Earning to give involves deliberately pursuing a high-earning career for the purpose of donating a significant portion of earned income, typically because of a belief in effective altruism.
Contents
Advocates of earning to give sometimes suggest that maximizing the amount one can donate to charity is an important consideration for individuals when deciding what career to pursue, even if the individual has less intrinsic interest in high-earning careers.
Proponents
In the 1996 book Living High and Letting Die, the philosopher Peter Unger wrote that it was morally praiseworthy and perhaps even morally required for people in academia who could earn substantially greater salaries in the business world to leave academia, earn the greater salaries, and donate most of the extra money to charity.
In practice
Some people within the effective altruist community practice earning to give. Some donate 50% of their income, more than the 10% required for the basic Giving What We Can pledge. They may live frugally to donate more money. Financial careers are popular for those pursuing earning to give.
Debate
David Brooks criticized the concept in his New York Times opinion column, arguing that, while altruists may start doing "earning to give" to realize their deepest commitments, their values may erode over time, becoming progressively less altruistic. In addition, Brooks objected to the view on which altruists should turn themselves "into a machine for the redistribution of wealth." Dana Goldstein has also criticized earning to give, prompting a response from Reihan Salam.
Media coverage
Earning to give has been discussed in a number of news and media outlets including BBC News, Quartz,the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Aeon Magazine.