If you're interested in effective altruism, you might be interested in the Effective Altruism Summit, which will be held from June 30 to July 6 in San Francisco. All four of the effective altruism organizations mentioned in the article (GiveWell, Giving What We Can, The Life You Can Save, and 80,000 Hours) are participating, along with some not mentioned. Peter Singer, Peter Thiel, and Jaan Tallinn (co-creator of Kazaa and Skype) will give talks.
At a similar event on Efficient Charity at the Berkeley Faculty Club, Robin Hanson made some interesting (and unsettling) points about how most charities operate. [1] For example, he claims that most charitable contributions are actually about status signalling and not about maximizing impact. Because if someone truly wanted to do the Most Helpful Thing, they would save all their money and donate a single lump sum to a single charity right before they die. This strategy leverages compound interest while avoiding certain tax pitfalls, but has the downside of making you look selfish for most of your life.
Scott Alexander has a pretty good summary [2] of the event if you don't want to listen to the audio.
I am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world.
That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas?
Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head dinner, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them to donate what they'd make in 2 hours? (Although the dinner does have social purposes)
You can like Warren Buffett or hate him, but the best thing he can do for society is earn money and then efficiently give it away to solve big problems. That would be much better than him working full time for the peace corps, or a non-profit.
On the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC).
Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.
His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do.
It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either.
I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time.
If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good.
You do good by the way you treat other people and in the hard work and good deeds that you do. And it can be just about anything. You don't have to do charity work or walkathons or open source or make giant donations for all to see in order to do good. If your work provides value to someone else, then you're doing good.
It's up to you to decide how good your doing good is. And the best time to start doing good is now. Every little bit matters.
Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to someone who makes $50K.
> If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good.
Some times this choice is obvious, under feeding myself to feed other would probably reduce the amount of long term good I could do for the world.
Saving my money now so that I can be in a good finical position to take advantage of economic opportunities is not as obvious, but can lead to considerably more good being done.
>if you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good.
I don't really understand this criticism of him. He isn't trying to save up millions of dollars before doing good, he's working for money and giving it away as fast as it comes in. Sure, making more money isn't the only way to do more good, but if he has chosen charities that use money to do good then his logic can't be refuted: "The more he makes, the more good he can do."
> His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do.
>It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either.
>I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time.
I think you've really missed the mark on this...
The two view points can easily reconcile. You can make more and donate more while still always doing good.
There is nothing wrong with doing both and I'm sure the people mentioned in the article are.
I'm not sure what you have against his idea that the more he makes the more good he can do.
I agree with everything you've said, but given that Against Malaria Foundation can save a life for $2,500, does treating your co-workers well and writing quality code really compare?
Doing good is indeed something that can be done all the time but he's not optimising for doing a little good all the time but for doing as much good as he can.
Every litle bit may matter but ten lives saved is ten times better than one.
Local governments are also involved in the stock market. High frequency traders make money by acting as an intermediary between buyers and sellers, and thus not creating actual wealth. Instead their supposed value is the "liquidity" they add. That means that the price of "adding liquidity" is a lower return on a stock or bond invested by a local government. Which in turn means that the local government might have to cut funding services for the poor. Even if you give away the money you earn, you are still robbing the poor so you can give to the poor people that you like.
This is basically what I was going to say, but more specific. I can't believe they could write such a long article without even mentioning the direct negative impact your job could have on the world. It's still possible working your high-paying job is net improvement over the alternatives, but I don't think this went into enough depth to provide a good argument.
If you're a long term investor like a government who invested in an index tracker, HFT and the like have a relatively small impact on prices compared to trades by other large institutional investors.
The effective method of fighting that though seems to be organized political action. The needed skills to organize and drive such groups does not seem very common so it understandable and advantageous for everyone that their efforts are put else where.
Though it is dangerous to ignore this arena completely.
Corn based ethanol subsidies do a hell of a lot more damage to the third world in any one year than futures contracts do. Futures contracts reduce price volatility in agricultural markets. Compare onions (futures are illegal) with other agricultural commodities.
Is it really that simple? If your main concern is net "good" to the world, don't you have to balance that against any "bad" generated by your job? Wall Street certainly is capable of damaging people's lives, and HFT does get some of the blame. Also, is net gain the only concern - if an assassin donates his profits to charity and in the process saves more lives than he takes, is does his net "good" make him moral?
High frequency trade and similar "financial instruments" are mostly created to enable banks to create even more empty, debt driven money. So although it is nice that this guy gives some money to charity, his everyday job leads in the long run to financial crises and to poverty that cannot be equalized by all wallstreet workers giving money to charities.
Besides, the article sounds like some expensive Public Relation action from wallstreet companies. I guess they have hard time to find decent employees...
I am completely appalled by this article. How could working for the system (in this case, the finance sector) ever be considered as a positive gain? The state of the world affairs is f'd precisely because currently all aspects of life are viewed through a mechanistic view focused on short term financial gain. Wall street, by supporting and feeding the mega-corps, is indirectly part of the economic exploitation of the world.
Furthermore, as pointed out by @mathattack, some charities are very inefficient operations--sometimes bordering on unethically so. My friend worked as a webmaster for a charity whose operations overhead was ~70% (mostly due to the annual general meeting held at a 5* resort in Banff, attended by all the volunteers working in the charity (most of them spouses of the donors)).
OK, I am going to calm down now. It is just words. Just propaganda. Perhaps this article was commissioned by Wall Street as an attempt to influence perceptions and to assuage the existential threat to their existence. If the analytically-minded youth of the next generation makes the really moral choice and STOPS going to work for wall street (and big corp in general), then the system stands no chance.
What about those that go into risk management at a big Wall Street firm because they view this as the best use of their background? Would you rather have someone who didn't understand the mathematical intricacies of fixed income managing the risk of an entity capable of bringing an economy to a halt, or would you prefer that job to be taken by someone who knew what they were doing?
Goldman Sachs did not donate to the charity that plausibly saves lives at a price of $2500 (Against Malaria Foundation). If I had to guess, they gave it to groups who don't even try to save lives, or to groups who save lives at a cost 100 times or more greater than $2.5k/life.
It would be rather awesome if all or most of that money was going to one of the top three charities at give well. Enough so that would significantly change my understanding of Goldman Sachs and make me revaluate similar companies.
It should also be noted that by donating a smallish amount of money (377M is a relatively small amount of money for a bank like Goldman) banks can get tax breaks, which could amount to more than they donated.
You have to know the right people. I have a non-CS degree from a pretty average state school but I somehow fell into the world of HFT algo development. I suppose luck played a large role in my case since I wasn't actively seeking that type of job. One of my clients (who had founded a small "prop" shop) liked my work and wanted to give me a shot at developing algorithms, even though I had no prior experience and scant knowledge of financial markets. Fortunately it turned out to be a great fit and I ended up automating nearly every aspect of his operation.
Wall Street banks aren't the only ones doing HFT. The technology to develop and deploy algorithms has become much more accessible in recent years. It's still not cheap - collocated servers, real time data streams, and Bloomberg terminals can rack up tens thousands per month - but you don't need a Wall St. budget to get started.
There are lots of small proprietary trading shops (prop shops) scattered throughout the major financial hubs (NYC, London, Chicago, etc.). These shops typically have 20 employees or less. In my case we had two traders, one programmer (me), and one IT guy. These shops are more likely to care about your skills as a programmer than where you went to school.
It depends what aspect of HFT you want to get into, but experience can generally trump accreditation. That is you won't get hired out of uni, but you can get hired somewhere working on similar tech where you get to prove your worth before transitioning into HFT.
That said if you want to make 100k there's plenty of tech roles outside of HFT where you can make that amount.
Being young, having very strong referrals from someone who works there and demonstrating building things outside of work or above and beyond what you are supposed to be doing.
Join Wall Street. Attempt to save the world through donations. End up unable to recognize what to solve.
This is a pattern that all these guys do. Even Warren Buffet just gave his money to Gates.
You'd think a guy who spends his life picking out successful businesses would be able to recognize this in non-profit / social ventures, but he's so removed from real problems he can't.
If you want to save the world, save the world first.
Join Wall Street, make some money, and then start a company that actually does something useful (i.e., not make photo-sharing more beautiful or social marketing .01% more effective).
Giving money away is an effective way of actually accomplishing very little, unless you're doing it like Bill Gates and can have very tight control over what your money is actually doing.
This is so stupid.. so instead of working to make the world a better place let's speculate on everything, trying to rip of as much as we can so then we can give our money away. It's like working as a lumberjack and then use your wages to plant other trees, you will never be able to replant what you destroyed previously
At least in my life time and durring my education, mid USA, there seemed to be a considerable amount of emphasis placed on doing good with your own hands, even going to the extent of suggesting that getting a high paying job was morally negative or at least undesirable as an intention.
The article and the sentiment behind it is more about this negative stereotype changing and hopeful disappearing rather then devaluing what is already valuable.
I fail to see how earning 100K and donating half of it as effective as working to save a life for $500 instead of $2500 over time. Like all things in life, a balance is required and no one way is going to be a cure-all.
I applaud people that live frugally and donate what they have to worthy causes, but maybe a bit more introspection is also required to figure out why the career path has really been chosen.
Saving lives 5x more efficiently would be awesome. But how many people over how many years does that take? It may be that someone like Trigg who is earning to give would actually do better to go into malaria research, but it's a hard question. It's one I'm very interested in, though, if you know something about this.
(What is clear is that he's doing a lot of good, and if more people followed his example that would be great.)
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve."
[+] [-] michaelkeenan|13 years ago|reply
http://www.effectivealtruismsummit.com/
[+] [-] clarkm|13 years ago|reply
Scott Alexander has a pretty good summary [2] of the event if you don't want to listen to the audio.
[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/04/more-now-means-less-la...
[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/05/investment-and-ineffici...
[+] [-] mathattack|13 years ago|reply
That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas?
Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head dinner, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them to donate what they'd make in 2 hours? (Although the dinner does have social purposes)
You can like Warren Buffett or hate him, but the best thing he can do for society is earn money and then efficiently give it away to solve big problems. That would be much better than him working full time for the peace corps, or a non-profit.
[+] [-] dragontamer|13 years ago|reply
Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.
[+] [-] scott_s|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edw519|13 years ago|reply
It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either.
I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time.
If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good.
You do good by the way you treat other people and in the hard work and good deeds that you do. And it can be just about anything. You don't have to do charity work or walkathons or open source or make giant donations for all to see in order to do good. If your work provides value to someone else, then you're doing good.
It's up to you to decide how good your doing good is. And the best time to start doing good is now. Every little bit matters.
[+] [-] codegeek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davorak|13 years ago|reply
Some times this choice is obvious, under feeding myself to feed other would probably reduce the amount of long term good I could do for the world.
Saving my money now so that I can be in a good finical position to take advantage of economic opportunities is not as obvious, but can lead to considerably more good being done.
[+] [-] awwstn|13 years ago|reply
I don't really understand this criticism of him. He isn't trying to save up millions of dollars before doing good, he's working for money and giving it away as fast as it comes in. Sure, making more money isn't the only way to do more good, but if he has chosen charities that use money to do good then his logic can't be refuted: "The more he makes, the more good he can do."
[+] [-] chollida1|13 years ago|reply
I think you've really missed the mark on this...
The two view points can easily reconcile. You can make more and donate more while still always doing good.
There is nothing wrong with doing both and I'm sure the people mentioned in the article are.
I'm not sure what you have against his idea that the more he makes the more good he can do.
[+] [-] astrofinch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barry-cotter|13 years ago|reply
Every litle bit may matter but ten lives saved is ten times better than one.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LowKarmaAccount|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fishkins|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ig1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davorak|13 years ago|reply
Though it is dangerous to ignore this arena completely.
[+] [-] barry-cotter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piokoch|13 years ago|reply
Besides, the article sounds like some expensive Public Relation action from wallstreet companies. I guess they have hard time to find decent employees...
[+] [-] ivansavz|13 years ago|reply
Furthermore, as pointed out by @mathattack, some charities are very inefficient operations--sometimes bordering on unethically so. My friend worked as a webmaster for a charity whose operations overhead was ~70% (mostly due to the annual general meeting held at a 5* resort in Banff, attended by all the volunteers working in the charity (most of them spouses of the donors)).
OK, I am going to calm down now. It is just words. Just propaganda. Perhaps this article was commissioned by Wall Street as an attempt to influence perceptions and to assuage the existential threat to their existence. If the analytically-minded youth of the next generation makes the really moral choice and STOPS going to work for wall street (and big corp in general), then the system stands no chance.
[+] [-] barry-cotter|13 years ago|reply
If the charity your webmaster friend worked at saved a life for $1,800 donated it would be a good place to donate money.
Jason Trigg probably saved 20 lives last year. Are you saying that what he did is bad?
[+] [-] BrentRitterbeck|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukeprog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davorak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dev1n|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masonhensley|13 years ago|reply
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-science-of-giving-2126...
[+] [-] ekm2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] effbott|13 years ago|reply
Wall Street banks aren't the only ones doing HFT. The technology to develop and deploy algorithms has become much more accessible in recent years. It's still not cheap - collocated servers, real time data streams, and Bloomberg terminals can rack up tens thousands per month - but you don't need a Wall St. budget to get started.
There are lots of small proprietary trading shops (prop shops) scattered throughout the major financial hubs (NYC, London, Chicago, etc.). These shops typically have 20 employees or less. In my case we had two traders, one programmer (me), and one IT guy. These shops are more likely to care about your skills as a programmer than where you went to school.
[+] [-] ig1|13 years ago|reply
That said if you want to make 100k there's plenty of tech roles outside of HFT where you can make that amount.
[+] [-] zmitri|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymoushn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelbwang|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpinkston|13 years ago|reply
This is a pattern that all these guys do. Even Warren Buffet just gave his money to Gates.
You'd think a guy who spends his life picking out successful businesses would be able to recognize this in non-profit / social ventures, but he's so removed from real problems he can't.
If you want to save the world, save the world first.
Stop. Fucking. Waiting.
[+] [-] m52go|13 years ago|reply
Giving money away is an effective way of actually accomplishing very little, unless you're doing it like Bill Gates and can have very tight control over what your money is actually doing.
[+] [-] greesil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UVB-76|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davorak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genofon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taurath|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyjsong|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tannerc|13 years ago|reply
One teacher-focused engineer doing a decent job at influencing and educating others to do more with their money is... priceless?
It's good that Mr. Trigg is doing what he can, but discounting the ability of an education role to impact even more people is slightly silly.
[+] [-] davorak|13 years ago|reply
The article and the sentiment behind it is more about this negative stereotype changing and hopeful disappearing rather then devaluing what is already valuable.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sailfast|13 years ago|reply
I applaud people that live frugally and donate what they have to worthy causes, but maybe a bit more introspection is also required to figure out why the career path has really been chosen.
[+] [-] cbr|13 years ago|reply
(What is clear is that he's doing a lot of good, and if more people followed his example that would be great.)
[+] [-] blueprint|13 years ago|reply
Henry David Thoreau