What if you were about to leave cubicle life behind and then faced this question: If you could save thousands of lives by giving effectively, would you put off retirement?
At first that feels like a buzzkill. All the work to reach financial independence and stack up Vanguard IRAs, 401(k)s, Tesla stock, and more—only to consider staying at a job longer? But after the initial sting, most of us would pause and take the question seriously. Here are some charitable giving ideas I’m exploring to add more purpose to life.
Some of the best ideas come from bright college students. Philosopher William MacAskill is a prominent voice in the “earning to give” movement, building on Peter Singer’s work. The idea is simple and often explained with a hypothetical: which approach saves more lives and reduces more suffering at scale? Volunteering 40 hours at a soup kitchen, or donating the value of 40 hours’ pay to buy mosquito nets for people at risk of malaria? Is it better to train as a doctor to work in underserved areas, or to earn a lot in finance and give most of your income to the highest-impact causes?
If you chose mosquito nets and the high-earning donor, you get the idea. There’s real data behind these questions that makes us rethink how to use our money and time to help others.
MacAskill and others, through the Centre for Effective Altruism, have drawn both wealthy backers and many committed followers. Known as Effective Altruists (EAs), they often pledge to give a big portion of their income and live very modestly so more money goes to important causes. Instead of hoarding wealth, they direct earnings and royalties toward global projects that aim for large-scale impact.
MacAskill’s 2015 book Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can Make a Difference is basically a how-to for this movement. GiveWell is a major player here. The mission is driven by numbers: where does a dollar do the most good? GiveWell tries to answer that, and it’s grown a lot in its first decade — a real success story.
Some people argue it’s smarter to let your charitable money grow over time and donate it later, maybe at death, so it benefits from investment returns and tax rules. That logic makes sense for billionaires like Bill Gates. But for most of us, the idea of working decades and only giving away our wealth at the end feels uncomfortable. Letting go of a hoarding or “prepper” mindset takes work.
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) might help. You can set up a DAF at places like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab and let your donations grow tax-advantaged while directing grants over time instead of all at once. My friend Leif at Physician on Fire has a great post on DAFs — recommend reading it. He and I both worry about leaving money unspent if we retire early. This blog doesn’t make millions like some others; still, I’ve managed to give meaningfully.
A DAF usually requires a starting balance: about $10,000 at Schwab, $25,000 at Vanguard, and Fidelity lets you start with as little as $50. I might try Fidelity to get comfortable before committing more. You can fund a DAF with cash and get an income tax deduction, or donate appreciated stock to avoid capital gains — a useful tax-smart way to give. The key is making sure your charitable dollars go to high-impact places.
My first pick for donations from the DAF will likely be GiveWell. I’ve also historically given the blog’s sponsored-post income and ad revenue to Children’s HeartLink. Since starting this blog in late 2016, I’ve given almost $20,000 to them and other causes, often doubled by employer matching. Not bad, considering how long I’ve been itching to quit—I’ll take it and give it away.
There are lots of resources online about giving wisely. Do your homework and check how much of your donations actually reach the causes you care about.
I should have been two and a half years into early retirement by now. Life interfered, and I got hung up on what my purpose would be after quitting. I stayed in the cubicle longer than I wanted, unsure if I’d ever leave. A recent New Yorker piece on MacAskill and earning to give made me rethink why I’m still working. If I can get up each day knowing my paycheck will help people, that might be the purpose I’ve been looking for.
One caveat of the earn-to-give idea: avoid work that raises the risk of human extinction. That means steering clear of industries like oil, coal, guns, large-scale cattle farming, and tobacco. Avoiding burnout is key. Finding the right boss, the right role, and a healthy work-life balance should still be top priorities. We need “cause-life balance” — don’t sacrifice family time or personal well-being because you think you alone must save the world.
Check out 80,000 Hours for analysis on how your job choice can influence global suffering. It’s not easy to switch careers for impact, especially if you already work in nonprofits, but the site makes a strong case for considering the trade-offs. Ask yourself: do you want an immediate hands-on impact at an organization like the Red Cross, or would you earn more and donate a large share, potentially saving far more lives? Only you can choose, but these are powerful questions for anyone facing human suffering.
If you’re near early retirement or just starting out, it might be worth rethinking those plans. I haven’t decided yet — I’m still wavering — but I’m reading more about 80,000 Hours and earn-to-give ideas. Whether I give through a DAF or directly from each paycheck, I’m exploring options.
MacAskill and others have also moved some focus toward funding policy changes that tackle root causes, not just immediate needs. Organizations like 80,000 Hours aim to build pledges and steer resources toward existential risks: climate change, nuclear weapons, authoritarianism, deforestation, lack of pandemic preparedness, and even the risks from advanced AI. These efforts try to prevent crises before they happen.
I’m not sure I’ll commit fully to that path, but I support the work. Meanwhile, consider whether putting in a few more hours now could help save lives later. The math is real — we can make a difference if we don’t look away.
Since this post first ran, Sam Bankman-Fried became embroiled in major fraud charges and is now in prison. He once claimed to support effective altruism, but his actions showed otherwise — a real disappointment.
I’ve decided to leave the corporate world for good, prioritizing my mental health over staying for the sake of giving. That doesn’t mean I’ve stopped giving. I plan to set up a donor-advised fund and keep contributing time and energy to my community. Real change needs systemic solutions and larger contributions from billionaires and the very wealthy. Effective Altruism can help, but it can also act like a band-aid if it asks middle earners to patch problems that actually require better policies.
And remember to vote this November. Change takes time, but pushing for better policies matters.