3 ms·
> is it not more effective altruism for people like Bezos and Scott to keep their wealth compounding as effectively as possible, and then donate it much later o
by adventured 6y ago
> is it not more effective altruism for people like Bezos and Scott to keep their wealth compounding as effectively as possible, and then donate it much later on, perhaps in a few decades?
The caveat to that is the Steve Jobs outcome - that that time isn't guaranteed to anyone. Jeff Bezos for example nearly died in a helicopter crash. Steve was fortunate he had Laurene to handle philanthropically disposing of the now $37b family fortune responsibly (presumably).
Also, you may just run out of time if you wait too long, even if you live a very long time. Buffett was aiming to discharge most of his wealth before his death and they thought they had a solid timeline for doing it. He won't come remotely close to that as the wealth piled up even faster than expected ($84b remaining and he's 90, after giving away near $40b so far in 14 years). The Gates Foundation can't give it away fast enough. The Gates family was initially aiming to get rid of their wealth in their lifetime, then they shifted that to within N decades after their death. They have to give away at least $250 billion yet (with Buffett's wealth taking priority, which has slowed their ability to discharge their own pile of wealth) - it may require another lifetime.
- ve55 6y agoI would assume that they'd have wealth scheduled to be given away post-death, so that accidental/premature death wouldn't be too bad, yes. But that's an interesting point of how it can be difficult to give away fast enough, so perhaps you might as well start now, since e.g. if someone had to give away billions very quickly, it would probably not be allocated well compared to if they had a few decades to do it. I don't think I will end up wealthy enough to worry about this myself of course, but it's another factor to take note of.