Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#171

Post by crimsonalucard »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #118
crimsonalucard wrote: post #102

I'm ashamed to say I donate $0. It's the right thing to do, it's altruistic and I respect the people that do it; but I can't bring myself to care more about the rest of the world then I care about myself/my family. Am i the norm or the minority?

You and your family live in the rest of the world. It's not just altruistic, it's also rational for your own self interests. It's not mutually exclusive: That's a false dichotomy. If you can't care about your community enough to donate something , then I think your values may need reexamining. Even if that something is donation of old clothes and used items instead of throwing everything away. And finally, it's not a…

Logic doesn't apply in this case. If I donate money I am acting against logic.

My self interest benefits more if I use the money for myself rather then giving it away and getting the benefits in a form that is heavily diluted. It is the aggregate donations of people that can, in the end mutually benefit my self interest. However my individual donation is just a drop in the bucket; I stand to benefit the most by not donating and letting others donate. Thus, the logical move is to not donate. It is actually counter intuitively detrimental to my self interest if everyone acted this way. Garrett Hardin described the paradox in his famous paper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This does not mean I think it's ok not to donate. A large part of our lives as humans are not dictated by logic. What I meant in the original post is that from an emotional standpoint I just don't feel a heavy burden that I need to donate. $20000 that could be a donation I'd rather spend on a worthless luxury (i.e. new car) for me... and that's not logic talking either, it's just my gut, emotional desire.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#172

Post by djb_hackernews »

ernestipark wrote: post #79

For those interested, one way to build this charitable muscle and lifestyle is to start a charitable trust (at least in the US). It's not just for the ultra wealthy. You can start any old investment account and commit to funding it regularly say $20/month or 1% of your salary to start. Then when you hit $5k or more you can transfer those funds to a trust you create with say Fidelity or Vanguard ($25k minimum). You ca…

This is interesting. I created a scholarship that i direct for graduates of my high school and the way it works now is i cut a check to the school who cuts checks to the students. I'd rather have a trust i can write checks directly to the students from and more importantly i'd feel a lot more comfortable about doing a fund raiser or something to make the scholarships bigger (my ultimate goal is a full ride, might not get there alone)

However when I looked in to this it didn't seem so clear cut.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#173

Post by Mickydtron »

phaemon wrote: post #163
Mickydtron wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that is the entire purpose of the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Keep in mind, no one is really intrinsically concerned with the economy as an abstract concept. The things that we really care about are how this complex system affects real humans, and once we're talking about a change in quality of life for humans, we can compare them to saving lives via the QALY. It's the sort of process that's more sta…

So if you killed the Goldman Sachs employee, stole $2 million of their savings, and donated half of that to Against Malaria Foundation, then you'd have saved a net 399 lives, and you'd be $1 million richer. Everyone's a winner! I get the feeling that this particular accounting methodology is not used to justify actions against wealthy people.

There are a number of thought experiments along these lines that philosophers go back and forth on. The general consensus as far as what should be applied to society is that defensive rights trump utilitarian calculus, even when the calculus seems to come out in favor of violating those rights (in this case the employees right to life and property). Different people justify this in different ways.

> I get the feeling that this particular accounting methodology is not used to justify actions against wealthy people.

Keeping in mind that I would not use this methodology to justify violence or theft against anyone, I'm interested in knowing what actions you think I'm justifying against not-wealthy people that I should be applying to wealthy people as well.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#174

Post by JacobLBryan »

ceras wrote: post #115

How many here are pursuing a similar goal? Donating 5%, 10%, even 50% of their pre-tax income? I love the effective altruist movement - it's pretty much what I spend most of my time thinking and reading about - but this is a very touchy subject to discuss casually so I've never met people in real life (or in my industry) who are also into this. My own goal is to give about 50% of lifetime earnings, though with the fl…

I'm doing 1/3rd of gross, though it's not really very much since I'm still a student and I only work summer internships. Once I graduate I'm planning on setting a cap based on the cost of living wherever I end up, and donating everything above that.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#175

Post by joshstrange »

Right now I don't give a large amount to charity past Kiva loans (I try to average $25 every month or two) and a handful of causes online (sub $500/yr) on an as-needed basis. I'm trying to be as aggressive as possible paying off my debt (my debt payoff is a little over 30% of what I take home monthly and I plan on using the "snowball method" so that number will not change as I pay off debt to accelerate the payoff) because it doesn't seem smart to give away money when that puts me on the hook for more money (interest). If there is an error in this logic I would greatly appreciate it being pointed out to me.

I'd be interested in increasing my charitable contributions but I'm not sure where would be best to send more money to. I am personally a fan of direct charity instead of going through an organization as I feel it reduces overhead. I like Kiva loans because once I get paid back I just re-loan the money so that slowly I am increasing the amount I loan monthly while keeping my monthly contribution the exact same (or slowly increasing it, I want to get to $50/mo within a few months). I also like Kiva because I know exactly how much is going to Kiva vs the person asking for money (something that is hidden or hard to find out for most charities IMHO).

My approach is not based on anything specific it's more of just what has happened naturally since I started working full time.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#176

Post by JacobLBryan »

a3voices wrote: post #96

Should you also donate money to save hypothetical aliens in a far away galaxy, if we find out they exist? What about a fund to help people relocate from flooded cities from global warming 200 years in the future? What about donating to keep A.I. simulations from being shut off? Why donate to help people and not animals or bacteria? What about the fact that the universe is going to die from entropy, and all people die…

If you think one of those is the most efficient way to avert suffering then sure, why not?

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#177

Post by Mickydtron »

lkbm wrote: post #167
Mickydtron wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the 10% isn't intended to be the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate. If someone accepts any obligation to help their fellow humans, then the conclusion is that they have an (effectively) infinite obligation. However, people operating as if they have an infinite obligation tend to find a way to reject that, or simply shut down and ignore the problem. Thus, picking a lower percentage than 100 that can be en…

For me, the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate is the maximum I can deduct. I think this is 33% of gross, but someone elsewhere said it may be up to 50%. I'd go research it, but right now I'm working on achieving that 33$ this year--I'm not hitting 50% unless I bump up my income a good bit. But it's an objective measure externally set for me that is neither 0% or 100% (less the minimum needed to live), so I find it…

33% is way more than most people donate, so congratulations!

I would nitpick that the maximum amount you can deduct is set by the government, and thus somewhat arbitrary, and certainly not Morally Objective. However, it is objective to you, the individual, and thus makes a very good Schelling point, and you are finding it helpful, so excellent, good for you.

I also largely agree with your statement regarding taxes, and have nothing to add to it at this time.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#178

Post by phaemon »

Mickydtron wrote: post #173
phaemon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you killed the Goldman Sachs employee, stole $2 million of their savings, and donated half of that to Against Malaria Foundation, then you'd have saved a net 399 lives, and you'd be $1 million richer. Everyone's a winner! I get the feeling that this particular accounting methodology is not used to justify actions against wealthy people.

There are a number of thought experiments along these lines that philosophers go back and forth on. The general consensus as far as what should be applied to society is that defensive rights trump utilitarian calculus, even when the calculus seems to come out in favor of violating those rights (in this case the employees right to life and property). Different people justify this in different ways. > I get the feeling…

The post above said, "to be net harmful, the marginal employee would need to be causing the death of a hundred people each year" and you accepted this as a "back of the napkin calculation". So it certainly appeared as though you were justifying violence, as long as you could pay the wergild (outsourced to Africa, as it's cheaper).

If violence isn't justified by this, and neither is theft, then I've no idea what actions it does justify. Why don't you tell me?

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#179

Post by Mickydtron »

tomjen3 wrote: post #165
Mickydtron wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the 10% isn't intended to be the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate. If someone accepts any obligation to help their fellow humans, then the conclusion is that they have an (effectively) infinite obligation. However, people operating as if they have an infinite obligation tend to find a way to reject that, or simply shut down and ignore the problem. Thus, picking a lower percentage than 100 that can be en…

I reject any obligation to help any random person. I tried to explain my thinking earlier, basically if you have an infinite debt then you don't have any right over your own life. I firmly reject that notion. The only other objectively correct notion is that you have zero debt, as you said 10% is merely a Schelling point. 1% would do as well, so would 5% or 15%. Does that make sense? I am willing to help friends, fam…

It does make sense, thank you for explaining again. I am curious about what meta-ethical system you find to be most compelling. I myself am somewhere within the Consequentialist camp.

The others numbers are also potential Schelling points, but I would argue that 10 is a better one, largely because it matches the Christian Tithe, which western culture is largely familiar with.

In practice, I do find myself with a tiered system of "obligations" (I would also be interested in breaking down this word with you to see if we are using it in the same way, but you may not have either the interest or time, which would be fine). So, loved ones will receive a higher level of help than I give to strangers, which is probably true of most people.

Re: The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay

#180

Post by Mickydtron »

phaemon wrote: post #178
Mickydtron wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of thought experiments along these lines that philosophers go back and forth on. The general consensus as far as what should be applied to society is that defensive rights trump utilitarian calculus, even when the calculus seems to come out in favor of violating those rights (in this case the employees right to life and property). Different people justify this in different ways. > I get the feeling…

The post above said, "to be net harmful, the marginal employee would need to be causing the death of a hundred people each year" and you accepted this as a "back of the napkin calculation". So it certainly appeared as though you were justifying violence, as long as you could pay the wergild (outsourced to Africa, as it's cheaper). If violence isn't justified by this, and neither is theft, then I've no idea what actio…

That is a very good point, and it made me realize that I was automatically translating the original statement to something other than what the literal words say. My internal translation of the statement that you quote would be "to be net harmful, the marginal employee would need to be causing [an equivalent level of harm expressed in QALYs as killing 100 people] per year", which is different in a subtle way. Specifically, it is possible to cause negative quality without committing a crime. So, someone could argue that the financial industry as a whole (and Goldman Sachs specifically) redistribute assets in such a way as to cause a net lowering in quality of life across all affected without committing any specific crimes in the process. I don't know enough to say whether this is the case, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me (that they cause some harm, not that they cause 100 deaths per year per employee level of harm. That seems way too high).

If someone were to use the original statement to say that it would be ok for the employee to kill 50 people and then save 100 in Africa, I would be against that, even if it were necessary to kill the 50 in order to raise the money to save the 100.

Does that help clarify?

Post reply on HN