4 ms·

You are crazy and this could work. However, if you’re going to run a staffing agency there are multiple ways you can do good with it. There’s only so much money

You are crazy and this could work. However, if you’re going to run a staffing agency there are multiple ways you can do good with it. There’s only so much money to go round and your customers are not going to pay you more money because you donate a lot of money to charity though it may help with marketing and sales. Ultimately the money is either going to come from you or your employees. You’ve decided it’s going to come from you, which is greasy. You do what you want with your money. Staff are not going to work at below market rates for a company just because the owners donate a lot of money. There is absolutely no way you will be able to skimp on sales and focus on service. Real businesses pay people large sums because they think they’re worth the price, not out of the kindness of their hearts. If you want to donate a lot of money you’re going to be doing the same kind of work as now and donating more money. Services don’t sell themselves. If running a staffing agency and donating money doesn’t sound super rewarding all by itself consider taking on people who need a break, training them and sending them out into the working world until they move on. Look at what Lambda School and Jessica Livingston are doing. http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/women-learn-to-program-this-summer http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/women-learn-to-program-t... Could you sponsor one person a quarter to do this, to come to your office while doing it and get paid, and then work for you for nine months after? Or you could work for a company or organisation you actually thought was making a positive difference in the world. I think Lambda School is awesome because they’re trying to make a Lin education that leads to a good job available everywhere. I’m sure you can think of some company you admire. Or look at the 80,000 hours job board, the product of some smart people looking for jobs that they think will make a big positive impact. https://80000hours.org/job-board https://80000hours.org/job-board

frlnc_throwaway 8y ago
I also used to be interested in effective altruism. They're mostly smart people, and I respect them for sticking to their principles. However, I don't think working at something you feel neutral, or negative, towards, and then donating the bulk of your income, is a path to personal happiness. You need to do more thinking and reflection on your personal values, priorities, and the work you personally find fulfilling, meaningful, worthwhile. It can take years of thinking to figure out your purpose, but it can be done. Try this as a place to start: https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-in-history-preorder https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-i... Or maybe this: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-central-purpose-in-life.html http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-centr...
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  I suggest you take a look at the 80,000 hours website. Earning to give has become less emphasised as 80,000 Hours has done more research and the broader effective altruist community has grown, in experience, numbers and expertise. https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#should-i-earn-to-give-or-do-direct-work https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#shoul... > Should I earn to give or do direct work? > We often advise people who say: “I have high earning potential, so I have good personal fit with earning to give, so I should earn to give”. > But this doesn’t follow. We’re in a situation where we need the right ratio of funders to direct workers, so what matters is comparative advantage. This means you need to compare your earning potential to other people in the community who might do direct work or earn to give. > If they have even higher earning potential, then you might have a comparative advantage in direct work, even though you have high earning potential compared to people in general. > Cases like this might be common. There are people doing direct work in the community who could donate over $500,000 per year earning to give. So, even if you have earning potential this high, you might still have a comparative advantage in direct work. > Of course, some people’s comparative advantage will be earning to give. If it looks like you might be less good than existing people doing direct work, or you have struggled to find work in direct work, we think that earning to give is a great alternative.
ceoddevelopment 8y ago
You're under arrest, cease and desist or we will throw you to jail and then prison for sake of pre-emption. You will conclude on alimony your perjury and that is case in final. Council.

frlnc_throwaway 8y ago

I also used to be interested in effective altruism. They're mostly smart people, and I respect them for sticking to their principles. However, I don't think working at something you feel neutral, or negative, towards, and then donating the bulk of your income, is a path to personal happiness. You need to do more thinking and reflection on your personal values, priorities, and the work you personally find fulfilling, meaningful, worthwhile. It can take years of thinking to figure out your purpose, but it can be done. Try this as a place to start: https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-in-history-preorder https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-i... Or maybe this: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-central-purpose-in-life.html http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-centr...

barry-cotter 8y ago
I suggest you take a look at the 80,000 hours website. Earning to give has become less emphasised as 80,000 Hours has done more research and the broader effective altruist community has grown, in experience, numbers and expertise. https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#should-i-earn-to-give-or-do-direct-work https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#shoul... > Should I earn to give or do direct work? > We often advise people who say: “I have high earning potential, so I have good personal fit with earning to give, so I should earn to give”. > But this doesn’t follow. We’re in a situation where we need the right ratio of funders to direct workers, so what matters is comparative advantage. This means you need to compare your earning potential to other people in the community who might do direct work or earn to give. > If they have even higher earning potential, then you might have a comparative advantage in direct work, even though you have high earning potential compared to people in general. > Cases like this might be common. There are people doing direct work in the community who could donate over $500,000 per year earning to give. So, even if you have earning potential this high, you might still have a comparative advantage in direct work. > Of course, some people’s comparative advantage will be earning to give. If it looks like you might be less good than existing people doing direct work, or you have struggled to find work in direct work, we think that earning to give is a great alternative.

ceoddevelopment 8y ago

You're under arrest, cease and desist or we will throw you to jail and then prison for sake of pre-emption. You will conclude on alimony your perjury and that is case in final. Council.