
The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay - anonu
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-trader-who-donates-half-his-pay.html
======
jtbigwoo
I talked about this on HN a few years ago, but my friends and I planned to be
this guy. In college we talked about all the money we'd make and how much we'd
be able to donate. We all had a job offers for $32 - 42k/year. That was
amazing! We were living on less than $1k/month in college. We had plans to
give away 20%, 30%, or 50% of our income. We would barely even notice. Some of
us even managed to do it for a few years. The world got to us, though. You
start to notice that the coworkers that dress nicer and go to happy hour get
promotions. One guy married a social worker and had four kids. One guy got
tired of living in a studio apartment in New Jersey. One guy became a junior
high science teacher. Twenty years later, I suspect that our average
charitable contribution is down to around 5% of our income.

It is really hard to be counter-cultural like Mr. Wage. Especially when your
plan requires you to remain completely immersed in the culture. It feels like
there's a constant friction to overcome--like every choice takes a bit more
willpower than it should. I think this is part of the reason that truly
counter-cultural people and movements tend to segregate themselves from the
rest of the world.

I don't mean to degrade Mr. Wage and his project. I hope this works out for
him, but it's a very difficult road.

~~~
jimbokun
The muscles you use for giving are the same muscles you use to save or pay
down debt.

Know what your expenses are and how much you are spending. Know which of the
things you spend money for are really important to you, and what you wouldn't
actually miss that much. Know how to keep your spending in check as your
income grows, not just increasing spending because the money is there.

People tend to react emotionally to the teachers of these principles, like
Dave Ramsey or Mr. Money Mustache. But it's not personal. It's just math. You
can choose to cut way back on your spending if you want to retire really
early, if that's what's most important to you. Or you can choose to spend more
extravagantly and retire later (or not at all).

Or instead or retiring early, maybe you want to live really frugally but keep
earning as much as possible, so you can give as much as possible. The
underlying principles are the same.

~~~
betenoire
You are saying it's just as easy to save/donate as it is to spend because the
muscles and underlying principles are the same? I wish I'd heard about this
sooner.

~~~
jimbokun
I was comparing saving to donating, and contrasting with spending. So the
exact opposite.

Was I really that unclear?

~~~
betenoire
To me you were. They are nothing alike to me. Different states of mind,
different objectives, different strategies.

Donating and saving are two entirely different activities in my life, and the
only similarity are the numbers on the ledger. (one has an immediate payoff
(donating feels good) while the other is not satisfying at all (just helps me
sleep)).

You're advice sounded a lot like the financial version of, "stop eating less
and you won't be fat." ... but I guess that does work for some people ...

------
willmacaskill
Matt is a friend of mine, and someone who got career advice from what
ultimately became 80,000 Hours, a startup non-profit I cofounded. I'm really
happy to see the positive response on here; we've advised a lot of people to
'earn to give' and some people... let's say they aren't that happy about the
idea that working in trading can be an ethical career.

Anyone, if anyone feels inspired by the story and thinks they might want to do
something similar, I'm always happy to provide advice (you can get my contact
details on my website). Not just through finance; there are a ton of software
engineers and entrepreneurs in the effective altruism community, and it's
really a place where everyone's trying to help each other be more successful -
because we'll all do more good that way. If you think you might want to get
involved, or find out more, there's a pretty active facebook group where you
can introduce yourself.
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/?ref=br_...](https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/?ref=br_tf)

Happy also to take any questions on here.

~~~
jimbokun
"... let's say they aren't that happy about the idea that working in trading
can be an ethical career."

Well, it's at least worth having a discussion about.

If you are in a career where you honestly think damage is being done by your
activities, you need to weigh that against whatever good is being done with
the money you earn and give away.

What about the traders involved in the near-collapse of the global economy in
2007-2008? It would take a lot of very effective giving to make up for the
damage caused.

~~~
krstck
From [http://effective-altruism.com/ea/54/show_me_the_harm/](http://effective-
altruism.com/ea/54/show_me_the_harm/):

"Finance is often taken to be the legal high earning career that’s most
harmful to society. The average Goldman Sachs employee earns around $500,000
per year. If someone joined Goldman and donated half of his earnings to
Against Malaria Foundation, that would be about enough to save 100 lives per
year (or more accurately, saving 4000 QALYs), plus likely have substantial
positive flow-through effects. For Earning to Give at Goldman to be net
harmful, the marginal employee would need to be causing the death of a hundred
people each year. This would mean that Goldman Sachs employees are several
orders of magnitude more deadly than American service people in Iraq.

Goldman has 32,000 employees. An upper bound for the harm caused by the
marginal employee is thus the total harm caused divided by 32,000. For the
harm to outweigh the good, Goldman would therefore have to be killing at least
3.2 million young people each year, or doing something else that is similarly
harmful. That would mean that Goldman Sachs would need to be responsible for
around 5% of all deaths in the world. Bear in mind that Goldman Sachs only
makes up 22% of American investment banking, and 3% of the American financial
industry - if the rest of finance is similarly bad, then it would imply that
finance is doing something as bad as causing all the deaths in the world."

~~~
driverdan
This is a false equivalence. Even assuming Goldman Sachs causes ongoing
significant financial damage (something I'm not convinced of), you can't
compare that directly to saving lives with an equivalent amount of money.
Apples and oranges.

~~~
Mickydtron
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 statistical in nature, but you can get an idea
whether you're doing more harm than good. The point above is that a back of
the napkin calculation indicates that it is rather unlikely that someone
working at Goldman Sachs is causing more harm than good if they donate half
their income.

~~~
phaemon
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.

~~~
Mickydtron
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.

~~~
phaemon
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?

~~~
Mickydtron
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?

~~~
phaemon
It does. Though I'm not convinced that it's particularly useful to have such a
concept as "an equivalent level of harm expressed in QALYs as killing 100
people" when it's not really that at all.

It still suggests that, something like a 70% retroactive tax on bonuses over
$10,000 going back 5 years, would be a net good if the money was spent
improving people's lives. Yet I think most people would find such a proposal
objectionable, despite its legality.

~~~
poikniok
Retroactive taxes are not legal.

------
krstck
From the article:

> First, where do we draw the line? If we’re prepared to donate one-third of
> our incomes to maximize happiness, then why not two-thirds? Why not live in
> a tent in a park so as to be able to donate 99 percent and prevent even more
> cases of blindness?

This is an area where the writings of Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) have
been really helpful for me. He refers to this as "Infinite Debt"
([http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/10/infinite-
debt/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/10/infinite-debt/)):

"For years, I felt like I was probably ethically obligated to give all my
income to charity, minus whatever I needed to survive. And the fact that I
obviously wasn’t going to do that made me not give anything at all.

Once someone told me that my obligation wasn’t infinite, but just some finite
amount like ten percent per year, every year, I was thrilled to be able to
comply.

And of course there are people who make fun of this. “Oh, you really think you
can just give an amount you find “convenient”, then feel like your conscience
is clear and you can stop caring and be smug and self-satisfied?”

The proper response to this person is to ask whether they give so much as ten
percent.

(“What? No, why should I?! I do my part by yelling at you!”)"

~~~
tomjen3
The problem with that is that it only works if you believe that 10% makes
sense. For me it doesn't - it is either 0% or whatever several 100% of my
current income it would take to do my part (I don't see how not currently
earning enough to repay would be enough to get me of the hook, certainly car
payments are not payed in percentage of income).

Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation
to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want. Besides who
says all lives have equal value?

~~~
Mickydtron
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 endorsed can result in better
outcomes than the alternative, and 10% is a nice round Schelling point. It
sounds as if you reject the notion that you have an obligation to help other
people, which I find interesting. Would you be willing to explain your
thoughts on this?

~~~
tomjen3
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, family, etc because I actually care about them,
ie making them happy will make me happy.

I am also willing to save the child in this case, because it is a) close b)
not especially burdensome and c) will provide me with some measure of
happiness. It is a choice I freely make, not a moral obligation (if it was an
adult I really hated I might not have rescued him).

~~~
Mickydtron
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.

------
ernestipark
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 can then disburse these funds from the trust
to the charitable org of your choice.

The nice thing about this option is you can save now without having to decide
where to give. You can take time to research and make an educated informed
decision on where to give. You also get the dual tax benefit of not getting
taxed on these capital gains and the deduction of a donation if you itemize.

It's very cool to see people giving critical thought on how they give. But
sometimes it can be intimidating to start. Just starting with anything is
better than nothing and you can build from there. You don't have to give 50%
like this guy. Building it into your lifestyle and budgeting is a slow and
gradual process.

~~~
xur17
I'm interested in this approach - is there any charge to create the trust?
Also, I wish the minimum for Vanguard was lower - I already have an investment
account with them, and this seems like a great way to get started.

~~~
rhc2104
The fee is a percentage of your assets:
[https://www.vanguardcharitable.org/individuals/fees_and_expe...](https://www.vanguardcharitable.org/individuals/fees_and_expenses/)

It starts at .6% per year, and decreases when the account size is huge.

------
jrlocke
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I've always felt it selfish when people
of means partake in 'aid trips' over sending money to an appropriate
organization. If you care to help, leverage your abilities efficiently; make
the money doing what you're best at, and let others administer the aid.

~~~
bobcostas55
Empirically speaking, aid is almost completely useless[0], no matter who
administers it. So whether he gives it all to the "appropriate organization"
or "wastes" some of it on an aid trip is ultimately irrelevant.

[0] Easterly's book is great if you're interested in the stats:
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Elusive-Quest-Growth-
Misadventures...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Elusive-Quest-Growth-
Misadventures/dp/0262550423)

~~~
goodJobWalrus
Function of aid is not to cause economic growth. Function of aid is to have a
child not die of malaria.

~~~
testguy34
The ciriticism is that malaria is just a symptom of the larger problem of a
lack of economic growth and development. Aid can save a child from malaria,
but it will never solve the underlying problem.

~~~
JacobLBryan
Reducing or eradicating these diseases removes a huge burden from those in
extreme poverty, it definitely is among the underlying problems that
contribute to a lack of growth. It's also the most tractable.

------
personlurking
Here's the view of the trader's professor (Peter Singer) on being ethical with
one's money (in the first few minutes he gives his famous example of a child
drowning).
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=dBvsZVlcXR4](https://youtube.com/watch?v=dBvsZVlcXR4)
(7 min)

This 14 min lecture goes through Singer's example, and it explores his view
further.
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pyzv2UWzaos](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pyzv2UWzaos)

~~~
chii
thats an interesting video. Gave me a lot of food for thought.

------
buro9
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe)

10% of income is doable.

I treat it like a form of tax in which I have a say. It's going to be taken
(that's the way in which I think of it as a tax), but now I get to say who
receives it.

Last year I favoured Medicine San Frontiers due to the Ebola outbreak, but in
general I favour Liberty, Open Rights Group and small charities that provide
computers to Africa, or bicycles for the disabled in the UK (Wheels for
Wellbeing).

10% really isn't too much, and so long as you do it early you'll likely never
notice it.

Then again... perhaps this is why I don't have a deposit for a mortgage. Or
perhaps that was poor budgeting for the bit of salary I did take home and
keep.

------
huac
The money he earns has to come from somewhere - what benefits a hedge fund is
not likely to benefit the 'disposable populations' [for lack of a better term]
that one of the fund's traders is supporting. In other words, if your hedge
fund makes money by betting against the 3rd World, then half of your salary is
only going to go so far for karmic rebalancing.

~~~
driverdan
> if your hedge fund makes money by betting against the 3rd World

What makes you think that's how they make their money?

------
cllns
> Singer himself donates about one-third of his income to charity, he says,
> and I admire his commitment. Still, I wonder... where do we draw the line?

Peter Singer himself wrote, in the New York Times Magazine, nearly a decade
ago, an article titled "What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?"

[1]:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?pagewanted=all)

------
techtivist
I am not sure if this is really "effective altruism". When I decided to leave
a high paying job to start an education startup in order to pursue my passion
to make a change through education, I got similar advice. I was told it would
be more "effective" to keep my job and donate the money to education related
charities instead. But I realized that as an software engineer, my skills
could prove much more impactful, and directly so than the relatively meagre
money I could donate. As they say money is cheap. I felt, and I still feel I
could amplify my impact by using my skills rather than just throwing money at
the problem.

Second, I wanted to be more aware and involved in the issues I wanted to
contribute to, which I couldn't do unless I dove in. There are a lot of good
organization out there that are making great impact, but there are equal
number of "bad" ones that are perhaps having a negative impact or are not
aligned to ones values. GiveWell and CharityNavigator can only go so far.

~~~
ceras
I think both you and the article are in-line with effective altruism (the
movement). The crux of EA is objectively and dispassionately deciding what
causes do the most good with your scarce resources (time & money) and deciding
how to best support them. Reasonable people will disagree on whether working
in the industry or donating profits from a higher-paying industry will work
better for you. Education isn't a popular EA cause but whether it is or isn't
optimal depends on the change you think your start-up will have contrasted
against what impact you could have elsewhere.

Check out [https://80000hours.org](https://80000hours.org) for a way more in-
depth exploration of the different career-related EA strategies.

------
susi22
This article has a few links but REALLY is lacking this one:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_What_We_Can)
[https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/)

And interesting bunch of people where you pledge to donate X% of your pre-tax
income to charity for life. The founder, Toby Ord capped his income to 18,000
British Pounds:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Ord](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Ord)

------
bshimmin
"Mr. Wage" is a lovely example of an aptronym:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym)

~~~
rry
Not to be a downer, but it's pronounced "wah-GEE", with a hard G.

source: used to work a few desks down from Matt.

~~~
nocman
Wow, now _there 's_ a guy guaranteed to have his name mispronounced 99% of the
time (well, at least by people who have never heard it spoken). [ edited for
typo ]

~~~
willmacaskill
I know; his brother actually just gave up and started introducing himself as
"Wage" (pronounced as you'd think) rather than "WAG-ee"

------
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.

------
ceras
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
flexibility to scale that back to a floor of 20% in the event my income drops
a lot (I'm at the mercy of tech salaries, and just not willing to jump to a
career that destroys my work-life balance).

The tech industry is known for having a disproportionate amount of effective
altruists, given how pragmatic and numerical the conclusion to donate to the
most effective charities is.

~~~
willmacaskill
That's great! (I'm guessing I probably know you, but can't tell who you are).
I'm hoping to donate >50% too; I've been donating about 10% but I've been on a
low salary; next year I'll be able to do 50% I think.

~~~
knite
Not sure if you'll see this, but this thread inspired me to send an email to
80K, which I've known about for a while. I'm planning to become a 50+% donator
in the next couple of years.

------
jayhuang
> Sure enough, he says that in 2013 he donated more than $100,000, roughly
> half his pretax income.

This is pretty impressive to me. Many will say "well, if half of it is 100k,
he still has at least 100k", except this is pretax, meaning he keeps less than
100k; besides, before saying it's not a big deal, how much are you
contributing?

I personally donate 40% of my post tax income anonymously to various
initiatives/organizations, which means even less pretax, but that's what I can
afford without jeopardizing my family's well being.

It doesn't have to be monetary, but a little bit of help goes a long way. I'm
glad there are people who do whatever they can to help out with the less
fortunate.

------
acadien
If only our government taxed people appropriately and had a system for foreign
aid that was well studied and effective. Is whats proposed in this article as
effective or better than the alternative? I have no idea but it certainly
seems less organized.

~~~
JacobLBryan
It probably does lose out on some coordination efficiency that a hypothetical
world government could achieve, but in today's world governments have a
mandate to care for their own citizens before others, which means that first
world governments miss out on the incredibly cheap interventions in the
developing world. For example, the NHS in Britain will spend as much as
£30,000 to provide a QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year), when a similar year of
life in the developing world can be provided for £50 at a conservative
estimate.

------
_-__---
I think that this is great!

Here's an idea, and one that may already be implemented (please tell me if you
know that it is and who is doing it): One could set up a charitable nonprofit
that uses HFT systems to maximize the growth of donated assets before sending
them off to other charitable organizations. Investors would be able to
influence where the money is donated at the end of the day. In a sense, use
the "easy money" from wall street to back altruistic endeavors.

The problem that I see with this is the easy chance for corruption and graft;
however, given a clear altruistic management philosophy, a truly dedicated
group of people could run a tight ship and make a difference for people in
need.

Maybe.

~~~
meric
Those HFT traders profit from the clumsier pension funds and other similar
funds. e.g. algorithm detecting a broker, on behalf of a fund, is buying some
stock with one batch per hour, so front run them. They are profiting from
teachers and the elderly. I suppose at the end of the day half of the
resources lost to those two groups are given to the even more worse off,
albeit giving charity administrators a cut.

~~~
cmdkeen
Fund managers also employ dealers who very much do not buy stock one batch an
hour so as to allow HFTs to profit from them. They have a fiduciary duty to
their clients to aim for best execution, so if they were being disadvantaged
they would be crying out to regulators - who like to look after pension funds.

The head of Vanguard is on the record saying that his firm benefits from HFTs
actions on the market. Narrower margins are a good thing.

------
collyw
There was a story of a university researcher doing this a few years ago, on a
for more modest wage.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11950843](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11950843)

On the one hand I think its far more generous, though as pointed out, the
trader will end up donating a lot more cash.

Either way, good on them.

I have too much uncertainly about my future to make such a commitment at this
moment (and to be fair I really think that politics should arrange a fairer
society so that individuals don't need to do such things). It's in the back of
my head that if I get rich I could do so much more for society.

------
invaliddata
I know about one well known tech executive who donates about half his income
every year, and increases that percentage by 1% each year (he's been doing
this for a few decades, since before he "made it.") Granted, not everyone is
in the position to do this, but the point is that there are people who have
managed to keep a serious long term commitment to philanthropy, but whose
efforts are (probably intentionally), not so well known.

------
footpath
There was a similar story with Jason Trigg, an MIT graduate who went to work
for a hedge fund just so he could give money away, also influenced by Peter
Singer. See these discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5800345](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5800345)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5819762](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5819762)

Here's the top comment from the second link:

 _Quote from quanticle:

    
    
            If you choose a profession that doesn't arouse your everyday passion for
    	the sake of serving instead some abstract faraway good, you might end up as a
    	person who values the far over the near. You might become one of those people
    	who loves humanity in general but not the particular humans immediately
    	around. You might end up enlarging the faculties we use to perceive the far
    	-- rationality -- and eclipsing the faculties we use to interact with
    	those closest around -- affection, the capacity for vulnerability and
    	dependence. Instead of seeing yourself as one person deeply embedded in a
    	particular community, you may end up coolly looking across humanity as a
    	detached god.
    

Brooks sees this as a disdvantage, but I do not. Frankly, given the levels of
irrational thought and behavior we see in the world today, we should be doing
everything we can to increase the amount of rationality and far-oriented
thinking in the world. I would posit that a world in which people were more
like Jason Trigg would be a far better world, on every measurable metric, than
the present that David Brooks endeavors to defend. I mean, Trigg, at least,
has a goal and a plan to achieve it. The goal is the old utilitarian one of
achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. The means is to earn lots
of money and spend it on that goal.

    
    
            Third, and most important, I would worry about turning yourself into a means
    	rather than an end. If you go to Wall Street mostly to make money for charity,
    	you may turn yourself into a machine for the redistribution of wealth. You may
    	turn yourself into a fiscal policy.
    

And what's wrong with that? The problem with fiscal policy is not the goal of
fiscal policy. It is the coercive means used to achieve it. There is no
coercion here. No one is forcing Jason Trigg to give away his wealth. He is
doing it of his own volition. Were he older and richer, he'd be lauded as
another Carnegie, or another Gates.

    
    
            Making yourself is different than producing a product or an external outcome,
    	requiring different logic and different means. I'd think you would be more
    	likely to cultivate a deep soul if you put yourself in the middle of the
    	things that engaged you most seriously. If your profoundest interest is dying
    	children in Africa or Bangladesh, it's probably best to go to Africa or
    	Bangladesh, not to Wall Street.
    

That's not true at all. Sure, if you have skills that are needed in Africa or
Bangladesh, it's best to go there. But not everyone has such skills. If we all
pitched in like Jason Trigg and managed to get a cheap malaria vaccine
crafted, say, 3 years from now, we'll have done far more good than if we'd all
gone to Bangladesh or Africa volunteering to hand out bed nets. It comes down
to the old question: are you worried about doing good or feeling good? If
you're worried about doing good, you coldly analyze all the alternatives, and
pick the one with the highest impact, even if it has zero visibility
whatsoever. If you're worried about feeling good, you do what David Brooks
advocates. You go down to Africa, Asia, or where-ever and get warm fuzzies by
hoisting the white man's burden.

Rationality is not a sin. Calculation is not a sin. Money is not inherently
sinful. All of these things are means, and have the capability to do both
great good or great harm, depending on the end to which they're applied. Jason
Trigg understands this. David Brooks does not. And that's why I, personally,
respect Jason Trigg a lot more than David Brooks._

------
fobcat
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that
man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only
justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral
duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of
others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism
makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is
self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial,
self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as
a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not
give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or
do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is
whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who
might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the
first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue
is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-
esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”"

-Ayn Rand

~~~
swombat
Gotta love Ayn Rand and her incredible ability to make bare, simplified,
polarising dichotomies out of rich, complex topics, then paint the extreme
opposite to her as evil, without examining whether her own chosen extreme may
be equally evil. I mean, she really has taken the "build a straw man and set
it on fire" approach to an art form (quite literally... and I'd add that the
Fountainhead is a great book, if thoroughly misguided from a philosophical
point of view).

Altruism as she defines it is obviously crap. What she fails to do is to
clarify the extreme egocentrism that she proposes in an equally critical way.
Here's an amusing attempt to do so using her own format:

> _" What is the moral code of egocentrism? The basic principle of egocentrism
> is that other people have no right to exist other than for your sake, that
> service to you is the only justification of their existence, and that their
> sacrifice for your good is their highest moral duty, virtue and value._

> _Do not confuse egocentrism with self-respect, self-awareness or respect for
> your rights. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact,
> egocentrism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of egocentrism, the
> basic absolute, is the total unimportance of the other—which means; not
> caring one whit about others, using them for your own means, sacrificing
> their feelings and even their lives if necessary—which means: the other as a
> standard of evil, the self as a standard of the good._

> _Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should
> not use people. That is not the issue. The issue is whether those people
> have the right to exist without being of use to you. The issue is whether
> you are really compelled to notionally support the existence, day by day, of
> people who are of no apparent use to you. The issue is whether your needs
> are the first mortgage on their life and the moral purpose of their
> existence. The issue is whether other people are to be regarded as
> sacrificial animals. Any man worth calling that will answer: “No.”
> Egocentrism says: “Yes.” "_

As usual, the better place to sit is somewhere in the middle. No, you do not
exist just to serve others, and total self-abnegation and sacrifice is
certainly not a productive way to live. Neither, however, is total self-
adoration and worship of your ego. Both are mistaken paths. The far better
path is to realise that you need a balance of both respect for your own self,
and connection to others, to live a good, fulfilled life.

For your own sake, fobcat, and not for mine, I hope you can read and
understand the above...

------
dennisgorelik
Could anyone explain to me how donating money to charities is better than
giving money to your family, service providers and businesses that give you
food and goods?

------
josefresco
$200K in pretax income ... nice.

~~~
fweespeech
Keep in mind, he does live in NY and works on Wall St so he likely needs $100k
to live a decent middle class life tbh.

\----

Since it doesn't want me to reply again [I'm submitting too fast]

If you can support a family of 4 in NY with less than $100k while qualifying
as middle class, I'm curious how you manage it. :)

[http://council.nyc.gov/html/action/acpdfs/middle_Class_squee...](http://council.nyc.gov/html/action/acpdfs/middle_Class_squeeze.pdf)

Fyi:

Real median household income for all working age residents adjusted for a
family of four peaked in 2001 at slightly over $72,000, and for middle class
households at just over $111,000. During the 2001-2008 cycle, however, median
middle income actually fell despite the strong growth of the City’s economy,
and has continued to fall during the recovery – for reasons that will be
discussed further on – declining 7.8 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.

For NYC, $100,000 is a very average middle class income. Cost of living by
area does matter.

~~~
whatok
That and he's in a field that has volatile pay and employment so extra nest
egg is essential. Not sure how he builds up savings (probably lives very
frugal) but props to him for donating half his pay.

~~~
akgerber
Living on $75k or so after-tax in NYC as a young single man isn't 'very
frugal'. A nice room in a roommate situation can be had for $1000/mo, a very
nice one for $2000, which totals $12k-$24k per year. Likewise a modest
reasonably-located 1bedroom/studio can be had for $2000/mo. After that, the
only mandatory expenses are $1000 or so a year for transportation and
reasonable expenses for food, though much of that cost is likely paid by his
employer.

~~~
whatok
I'd argue that it's extremely frugal given the city's high cost of living and
like I mentioned above, an industry where pay and employment is volatile. He
could easily get laid off or paid down year over year through no fault of his
own. Your living expenses do not leave much leftover in the way of savings,
travel (kinda good to vacation in a high stress job), or even just
experiencing what one of the greatest cities in the world has to offer.

------
crimsonalucard
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?

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
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 about how many people donate and how many don't. It's
the right thing to do, and asking if you're "the norm" is just looking for a
justification. Do the right thing. Don't just be narrowly selfish.

~~~
crimsonalucard
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](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.

~~~
louishk
You said it yourself, "worthless luxury" is worthless. Your emotional desire
once met will be only be temporary before you desire the next thing. It's an
endless consumption cycle which will leave you feeling empty inside but with a
garage full of junk. Donating to noble causes would have you the reverse of
that.

------
a3voices
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 anyways from old age? What's the
point?

Note: I try to not donate any of my money to any cause ever

~~~
hmate9
Because some people are not as lucky. Some people don't have the basics such
as water which we take for granted and it is all because of LUCK.

What's the point of life if not to help each other survive and enjoy life?

Sure, you need to keep yourself and your family comfortable but to actively
distance yourself away from ANY kind of donation is just sub-human imo.

------
iamfbpt
We all almost do through taxes. He goes further and donates 50% more from the
remaining money.

~~~
jtbigwoo
> We all almost do through taxes. He goes further and donates 50% more from
> the remaining money.

This is an odd argument. Are you saying that paying taxes is some form of
altruism? The story is about a guy who donates money with no tangible benefit
to himself. We all get benefits and services from the government. It debatable
whether the value we receive is equal to the amount we pay in taxes, but the
value is certainly not zero.

~~~
driverdan
US entitlement spending is about 66% of the federal budget. Unless you're on
disability, medicare, social security, or some other entitlement program
that's money you're receiving no direct benefits from.

~~~
dragonwriter
I dunno, I think the government employees (federal and, because much of the
federal entitlement spending is joint state/federal programs like Medicaid)
and contractors paid to work directly in the administration of those programs
(or, in the case of companies running Medicare Advantage plans, working in
for-profit businesses directly subsidized by the entitlement spending) are
receiving at least as direct a benefit from those programs as the program
recipients are, and often, per person, a much _larger_ benefit, as well.

~~~
driverdan
Government employees and administration are overhead.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Government employees and administration are overhead.

The only way you get close to the claimed 66% number is if you are including
all spending, including overhead, of the programs identified.

------
drcube
This is the same Peter Singer who told parents not to send their kids to
college and instead send their tuition money to Africa. But apparently, if you
send your kid to college anyway, he could make enough to send half his salary
to Africa every year, far outweighing his parents' initial college fund. So
who is right?

I like that Singer holds this guy up as an example, for doing the exact
opposite of what Singer actually claimed was morally right.

~~~
driverdan
Source?

