our income….”
There is no such sound argument. The attempt in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is paradoxical.
“My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life.”
Respect for individual liberty is the main thing that needs to be promoted.
“And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty.”
To the extent that markets are free they have been solving this problem. Extreme poverty is almost entirely caused by political intervention, not lack of charity.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/peter-singers-famine-affluence-and?utm_source=publication-search
https://jclester.substack.com/p/liberty-in-itself-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
https://jclester.substack.com/p/charity-and-libertarianism?utm_source=publication-search
Free market is a way to end extreme poverty.. and establish an even worst economic situation
What is worse than the extreme poverty that free markets (including free trade), insofar as they have been allowed politically, have been causing to disappear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWM3MOA5Tj0
I fully agree with problem statement, but I have doubts about the suggested approach. The high earners usually invest their excess money. Those investments, provided they go well, create jobs and additional wealth. Using the money for other purposes (more urgent purposes perhaps) would probabably lead to a short term improvement, but sacrificing the long term.
Having defined thresholds makes the enterprise of giving feel more realistic and actionable, taking it out of the category of loft ambition where one finds fondled objects of the mind like "learn the piano" that often get deferred indefinitely. Knowing that I'd never "need" to give so much it would jeopardise my financial security reduces the fear that's preventing me from taking the plunge.
One quick clarification: are these thresholds based on the cost of living in the US? Do you recommend people adjust according to purchasing power parity? $81,000 in India means something completely different than $81,000 in Norway...
Thanks!
As a preschool teacher- guess i give 0
I like these guidelines a lot. Have you ever considered a % of wealth as a guideline for those at the very upper end of the wealth scale? I find that's more relevant once wealth exceeds an amount that places you in the top 0.1% and when you might not have a salary. That's how i think about it.