I agree that most things are both good and bad, especially in the modern interconnected world.
There are three ways that a person can live: live and work normally, live and work dedicated to some purpose, or withdraw from society. In religious terms these groups correspond to the laity, the clergy, and hermits, but secular society can divide this way too. These groups depend on each other, and each of them can do good, and I think it's a mistake to say one is absolutely better or worse than the others.
Nevertheless some people are better suited to one group over the others. If you think one group is better for you, then you should move into it. That doesn't mean the people in the other groups are doing things wrong though, they're just doing things differently from you.
Suppose you're a person with the skills to work at Google for a lot of money. Google is ethically complicated, but they do some good things for sure. You could work for them, make a lot of money, live moderately, pay your taxes, take care of a family, and donate to charity.
You could also work for much less money for some organization that only does good. You're definitely making things better at work, but you have less of your own resources to put toward taxes, family, and charity, and you're consuming the taxes and charity that the first person paid.
Or, you could withdraw almost entirely from society, live some place extremely cheap, do some freelance technical work for a few hours a week or maybe become a short-order cook at a truck stop. You're not really making things better on any large scale, but you're not making things worse either, and at least you aren't consuming resources. You're also free to write or make art that inspires and leads the first person to donate and the second person to work under their market value.
All of these are good options, you just need to find the one that is the best fit for you.
For the hypothetical Google route, the thing about most (successful) businesses is that if you're making a dollar, they're at least making two. If Google is "ethically complicated," it is unlikely that your personal charity will offset their "complication".
With do-goodering, changes in perspective and nth-order effects can turn that into a brimming cup of regret overnight.
If you just want to live small and and have a positive impact, how about working in a library? They've got those everywhere.
I don't think it's true that if a company is successful then you will make them two dollars for every dollar you get. I think many large companies are profitable due to rent-seeking or externalizing costs, and the marginal gain from the N-thousandth employee is negative, but they can't lay off employees or even stop hiring because of legal or political reasons. If you get a job with one of these companies, then you are wasting their money, which is a good thing to do against an evil company.
Noam Chomsky has been repeatedly asked whether capitalism is a good thing after all because the average quality of life has improved under it. His reply is that average quality of life improved under slavery too, but that's not a justification for slavery. You can see him discuss this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6QAqU2KpaY.
You and I are having the reverse conversation, which is whether it's better to participate in a harmful system for the sake of making any progress, or better to opt out entirely. Actually, because humanity is currently headed off a cliff due to climate change and the worldwide rise of authoritarian governments, the choice is between participating in the harmful system or allowing large-scale catastrophe.
I agree that libraries fit the criteria I laid out, but I guess that like other do-good organizations, they are poorly funded and have a glut of trained specialists and willing volunteers. It's a sign of our dysfunctional times that the more directly helpful an organization or job is, the less well funded it will be.
If we safely assume that IBM has a lot of unproductive admin staff who are collecting paychecks to surf Facebook all day, a competent and motivated developer is actually bringing a lot more than $244,447 in additional profits to the table.
That, and most "QOs" I've encountered are fronts/whitewash/greenwash/etc for larger and more malevolent concerns.
Without a major streak of luck, I think living small and setting a good example is the best any of us can reliably do.
The article you linked is about revenue, not profits, but that doesn't really matter for the argument.
I don't think you can divide $X revenue by N employees and say that therefore there must be some employee pulling in at least $X/N revenue, or at least say that in a way that matters. Imagine a hypothetical tech startup with $1 billion revenue and 10 employees. Is one developer there necessarily bringing in at least $100 million? Would you hire that developer for $50 million and consider it a deal? What if most of that $1 billion came from a single government contract with a serious conflict of interest?
Anyway I think that working for a large organization at a big salary and coming out morally ahead is theoretically possible but very difficult. I don't think I'm cut out for it, myself.
Your analysis of small non-profits matches my experience both searching and applying. I'll add that even the tech agencies that serve these non-profits want people with a specific set of relatively old skills, as HN would think of them, that are still really well-known. Wordpress and Drupal are popular. I guess this is doubly true for the non-profits themselves, which have more specific needs and less flexibility.
Some government work is fine. I'm avoiding any federal work under the incoming political leadership, but that's a complex situation and reasonable people can disagree. Most state or city government work is fine with me, but I want to relocate and I assume these places aren't interested in hiring remotely. Moving to a large state capital might be a good idea if I decide to move without something lined up.
My technical background is a little scattered, so while I'm a good developer in a general way, I'm unlikely to be the first choice if an organization needs a specialist in any specific thing. I suppose anyone hiring me remotely needs to either be confident in their ability to assess general technical aptitude, or large enough that they can afford to be wrong, neither of which correspond well to the places where I'm applying.
Being a generalist will likely serve you well applying to small agencies and organizations. You may have more trouble with larger agencies/orgs and government due to the way their hiring processes work. Unless there are one or two things you'd be willing to focus on for a couple years and can tailor your resume to.
There are three ways that a person can live: live and work normally, live and work dedicated to some purpose, or withdraw from society. In religious terms these groups correspond to the laity, the clergy, and hermits, but secular society can divide this way too. These groups depend on each other, and each of them can do good, and I think it's a mistake to say one is absolutely better or worse than the others.
Nevertheless some people are better suited to one group over the others. If you think one group is better for you, then you should move into it. That doesn't mean the people in the other groups are doing things wrong though, they're just doing things differently from you.
Suppose you're a person with the skills to work at Google for a lot of money. Google is ethically complicated, but they do some good things for sure. You could work for them, make a lot of money, live moderately, pay your taxes, take care of a family, and donate to charity.
You could also work for much less money for some organization that only does good. You're definitely making things better at work, but you have less of your own resources to put toward taxes, family, and charity, and you're consuming the taxes and charity that the first person paid.
Or, you could withdraw almost entirely from society, live some place extremely cheap, do some freelance technical work for a few hours a week or maybe become a short-order cook at a truck stop. You're not really making things better on any large scale, but you're not making things worse either, and at least you aren't consuming resources. You're also free to write or make art that inspires and leads the first person to donate and the second person to work under their market value.
All of these are good options, you just need to find the one that is the best fit for you.