4 ms·

Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. And there could be a change in the law t

Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. And there could be a change in the law that allows people to forgive student debt in personal bankruptcy, and that could make sure higher tuition doesnt happen.

greentxt 2y ago
It would do more good in K12 or pre-K than it would paying off private debts held by white collar highly educated not rich yet due only to their young age university-bros.
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  It truly is astonishing. We have kids who cannot afford school lunches, people working multiple blue-collar jobs and yet the problems of people who are statistically better off than average constantly jump to the front. People complain about Effective Altruism because of one dude messing up big but it would behoove everyone to read up on the basic philosophy of it before suggesting how we best spent billions to help reduce suffering.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    The problem with EA is in judging what is effective. Perhaps ridding the unforgivable student loans of parents actually helps the kids more than school lunches. And frankly, some of the most effective altruism may be just to directly give cash to people, yet I don't know how many people in the EA community would trust people so much with unconditional cash.
    - currymj 2y ago
      there are many many problems with the EA movement, but they do generally support unconditional cash transfers. cash transfers are seen as the "default" baseline. the bar for charity is that it must be better than cash transfers. they do find some such charities that they claim are even better than cash transfers, but they are totally comfortable with giving people unconditional cash.
      - jimkleiber 2y ago
        ah ok, i appreciate the clarification and am grateful to hear that. I think I've worried that the EA movement often has an obsession with optimization, which can lead to getting the absolute best perfect solution and become really dehumanized in the process. But as I said, I'm glad to hear that unconditional cash is gaining traction with those folks, as I think it not only gives someone financial resources but also trust. > And this trust — another resource it’s difficult to measure — is the aspect of gifts that many have said they value most. The above is an excerpt from MacKenzie Scott's essay, "No Dollar Signs This Time." [0] I really appreciate the approach she is taking, which seems to be especially embracing the uncertainty of it all and trusting people to do what they believe is best. [0]: https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time
  - freejazz 2y ago
    People complain about effective altruism because they just talk about mosquito nets instead of anything like this. Also, who is the person that "screwed up big"? I'm guessing you mean SBF but my view is that MacAskill is an outright shuckster.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  I'd say many of these university bros are actually parents to K12 and Pre-K and having parents not terribly in debt could help them focus more on being there for their kids and encouraging education.
_heimdall 2y ago
> Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Apathy is the only fair policy?
  - nwienert 2y ago
    I am a bit apathetic towards giving generally wealthier people who made a bad financial choice a break, when weighed against all the different ways you could spend that money, yes.
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      > People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. If you're saying all the different ways you could spend that money, then you're saying non-intervention for the wealthier people how made a bad financial choice, and yes-intervention for other ways in which the money could be spent, which again, is a decision on where to give limited resources. I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with whether it would be more helpful to give it to those who have college debt or those in the US who are without a home or frankly those here in Kenya (where I am now) who if don't have money, might starve to death. Moreover that each decision can be judged. > Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not. If we approach it from this side, I agree. Non-intervention, or not giving any limited resources to anyone, is the most fair approach and then we can evaluate whether it's fair the position in which those people are. Yet I don't know how realistic this is, to withhold all resources from everyone.

greentxt 2y ago

It would do more good in K12 or pre-K than it would paying off private debts held by white collar highly educated not rich yet due only to their young age university-bros.

ajmurmann 2y ago
It truly is astonishing. We have kids who cannot afford school lunches, people working multiple blue-collar jobs and yet the problems of people who are statistically better off than average constantly jump to the front. People complain about Effective Altruism because of one dude messing up big but it would behoove everyone to read up on the basic philosophy of it before suggesting how we best spent billions to help reduce suffering.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  The problem with EA is in judging what is effective. Perhaps ridding the unforgivable student loans of parents actually helps the kids more than school lunches. And frankly, some of the most effective altruism may be just to directly give cash to people, yet I don't know how many people in the EA community would trust people so much with unconditional cash.
  - currymj 2y ago
    there are many many problems with the EA movement, but they do generally support unconditional cash transfers. cash transfers are seen as the "default" baseline. the bar for charity is that it must be better than cash transfers. they do find some such charities that they claim are even better than cash transfers, but they are totally comfortable with giving people unconditional cash.
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      ah ok, i appreciate the clarification and am grateful to hear that. I think I've worried that the EA movement often has an obsession with optimization, which can lead to getting the absolute best perfect solution and become really dehumanized in the process. But as I said, I'm glad to hear that unconditional cash is gaining traction with those folks, as I think it not only gives someone financial resources but also trust. > And this trust — another resource it’s difficult to measure — is the aspect of gifts that many have said they value most. The above is an excerpt from MacKenzie Scott's essay, "No Dollar Signs This Time." [0] I really appreciate the approach she is taking, which seems to be especially embracing the uncertainty of it all and trusting people to do what they believe is best. [0]: https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time
- freejazz 2y ago
  People complain about effective altruism because they just talk about mosquito nets instead of anything like this. Also, who is the person that "screwed up big"? I'm guessing you mean SBF but my view is that MacAskill is an outright shuckster.
jimkleiber 2y ago
I'd say many of these university bros are actually parents to K12 and Pre-K and having parents not terribly in debt could help them focus more on being there for their kids and encouraging education.

_heimdall 2y ago

> Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Apathy is the only fair policy?
- nwienert 2y ago
  I am a bit apathetic towards giving generally wealthier people who made a bad financial choice a break, when weighed against all the different ways you could spend that money, yes.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    > People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. If you're saying all the different ways you could spend that money, then you're saying non-intervention for the wealthier people how made a bad financial choice, and yes-intervention for other ways in which the money could be spent, which again, is a decision on where to give limited resources. I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with whether it would be more helpful to give it to those who have college debt or those in the US who are without a home or frankly those here in Kenya (where I am now) who if don't have money, might starve to death. Moreover that each decision can be judged. > Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not. If we approach it from this side, I agree. Non-intervention, or not giving any limited resources to anyone, is the most fair approach and then we can evaluate whether it's fair the position in which those people are. Yet I don't know how realistic this is, to withhold all resources from everyone.