3 ms·
My counter-argument question is: why would sending 10% of your income to the other side of the world be a better use of that money than giving your dinner serve
by manwe150 4y ago
My counter-argument question is: why would sending 10% of your income to the other side of the world be a better use of that money than giving your dinner server a 10% higher tip (or other arbitrary numbers)? Both improve the quality of someone else life. Both reduce your own spending power by equal amounts. But money also isn't some static thing that disappears when you spend it. Is is a medium for representing the continuous exchange of work (net of losses due to taxes). This is what "The Wealth of Nations" and others around the time of Adam Smith started to teach, creating the modern field of economics, and the basis for describing capitalism.
The article here seemed to mention being comfortable with the number being what was important, perhaps more so than the exact value of the number, or its arbitrariness?
Perhaps then the only losing move is not to play? So, even savings are good, since you are giving someone else access to your money, but completely removing yourself from society as a miser or hermit is expected to be a negative for society, since you are depriving others of your talents.
- hiq 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism#Cost-effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism#Cost-effect...
- skybrian 4y agoThe cost to yourself is the same. However, the benefit to others varies drastically. I think EA is on firmer ground when the boundary has already been set. Let's say you have $10,000 that you've already decided goes to charity. (Suppose it's in a donor-advised fund.) What is the best way to spend it? EA says that it matters how you spend it, that you should try do at least as good job at this as you do choosing an investment when you invest your savings, that it's a hard problem, and that there should be charity advisers to help you make a good decision.
- ineedasername 4y ago>net of losses due to taxes It doesn't stop working then. It's still spent on things that put people to work.
- mcculley 4y agoIt is not a zero-sum game. Some money spent on labor adds more jobs than others. For example, if I employ people building a road to nowhere, I have only employed the builders. If I build a road that is needed, more economic opportunities are unlocked.
- imtringued 4y agoThe assumption of EA is that you strive for extra income to donate it. If we simply assume that you only maximize income for your own well being then spending your money will also improve the wellbeing of others. The only thing that wouldn't improve it is to keep money in your bank account, forcing other people to wait for you to spend it.