Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between:

1. Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost)
2. Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice)

While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. It's not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere.

So in your example - if someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesn't count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn.

There are a few reasons for this approach:

1. Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations
2. Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths
3. Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income
4. Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving

What are your thoughts on this distinction? I'm curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.

I think that you raise a good point that in a partnership with fully shared finances and joint decision-making, there's a reasonable argument that each partner could view their effective "personal income" as 50% of the household income. This could align with the spirit of the pledge, which is about committing a meaningful portion of one's resources to helping others.

Another approach could be to sign the pledge together as a couple. Many GWWC members have found this to be a meaningful way to approach their giving as a couple. You can track your joint donations through a single pledge dashboard, making it easier to manage your giving together.

Ultimately, the goal of this advice is to help members stick to their plan of taking significant action to benefit others. All guidelines about how to calculate income should be thought of as serving that goal. In other words, our overall advice is to follow the spirit of the pledge, which is using a significant portion of one's income to benefit others. We recognise that a simple rule won't work perfectly for all possible situations, and encourage pledgers to define 10% of income in the way that makes sense to them. 

Hey @PabloAMC 🔸! Thanks for the question. We think direct work at a charity or nonprofit can be extremely impactful! However, your pledged amount does not change depending on your workplace or occupation. Those of us who work for nonprofits, even if we left higher-paying jobs to do so, still donate our pledged amounts.

If your giving pledge is preventing you from doing more impactful work then it might be appropriate to resign from your pledge. Read more about this in “How permanent is a giving pledge?”.

Great post! At GWWC we're currently looking for pledgers excited to help us shape our new Pledge Advocacy Programme. 

We've found that word of mouth is one of the best ways for people to learn about the pledge! But, we’ve also heard from many pledgers that it can be difficult to bring up the pledge in conversation so we're launching a new Pledge Advocacy Programme to support our community members to have thoughtful conversations about pledging with their friends, family, and colleagues. 

We're still in the pilot phase, but if you're keen to help shape this exciting new initiative then please sign up here! 

Hey @huw! Thanks for the question. My answer below should be read as guidance from a GWWC team member on how to interpret the 10% Pledge, but not as a formal or final position on what it means to stick to it.

We often hear from high-impact non-profit founders or employees (particularly those connected to AIM) that they are excited about effective giving and would love to take the 🔸10% Pledge, but haven’t done this (yet) mainly because they are already taking a lower salary at their organisation, and aren’t currently in a position to donate 10% of their remaining income. 

In many cases, the above conclusion is based on misunderstandings about the 10% Pledge which are resulting in opportunities for impact being missed by people like yourself not pledging. For example, pledging would allow you to more effectively and authentically advocate for effective giving and the 10% Pledge among your peers. People founding / working at high-impact non-profits are often in a particularly valuable position to advocate, as their personal stories make them examples for others trying to live up to effective altruism principles and “practising what they preach”.

To help clarify some of these misunderstandings, let's walk through a few options that could be worth considering for people like yourself founding or working at high-impact organisations:

Salary sacrificing: We think salary sacrificing can be perfectly in line with the spirit of the 10% Pledge if the following two conditions are both met:

1. You think your sacrificed money is best spent on the non-profit you are working for
   1. I.e. you think you have at least as much impact by salary sacrificing as by taking the salary and then donating to any other non-profit (taking into account tax benefits and any other logistical considerations). 
      Some considerations here:
      1. This is a different question than asking whether your organisation is the highest-impact place to work for you. 
         • E.g. most people would agree GiveDirectly is a high-impact organisation and for many employees it may be the highest-impact place to work, but they may still think that their marginal dollar is better spent donated to Malaria Consortium.
      2. If your organisation is not currently as funding constrained as some others, your money may have a larger impact elsewhere (it’s worth thinking about funging in this case).
      3. From a communications/advocacy perspective (for instance, “putting your money where your mouth is”) it may sometimes be higher-impact donating (at least some money) to another organisation than your own (or vice versa).
2. You would have received the sacrificed money for the job you are currently doing, if you hadn't explicitly decided to sacrifice it, and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.
   1. For example, this condition is met when:
      1. As an employee, you have it listed in your contract or in your organisation's internal accounts that your salary is X, but then instruct your employer to only pay out 90% of X to you. At any point in the future, you could instruct your employer to start paying you X instead and they would do so.
      2. As a founder, you have the explicit ability to pay yourself X (e.g. your co-founder, board and funders approve of you doing this), but then decide to only pay yourself 90% of X. At any point in the future, you are able to pay yourself X if you wish.
   2. For example, this condition is not met when:
      1. You've founded or taken a job at a high-impact non-profit, knowing that you could have instead taken a higher-paying job elsewhere.
      2. You're confident you could have negotiated a higher salary with your employer, or paid yourself more as a founder, but haven't formally checked or arranged this in any way.

Donating less now but still taking the 10% Pledge: A common misconception about the 10% Pledge is that it would oblige you to give 10% every year. Instead, it is a lifetime pledge, so it's fine if you donate a bit less in some years and more in others to make up for that.

We obviously only recommend doing this if you’re confident you can and want to make the 10% lifetime commitment, and where feasible we still generally recommend people to give at least 10% yearly as a useful rule of thumb. This holds you accountable, embeds a pattern of giving in your life and avoids you getting so far behind on your pledge that it becomes daunting or unachievable. But we think there are cases, e.g. for some very early stage non-profit founders and/or when you’re having a particularly challenging year financially, where it may be worth diverging from this rule of thumb.

Taking a 🔹Trial Pledge: If you're not ready to take a 10% Pledge but are excited to start giving effectively, consider taking a 🔹Trial Pledge (1-10% pledge for 6 months to 5 years), which still allows you to lead by example and additionally can serve as a helpful reminder to reconsider taking the 10% Pledge (or another Trial Pledge) at a later date.

Interesting view, but I have a different perspective based on my experience in the effective giving and AIM startup space. I haven't observed organisations being pushed toward premature scaling or unnecessary short-term funding growth. In fact, I've seen quite different dynamics at play often pushing in the opposite direction. Would be curious to hear specific examples from others where they've seen this pattern occur?

One concern I've got about this model for funding EA groups is about the incentive structure this creates. While member donations could provide useful feedback, this might lead community builders to optimise for member satisfaction rather than impact. A group running popular social events might receive more donations than one doing the harder work of developing people's capabilities to tackle pressing challenges.

The ultimate measure of an EA group's success should be its ability to develop capable individuals who can contribute meaningfully to improving the world. This might require not running popular programs that increase immediate member satisfaction.

FWIW I completely agree that EA uni groups should be able to fund themselves a fair bit like most other uni groups and societies do. Definitely worth having 'scholarship' options for those who request it, but the default should be that these EA uni groups do whatever is 'normal' for socialites at their university. I also think that this would go some way to make EA seems less weird. 

Thank you for raising this important point about double-counting, Ian! This is something we go to great pains to avoid when evaluating the counterfactual impact of fundraising efforts in the effective giving space. For example, we're careful not to count donations that would have happened anyway or were primarily inspired by other organisations when accounting for our own organisation's counterfactual multiplier. 

Where I see it a bit differently is around the question of individual impact credit. Rather than worrying about dividing up credit between meta-donors and direct donors, I think what matters most is maximising our collective impact as a community. When you donate to an EG organisation, you might indeed be counterfactually responsible for 2x or more money going to effective charities - and so too are the people who choose to donate after learning about effective charities through your meta-donation. Since we're all working toward the same goal of maximising good done, this isn't a zero-sum game where we need to divide up credit.

This accounting question really only becomes crucial when we need to make decisions about where to direct scarce funding - we want to fund the organisations that will be most effective at growing the total pool of donations to effective charities.

That said, I think your approach of allocating 15% to evaluators makes a lot of practical sense as a way to sustainably support the ecosystem. It aligns nicely with the thrust of Ollie Base's argument in his post "Consider donating to whoever helped you" while avoiding getting too caught up in precise impact attribution. And as you note, GiveWell's excess funds regranting policy makes this particularly straightforward in their case and this policiy is something we are working to put in place at GWWC too.

Hey @Henri Thunberg 🔸 really exciting that you'll be making a donation in this space. Happy to talk this through with you if you'd like :) I've DM'd you :)