
Show HN: Why the most popular ways to do good in careers aren’t best - BenjaminTodd
https://80000hours.org/career-guide/high-impact-jobs/
======
slgeorge
"Earning to give" is highly unlikely to work unless you're a very strong
willed individual (in my opinion). We're social animals, so if you decide to
focus on a "high earning" area you land-up working with others who are focused
on their earnings. This leads to a focus on life-style (as life-style always
expands to meet earnings), relative position in the group, and other values.
Over time we tend to adjust our values to the social group we're in, so values
other than "making a social difference" are likely.

Clayton Christensen's book "How will you measure your life" mentions this
social dynamic ([http://www.claytonchristensen.com/books/how-will-you-
measure...](http://www.claytonchristensen.com/books/how-will-you-measure-your-
life/)) - lots of his peers started out meaning to make a difference but got
sucked in. It's a fantastic book for thinking about your life in a well-
rounded manner, and not too long!

Aside: Did anyone else think the title was odd? I initially thought it meant
"how to have a good career", when it means "how to make a difference to the
world".

~~~
Kurimo
Title was VERY misleading. And that whole earning to give notion is bull. You
work at a non-profit or as a social worker and you have a DIRECT impact on
people's lives. You donate to a charity and you have no idea where that money
goes. Many charities are corrupt and don't use your dollars at a positive rate
to help others and even those that do often find their donations ending up
being misused or apprehended by crooks and tyrants.

Earning to give is a way the wealthy ease their conscience (not unlike carbon
offsets). It is not good advice to give people with the heart, courage, and
strength to be one of those front line warriors at a non-profit or in social
work and to claim otherwise is garbage.

Nobody makes a bigger difference to the children and families who experience
birth defects or childhood illness than the nurse in the children's hospital.
Certainly not the rich goon who contributed the most money and got it named
after him/her. Without that rich goon, a need would still be fulfilled by
people whose lives were effected by the lack of such a facility coming
together and pooling their resources to make it happen (the whole point of
government, taxes, and society in the first place).

Without that nurse, there's nobody to take care of those children post surgery
and offer the love, support, and attentive care that only someone with that
kind of courage and compassion can provide.

No one says your mind and talents must be constrained to your job forever, but
if you can do it you should.

Superman DID run vaccines to people in ADDITION to saving the world from more
petty (and also much more catastrophic) crime. So the example (which in the
comic is hilarious and presented ironically) the article sets itself on is a
false choice.

~~~
cheetos
Good thing Bill Gates didn't follow this advice or he might be a nurse instead
of starting the Gates Foundation!

~~~
Kurimo
Yeah, then he would've been a terrible nurse instead of standardizing the PC
platform on a shoddy OS, creating the notion of "software that gets paid for
forever", the windows xp hardware lockout, and ruining the educational system
by promoting vouchers to private schools.

Yay for Bill Gates! What a great guy!

------
tgb
I'm disappointed by the negativity here. The full article is nuanced and
encourages thinking about many aspects of one of the most important decisions
we'll each make. Then the replies here grab into one aspect and say "what
about the others". They're right, we have to consider the others too, but may
of us go through life without seriously considering _any_ of these aspects. If
you took this article merely as a prod to reflect on your decisions using your
own values, it could be great even without ever moving you an inch towards
charity.

Persinally I find self reflection like this challenging to even consider, my
mind tends to flinch away from the thought. Thinking about what would be best
make me focus on what might currently be wrong. At least reading this article
makes me consider my options explicitly instead of my usual implicit choice.

(I signed up for the newsletter.)

~~~
robertwiblin
Thanks for your support tgb! I hope you enjoy the newsletter. :)

The full article is indeed quite long and nuanced. Figuring out the best thing
to do with your life can't be reduced to really simple slogans.

------
BenjaminTodd
This is a Show HN because the article we link to is just one part of a much
larger career guide (we checked with the mod). [http://80000hours.org/career-
guide/](http://80000hours.org/career-guide/)

There’s 8 articles, each with a video, and a planning tool at the end. You can
get it delivered over 9 weeks by email. It’s the main thing we’ve worked on
building since Feb, and grew out of an in-person workshop that was changing
lots of careers.

The guide aims to help people switch into careers that have a greater social
impact. It covers what we’ve learned in five years of research at Oxford,
including:

1\. Why you can sometimes do more good by taking a higher earning career, like
software engineering, and donating to effective charities.

3\. How any reader of HN could save hundreds of lives in their career.

3\. How to work out which global problem is most pressing.

4\. What psychology says about how to find a satisfying job and make good
career decisions.

See the full guide: [http://80000hours.org/career-
guide/](http://80000hours.org/career-guide/)

~~~
BenjaminTodd
Usage stats:

* In the last month the guide has 140,000 pageviews.

* From the cover sheet, the bounce rate is 50%. Of people who start reading the intro article, about 20% make it to the end.

* Of people who land on the cover sheet, about 5% join the newsletter to receive the whole guide by email.

* Ultimately the aim is to change career plans. About 1% of newsletter subs and tool users report plan changes. Our biggest challenge right now is increasing this conversion rate.

We’re keen for questions and feedback.

~~~
eterm
Your stated aim is to change career plans. Why is that?

~~~
eric-hu
I'm not in any way associated with the site or the group who made it, but this
makes sense to me. I'll offer my take.

I read a book recently called "So Good They Can't Ignore You." One of the
author's points is that a popular idea in the last couple of decades is that
one can find their passion, then all will be well in the world.

I bought into this passion principle and spent nearly a decade trying out,
among other things, RF engineering, tutoring, cooking, and volunteering in a
restaurant and in a drug rehab clinic. This was all after I graduated with
good grades and a major in CS. I don't regret my path, but I also don't think
I did much social good in that time. The volunteer work at the rehab clinic
was social good, but it was low skill, so I now question it's effectiveness in
the world.

Another point in that book is that people develop a lasting love for fields
they get good at. I'm finding that again in software, over time as I become a
better developer. I believe people don't stumble across a happily ever-after
career, which is what "find your passion" implies.

As an aside, I'm glad to see this project, as it's a step in a well
intentioned and more intelligent direction than "find your passion."

------
projectramo
One suggestion I have is to come up with tools to think about the variance in
future earnings.

Let me be more specific: if a person makes $300k/year they may be willing to
give away 50% if they know it is going to last 40 years. However, if the job
could go away tomorrow and they may end up with a $100k job for 40 years, they
will want to have saved some of the money for themselves.

Is there a good framework to think about that situation?

I read a statistic that 50% of Americans will find themselves earning in the
top 10% at least one year of their lives.

We just don't know how long it lasts. When should one give it away?

p.s. great superman comic in the beginning. makes the point very succinctly.

~~~
BenjaminTodd
You could do hardcore analysis with a utility function and some risk-aversion
weighting etc.

But some rough rules of thumb:

* Make a target level of personal consumption you want to meet over your life (we suggest income doesn't have much effect on happiness after $40k, or $60k if you live somewhere expensive, and plus $20k if you have a child)

* First, save enough that you could live for 12+ months with no income. This covers you in emergencies and career changes.

* Then save a decent fraction of your income to maintain this level of income in retirement (at least $6k per year to be able to have $40k per year at retirement).

* Always donate a small amount (say several percent) to keep in the habit of giving and learn more about charities.

* After you're meeting your saving and consumption targets, you can donate most of the remainder. Or if you're not sure where to give right away, then put it in a donor advised fund so it can be donated later.

Beyond this, it can vary from person to person, depending on how risk averse
you are, how much you're prepared to sacrifice in order to do good, and how
urgent you think it is to do good now rather than later. It gets complicated.
e.g. if you don't think it's urgent to donate, then you might want to take
care of retirement savings first, then donate later.

Some more discussion: [https://80000hours.org/articles/should-you-
wait/](https://80000hours.org/articles/should-you-wait/)

~~~
antisthenes
> we suggest income doesn't have much effect on happiness after $40k, or $60k
> if you live somewhere expensive, and plus $20k if you have a child

Huh? Are you guys based in the United States? Did you pull that number out of
your ass? Do you know the difference between "diminishing returns" and
"doesn't have much effect"? In the vast majority of the United States where
the median income is $40k and above, it won't actually be enough to meet what
most people on HN would consider basic needs - housing, healthcare, food and
some savings for retirement.

> First, save enough that you could live for 12+ months with no income.

An impossible task for the majority of Americans. Again, I'm not sure where
you are based, so this is forgivable.

> Then save a decent fraction of your income to maintain this level of income
> in retirement

You're telling people who are earning $40k to save $6k and meet their living
expenses on $34k. While that may be possible in some areas, these areas tend
to be the ones where $40k jobs are at a premium and are not available for the
majority of the people there. See my first comment.

> Always donate a small amount (say several percent) to keep in the habit of
> giving and learn more about charities.

Donating money while earning below median income nationwide is an advice so
terribly inane, it doesn't warrant a response. You're always better spending
that amount (minus the marginal tax rate) on yourself or your family,
especially at the levels of income you're suggesting.

> After you're meeting your saving and consumption targets, you can donate
> most of the remainder.

Which for most Americans would be never. You have to step out of your bubble
and look at some BLS numbers if you want to give economic advice.

~~~
BenjaminTodd
The $40k figure is from here (obviously there's no sharp cut off, but we chose
a figure that's roughly right for convenience):
[https://80000hours.org/career-guide/job-
satisfaction/#money-...](https://80000hours.org/career-guide/job-
satisfaction/#money-makes-you-happier-but-only-a-little)

And then even more detail here: [https://80000hours.org/articles/money-and-
happiness/](https://80000hours.org/articles/money-and-happiness/)

It's $40k of consumption. So if you'd want to save $6k as well, then you'd
need to earn $46k.

Our advice is addressed at college graduates. The average grad makes $68k p.a.
over their lifetime. (Source in the first article I linked to).

If you're reading HN, then it's likely you can earn more. The median software
engineer makes $100k, and similar with other tech jobs (that's from the BLS).

I agree it's much harder to give money if you earn below the median income in
the US, though it's hardly impossible. The average low income American
_already_ gives 3% on average (source in the OP), so my 1% is actually _less_
than the average.

Moreover, almost everyone in America is far wealthier than the world median.
Even if you only earn $10k, you're 7x wealthier than the world median. Source:
[https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-
am-i/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/) (That's
PPP adjusted)

So while I agree if you're poor in US it probably wouldn't make sense to give
to other poor in the US, it could still be worth giving to the _global_ poor.

------
ChuckMcM
I think it was a good way to introduce the notion of living for positive
impact. And it is certainly helpful for people who feel like they "aren't
doing anything good with their lives" to see ways in which they maybe already
are, or could be.

That said, it felt a bit "all of nothing" in the sense of picking a single
strategy for impact rather than trying to be impactful all around. There is
probably a place the the "7 habits of highly impactful people" piece
somewhere.

The final bit that I'd suggest would be having an impact without drawing
attention to yourself. A number of really great people I know do wonderful
things without having to deal with the issues of public accolades. A friend of
mine who became wealthy though Sun stock and good financial management of it,
made the mistake of donating directly to an organization he wished to support.
And while the donation was not considered "large" by him, it was the largest
donation this organization had received so they put a big thank you in their
newsletter. And that resulted in literally thousands of other organizations
pestering this poor guy for donations. Ever since that time he has made is
impact less direct and harder to trace back to him.

It walks a very fine line though, between a person believing what they are
doing is helping and outside validation that it actually is. Fixing that
communication channel would be big win for getting more participation.

------
devishard
The article starts of suggesting a strategy of working and then donating your
money, referencing Bill Gates and a Google software developer as examples.

This strategy is basically, vacuum up a bunch of money and then pour it into
doing good. But necessarily a lot of this money gets pulled out of places
where it would do good, even if that good is simply putting food on the table
of a poor family.

If you're an engineer or someone who creates things, it's probably actually
creating value, not just moving it around and siphoning off some of it. But
often that value you create is harmful: the Google engineers, for example,
probably spend a lot of time working on ads, user data collection,
partnerships with banks, etc.

And with CEOs like Bill Gates, the harm is much clearer. The money that has
been spent by for example the US government, on Microsoft products could have
been spent on building equivalent Linux products for a fraction of the cost,
and the remainder spent directly on help programs. Bill Gates isn't some
savior because he inserted himself as a middle man in the process of spending
money on good. Sure, he's putting money into good now, but only after taking
money _out_ of good for decades, spending a lot of it on himself, and still
keeping a sizable chunk for himself.

This applies to almost any rich philanthropist. They look good when they
donate billions of dollars, but the world would have been better off if they
hadn't amassed those billions of dollars in the first place. I'm not impressed
when people decide to do a little good after building a fortune on a mountain
of skulls.

~~~
robertwiblin
Hey Devishard - keep in mind this is only one of four suggested approaches. We
also say if you think your work to make money is going to do harm you
shouldn't do it and link to a list of jobs you shouldn't take because they are
harmful.

I don't personally agree with you that Microsoft has done much harm - maybe
not even any harm at all on balance, given the positive inventions they made.

Certainly I don't think Microsoft was so bad that saving 10 million people's
lives wouldn't go a long way to making up for it.

But if I did think Microsoft was very harmful, like you, I would agree you
shouldn't earn to give there.

~~~
devishard
Even if we buy that Microsoft hasn't done any harm at all in balance (which I
don't) why would them collecting billions of dollars and then disbursing them
be considered a net good when the alternative is that money not going into
their pockets in the first place, and doing good earlier?

Microsoft was founded in 1975. The Gates Foundation was founded in 2000. Why
did we have to wait 25 years to see any money go into good instead of Gates'
pockets?

Also, Gates is still very, very rich, even after giving away a lot of his
money. He also helped a lot of his friends get very, very rich, and even the
ones of them who give to charity will remain very, very rich. That's billions
and billions of dollars that came from crushing smaller businesses, hardening
monopolies, and pulling money from governments that could have gone to aid
programs.

I am not sure where you got the "saving 10 million people's lives" statistic
from, but if it's true, then how many millions more would have been saved by
the billions of dollars that Gates and his friends have siphoned off by being
middle men? Do you really think even half the money that has gone into MS will
come out in the form of aid?

If $x spent to save 10 million lives saved between 2000 and 2015 are good,
wouldn't $2x spent between 1975 and 2000 have been better?

~~~
robertwiblin
Gates mostly earned money by selling products to people in the top 10% of
global incomes - products they willingly bought. Most of his philanthropy has
gone to people in the bottom 20% - people who earn a hundredth as much as
people typically buying Microsoft software. Read more on this:
[https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-
can-...](https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-can-one-
person-make/)

I think he intends to give away most of his money before he does - like 90% or
so.

As for why the Foundation was started in 2000 - Microsoft wasn't making much
money before the 90s so there wasn't much to give. Judging by Microsoft's
share price, Gates only truly got rich after 1997.

~~~
ex_amazon_se
> selling products to people in the top 10% of global incomes

No, the majority of customers are big corporation with a very large customer
base (aka lower and middle class). The customers are the ones ultimately
paying for that - e.g. when they buy food at McDonalds.

~~~
robertwiblin
Most people in the US, UK and so on are in the top 10% of global incomes:
[https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-
am-i/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/)

Some people in developing countries would have paid for Windows too, but they
would have been unusually rich to have computers when Microsoft was raking it
in. And from my experience in developing countries, Microsoft software was
pirated almost 100% of the time.

------
tomp
I'm flagging this because of the terrible popup. If I submit a (fake) email,
it _still_ won't let me read the article, but rather redirect me to a page
demanding _even more_ info!

~~~
robertwiblin
Hey Tom, we have that second step because we often deliver free workshops to
people at their universities. Just this week I was emailing people who told us
they are at universities in London to let them know about date we will be
available to meet them personally.

If you just click anywhere else on the page, the popup will close and you can
get back to reading the page! :)

I understand pop-ups are annoying, but without them I don't think 80,000
Hours' model would be sustainable (we couldn't show much impact and so donors
wouldn't fund us).

~~~
tomp
Oh well, I guess it's better to polarize the public, and have some that
_really_ hate you and others that _really_ love you.

Kind-of like the US presidential candidates right now :)

~~~
robertwiblin
If there's one thing I've learned on the internet, it's that it's hard to
please everyone. ;)

------
adamsea
Its ironic that the Superman comic, where in the end Superman says "this seems
monotonous" also is the perfect critique of the article. The qualitative, non-
quantifiable parts of what we do for a living are equally important. Who would
want to be Superman if he turned a crank, at a constant speed, every day of
his life?

~~~
BenjaminTodd
We also say at the end it's important to find something you enjoy and that
you're good at, because that will result in a greater long-run impact (more
success means more influence, less chance of burning out etc.).

Also we cover which jobs are enjoyable elsewhere in the guide. This article is
just about impact.

[https://80000hours.org/career-guide/job-
satisfaction/](https://80000hours.org/career-guide/job-satisfaction/)

------
fiatjaf
It is an article, not a Show HN.

~~~
dang
I told the authors that they could make it a Show HN after they explained it's
part of a project they've been working on for months, which included an
exhaustive literature review. That's a lot more work than a garden-variety
blog post or article, and the intention behind Show HN has always been to let
people share their work.

So while you're definitely right that by default a Show HN needs to be more
than just an article, in this case it's a borderline call that we let through.
HN is a spirit-of-the-law kind of place.

Edit: I forgot to mention, and don't see it elsewhere on the page, that 80,000
Hours is a YC S15 nonprofit. Sorry; should have made that clear.

------
Dangeranger
If people are looking for the full video course list here it is:
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-
BRtcBm4Yj6ZpOG49cbH...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-
BRtcBm4Yj6ZpOG49cbHut0gtuCEVXfk)

------
mesozoic
This is why I'm getting into promoting colonization of Mars and beyond. All
human life could be wiped out forever by a single catastrophic event which is
surely more important than most other problems.

~~~
BenjaminTodd
Broadly, we agree that catastrophic risks are among the most important
problems, but we don't think colonizing mars is the most effective thing you
could do about them right now. [https://80000hours.org/problem-
profiles/](https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/)

------
codegeek
you video thumbnail has a typo in the text "In which __careeer __". Notice the
extra 'e'

~~~
robertwiblin
Thanks! We're on it.

------
33a
This is an article, not a project. Does it really belong on Show HN?

------
singbaby
Summary:

Three steps to a high impact job:

1\. Work out which problems are most pressing – those that are big in scale,
neglected and tractable – as we covered in part 2b.

2\. Choose the most effective approaches. Think broadly by considering
research, advocacy and earning to give as well as direct work, and choose the
best approach for the problem. That’s what we covered in this article.

3\. Within those approaches, find a position with excellent personal fit and
job satisfaction – something where you have the chance to excel, the work is
engaging, you like your colleagues, it meets your basic needs and it fits with
the rest of your life. Otherwise you’ll burn out and have much less impact.
We’ll explain how to work out where you have the best personal fit in part 4.

If you do this, you’ll be doing what contributes, and have all the ingredients
of a personally fulfilling career too. In this way, there’s less trade-off
between doing what’s best for the world and doing what’s best for you than
there first seems.

