I'm not who you were replying to, but he wasn't necessarily making an assumption. There is a philosophical theory named "effective altruism" which includes ten

I'm not who you were replying to, but he wasn't necessarily making an assumption. There is a philosophical theory named "effective altruism" which includes tenets such as cause prioritization, cost effectiveness and comparative wealth to (hopefully) allow the most good to be done the most efficiently. In amongst those tenets is the precept of comparative wealth, quoted here: > Many effective altruists believe that, as formulated by Peter Singer, "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it".[18] Anyone with an income of above $52,000 PPP is in the 1% richest people globally.[19] Therefore, many effective altruists donate a significant portion of their income to highly effective charities, since doing so would not cause them to give up important purchases. In short, if you're making six figures in tech, it is generally more charitable to keep doing the tech that you're doing and donate more, and if the tech work you're doing isn't a net negative, you'll be doing more good by donating your tech largesse to a seaweed farmer instead.