An idea that has always motivated me is the idea of the veil of ignorance — the basic concept being, how would you want society to be if you did not know who you would be in it? A world where people in the top 25% donate significantly to those less well off has always appealed to me and felt right. The GWWC pledge was one of the first long-term charitable actions I took in this direction. I remember signing my paper copy of the pledge with four other friends, two of us taking the further pledge and the others taking the 10%. It felt both important and significant to our group and carried real weight.

I have written a couple of times about my feelings about taking the GWWC pledge. (I don't believe I'm signed up on the website, but I in fact have given 10% for my entire working life, except two years that were particularly bad financially.) I think the essence, for me, is a sense of empowerment. 

The world is full of enormous problems that I can't do anything about. I often feel weak and powerless and helpless. GWWC says to me that I do have power to positively affect the world, and always will. I don't have to be exceptional: as long as I have money, I can donate to highly effective charities and save lives. I don't have to worry about dying and leaving the world the same as it was when I entered it. Though I will never know their names, there are people who would be dead if not for me, and who are alive. And that means so much. 

To me, the 10% Pledge was a commitment to being the kind of person I really wanted to be. Someone who took the inequality and suffering in the world seriously, and did not turn away from it. 

Since pledging, I only feel more motivated to help others and do good.

Working at GWWC gives me a unique window into all the motivations people share when pledging, as well as interacting with the community every day - and that in itself continues to inspire me.

I truly hope that GWWC continues to grow strongly for many more years and is successful in our mission of making giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm.

I was mentioned in a newspaper article this summer regarding this exact topic (with a typo in my name, oops!). Here is the translation:

CB is convinced of the potential of this. Just a few years ago, his job as an IT engineer earned him an annual salary of 32,000 euros. After two years, he realizes that he can give a lot of this money away, without sacrificing his happiness or quality of life. "Of course, you have to be able to secure a minimum threshold of material conditions," anticipates the 29-year-old, who made the pledge in 2019. But generally, people increase their standard of living after their studies, or after a raise: bigger houses or cars, more spending on certain items... But we get used to these expenses very quickly, and research shows that they don't bring significant additional happiness."

The psychology of happiness is quite clear on this point: the accumulation of material possessions does not make us much happier. Once the peak of satisfaction has passed, our level of happiness returns to its initial, pre-purchase level - a phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation (or "hedonic treadmill", to mean that our level of happiness tends to return to the same reference point). CB quickly gave up this headlong rush. The Lyonnais doesn't own a car, and is satisfied with the basic, such as the Interrail Pass and youth hostels for his vacations. From the very first year of his involvement, he set himself the goal of donating anything above the minimum wage. Today, he donates 30 to 40% of his income to organizations carefully selected for their effectiveness - although he admits he would probably go back to a lower percentage if he had children.

For these donors, the satisfaction that comes with acting altruistically far outweighs any sense of sacrifice. CB has long defined himself as a passive person, skeptical about making a difference in the world. "I don't have the network or the resources to influence laws and change public policy, even though it's essential to act in favor of the climate, for example." His discovery of effective altruism changed all that. "I discovered the existence of organizations specializing in the rigorous evaluation of associations, which define which interventions work well and which don't. And that made a huge difference to me. That reassured me enormously. If there are experts, I can support them with a donation. It's within my reach, and it can have a gigantic impact. It's kind of a division of labor."

Full article: https://www.ladn.eu/nouveaux-usages/donner-10-de-ses-revenus-pour-ameliorer-le-monde-cest-de-la-division-du-travail/

I've written about this here, where I said, among other things:

Obviously, charity is a deeply personal decision - but it’s also a key way to impact the world, and an expression of religious belief, and both are important to me. Partly due to my experience, I think it’s important to dedicate money to giving thoughtfully and in advance, rather than doing so on an ad-hoc basis - and I have done this since before hearing about Effective Altruism. But inspired by Effective Altruism and organizations like Givewell, I now dedicate 10% of my income to charities that have been evaluated for effectiveness, and which are aligned with my beliefs about charitable giving.

In contrast to the norm in effective altruism, I only partially embrace cause neutrality. I think it’s an incomplete expression of how my charity should impact the world. For that reason, I split my charitable giving between effective charities which I personally view as valuable, and deference to cause-neutral experts on the most impactful opportunities. Everyone needs to find their own balance, and I have tremendous respect for people who donate more, but I’ve been happy with my decision to limit my effective charitable giving at 10%, and beyond that, I still feel free to donate to other causes, including those that can’t be classified as effective at all.

As suggested above, community is an important part of my budget. A conclusion I came to after reflecting on the question, and grappling with effective altruism, is that separate from charitable giving, I think it’s important to pay for public goods you benefit from, both narrow ones like community organizations, and broader ones. I think it’s worth helping to fund community centers, and why I paid for NPR membership when I lived in the US, and why I pay to offset carbon emissions to reduce the harms of climate change
 

I love the simplicity of the pledge: Sign it once and never again think about how much to donate. I used to think about that a lot, questioned a lot of consumption choices, but by taking the decision to donate 10% I felt like that question was "solved" and I could focus on other topics again. Additional points that convinced me to take the pledge: By starting early in your career you never notice the "lost" money and it also helps to prevent value drift in the future.