I like this idea in principle, but as with most such programs---e.g., high-priced corporate attorneys working a day at the public defender's office---it ignores comparative advantage. It makes you feel good, and it's a public way to look good, but if you want to do good it's better to work the same amount of time for the highest-paying client you can find and then donate the proceeds to a charity of your choice.
Yes, and your lawyer example illustrates your point well.
But consider the diversity of talents we're aiming to pool: programmers, web consultants, logo doodlers, designers, marketers...
I worry that if each of these individuals did what you recommend and donated the proceeds, they'd certainly be rocking that comparative advantage. But I suspect that non-profit would use that money for their actual causes (I know I'd rather my donation to http://kidcancer.org/ go to curing kids' cancer than pay for a top tier web consultant).
And that doesn't even consider the Randall Munroe-autographed gear those donors would be missing out on.
I just wanted to make a counterpoint to my original point, which is that while in theory it might be better if people billed clients and donated money, in practice they probably wouldn't. It's quite possible that the best way to get people off their bony arses and actually do something is exactly kind of program you've started. In any case, I'm confident that your project is doing good in the world, and I'm glad to see it. Huzzah!
From what I get out of the blurb on the linked page, reddit's only asking a given person to donate the kind of work that he does professionally. Which would actually make this a rare instance of volunteer work where your point doesn't apply in any case.
Even if they're also asking for hobbyists, your point still might not apply, because people take pleasure in their hobbies -- and it's possible that value(output of x hours of hobby work + pleasure gained from x hours of engaging in hobby) > value(output of x hours of maximally efficient work).
In the language of economics, one could say that the market for programming talent in many non-profits is undeveloped, and so donating can maximize utility, despite other jobs paying better.
As another example, the market for the environment is hardly developed at all. And the market for programming talent within companies is quite underdeveloped too; that's the crux of PG's argument anyway, working at a startup gets you closer to market price.
I would even add that on top of the fact that lawyer in question is almost certainly more expensive then they would have hired otherwise they'd probably get more value from the cheaper because they'd be more picky about where & when. A similar example is aid tourism. People visit a country for 3 weeks & help to build a school at a cost of a couple of $k in countries where unskilled labour goes from $3 a day. The organizers generally end up with a small margin for helping with the project (building materials, salaries for the actual workers, etc.) & some tourist money gets spread around.
It's terribly inefficient. A tourist spends 3 weeks and (say) $3k. The organisation gets $500 cash, $200 worth of labour & the area has about $500 dropped on food, souvenirs & billets.
They'd be at least 2X -3X better off with just the cash. but...
But they wouldn't get the cash. The time & money would be spent on ordinary holidays, local charities, social activities or the likes. The lawyer might get a scheduled day off, 20% time or procrastinate. (I admit, it works worse when it's institutionalised)
The other issue is side effects. The aid tourists tell people about it, continue to contribute, influence politicians a certain way, educates his children, etc.
I'm not a programmer (though I might fall in the bacon cooker category), so I feel funny about taking a position here. But I think that the combination of free software, access to the web & the free web have a powerful equalising affect in this world. Connecting the right people with the right organizations, could have a profound effect. When I was in primary school, a substantial donation would be old (10, 20 years) encyclopaedias for developing countries. If you don't have access to much, an encyclopedia is an important learning/teaching resource. Practically no longer necessary if you have access to the web. Information is available free. Access to it still costs though.
Once we get to a point where online teaching materials are allow a person to achieve an education on par with Universities, we (as pg just discussed) get past credentials or find new ones & enough of the labour market is internationalised (it is happening pretty fast), the key out of poverty becomes web access, computer literacy, English literacy & above average intelligence (maybe). These are manageable hurdles. Far more manageable the current keys: competent government & lack of major conflict for prolonged periods.
The potential return is huge. Really huge. Any way you look at it. Economic growth. Utility. Health. Worrying about efficiencies at this end is like fretting about the price of servers when building a Google. Have a look at what East Timor's National University lists as it's needs:http://www.untl.labor.net.au/need/it.html
To give you an idea of potential ROI: an additional 10k graduates contributing 10k per annum to GDP would represent a 20% increase.
"The other issue is side effects. The aid tourists tell people about it, continue to contribute, influence politicians a certain way, educates his children, etc."
Good point for the feedaneed.org project as well. I anticipate that at least for some volunteers there will be meaningful side-effects (they donate $, continue to volunteer their service, tell others about non-profit x, etc.) I think that for most people, there's a stronger connection when you spend time on a project, than when you just donate $.
