This article says there's a match up to $400K. The link says ~$360K raised of $350K goal and also that "GiveDirectly's $500,000 match has been filled, but you can still donate." What's going on? If my donation's not matched, I'd rather it go to GiveWell's top charities...
Fyi, I emailed GiveDirectly and they clarified for me:
They had a total of 500k match funds available, which was being fundraised for across a few different campaigns that were running simultaneously. (The two I'm personally aware of are this Substackers campaign, and a Giving Tuesday campaign page that I accessed via a link in a fundraising email from GiveDirectly).
The GD person I corresponded with said that they've noted that this wasn't communicated clearly (esp for donors like me without the full context of the match drive), and that their team is working to improve their fundraising pages so that they can better represent the totals for the next match season.
They said all 500k of matching funds has been activated, but that people can still contribute to all the individual campaigns (that each have their own total goals).
GiveDirectly is also hoping to run another match campaign before the end of the year.
I've always really appreciated GiveDirectly for their transparency and accurate representation of how funds were being spent (in contrast to "sponsor a child"-type marketing), so I'm glad they've acknowledged that there were issues of clarity and representation here, and that they are working to fix it for next time around. (Am also glad that even within the confusing wording, they at least had the notice up, across all campaign pages, that the 500k had been fully matched as soon as it was matched).
I ended up donating a small amount anyway, in part to thank them for recognizing the problem and taking time to address my concern. I also used the donation link on Understanding AI substack, as he's pledged an additional personal 5k match if his subscribers donate at least 10k (so I figured there might still be some potential match funds to try to help secure there).
I hope this helps you too! (And anyone else who was confused -- I figure we can't possibly have been the only ones).
I'd also appreciate clarification about this. I was also confused by this notification yesterday and ended up not donating any of my remaining EOY donations to this campaign as a result. It was showing the "match has been filled" sometime in the later afternoon EST when I checked. (I have a longstanding recurrent monthly donation to GiveDirectly, but usually allocate most of my other giving to Givewell top charities).
Would non-US residents who donate to GiveDirectly via a local partner (listed here: https://www.givedirectly.org/giving-internationally/) for tax deductability reasons still be eligable foe the donation perks?
Says a lot about me that I'm not particularly compelled to donate on the merits (just in general, nothing specific to this drive) due to iffy finances, but am like "$1.2k to make Matt answer a question? That's tempting..."
Find myself wondering if there's any particular message in choosing which 6 of the 12 participating authors to include in the subhead or not. And more substantively, where the cutoff is between direct cash transfers to the very poor working pretty well <-> UBI to first-world-poor people having null or mildly deleterious effects. Why *doesn't* cash work so well for the less less-well-off? "complicated and multi-faceted problems" feels handwavey, especially after the helicopter money of pandemic relief seemed to work pretty well...it would be good to firmly establish the royal bona fides of cash. (and this is why I'd love a guaranteed Mailbag question)
You should read "complicated and multi-faceted problems" as euphemisms for mental illness and low personal capacity / human capital in a way that isn't as true of regions that are more uniformly-poor (nor of pandemic relief recipients) because there's not nearly as much of a selection effect at play, whereas the poor in otherwise-rich countries are implicitly selected for people whose lot in life in not easily remedied by means of their personal agency and thus, to the extent their poverty is not immutable, nevertheless requires essentially ongoing material support instead of the recipients being candidates for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in response to an infusion of capital.
I just made a donation. Might not be as large as some of the others, but it is important that all who have something to give give something. I'm very happy to do something good during this holiday season.
I'm guessing that your readers are fairly high income, so maybe mention that their $$ can go MUCH further if they donate appreciated stock rather than cash. E.g., if you have a stock that went from $10 to $110, selling it you'd pay $15 in taxes leaving only $85 to donate. If you instead donate the $110 stock directly, charities can sell it tax-free, and you even get a tax *deduction* (if you itemize) on the full $110, potentially netting you $40 or more if you're in the top tax bracket. Everyone wins! I donate to a donor advised fund to make it super easy (only downside is you can't participate in some matches like this one)
Thank you Matt, Kate, Ben and team; I will donate again this year.
A note on the overall pitch, if I may: I wonder if the (mildly) disparaging contrast to activism/volunteerism was unnecessary. First, within the SB community, it seems quite possible that folk could, on their way to knocking on doors, stop at a laptop and initiate a funds transfer.
Second, it may be true that direct involvement initially offers less efficiency than donating to professionals and their well-tested messages. But it seems the ranks of community and party builders have been hollowed out, leaving only online activism, and I think this allows rot to fester in our most important institutions. Meanwhile, direct involvement educates participants on the system itself, fostering informed supporters who hold accountable professionals who occasionally must speak for them.
Building connection, persuasion and impact is best done in person—and in communion; I can think of few groups better to be out there than the people who read this newsletter.
tl;dr — Why not heartily encourage both kinds of giving?
Again, thanks for this opportunity to make a difference. Would that we keep supporting such creative endeavors of all types.
Not to add a mercenary edge to volunteering, but it's also selfishly good to volunteer because it's good for morale, you make friends and deepen community connections, you learn new skills and you have a third space. I drive the Bloodmobile on weekends for the Red Cross to deliver platelets and I think I do it for myself as much as I do it for cancer patients.
(Also idk if this is happening to anyone else but my formatting on SB is junked. Not happening on other substacks, though.)
Is there an economic analysis somewhere about what exactly the improved quality of life comes from, as a result of cash infusion? There are no more resources than before in that same village, no more workers. Do the villagers use the cash to import goods and labor from nearby villages? Do they buy solar panels from China? Someone talked about pressure from rent -- does the cash address a wealth inequality within the village? Or an inequality between a poor village and a wealthier landlord who lives elsewhere?
To a first approximation, giving everybody cash doesn't make everybody richer. It can only make those who receive the cash richer than others competing for the same resources. So who are these villagers now outbidding?
Many of these countries use currencies that are either directly or indirectly (via a peg) tied to large stable currencies like the dollar, pound, or euro. So the risk of monetary inflation is pretty negligible.
Even if the entire $1k is spent on importing raw materials from elsewhere, building up local capital stocks (see: Charlotte's house from the article) is a good thing. In an economy with lots of room to predictably grow, as well as probably chronic underemployment, stimulus is a good thing.
Is it better to buy a man a house or help 100 men with rent? Does the former result in more capital being built? (This is a serious question that I invite others to ponder with me)
If someone buys $1k of local construction materials and labor that'll clearly make it marginally harder for nearby villages to build homes.
If someone imports $1k of materials from somewhere far away it'll have less of a local effect but clearly they'll be outbidding someone somewhere for those materials. I'm curious who exactly is being outbid, and what the knock on effects are.
By this logic foreign direct investment doesn't benefit a modernizing country or, come to think of it, getting a performance-based salary increase doesn't benefit you.
I am sure giving a village a bunch of cash benefits the village, the same as giving me a bunch of cash benefits me.
Does giving me a bunch of cash so I can buy a bunch of stuff benefit my neighbors? Maybe or maybe not, depending on what I buy. Does it benefit the world? I doubt it.
Are you genuinely curious, or just being obstinate because you don't like the idea and are searching for "questions" you can ask to cast doubt on it? Because FDI generally and cash transfers specifically are incredibly well studied and almost universally regarded to be net positives for both recipients and their communities. The article itself even has a review of one such meta analysis. I'm not sure what more realistically acquirable evidence you could need to indicate that this is both good in the small and good-to-neutral in the large.
Definitely don't let this stop you from giving, but I think we should get rid of the stigma where you can't admit that volunteering is partially for the benefit of the volunteer. I teach a weekly English class for immigrants and refugees and I absolutely love it. Could I do more good by spending that weekly three hours tutoring wealthy people and donating the pay to high impact charities? Probably, but if I'm being honest, my teaching is just as much for my benefit as a fun, community-building activity as it is for the benefit of the students, and as long as it is a net benefit for the students (which I believe it is because I take it seriously and put a lot of effort into it), I think it should be okay to admit that.
I agree that there is a weird stigma against talking about (and personally enjoying) volunteer work! I think acknowledging that it's something I do because I like it helps me take a "why not both" approach to volunteering my time as well as my money.
Matt, I want to thank you for giving me the nudge to starting donating again. I just set up a recurring $100 donation, which I had been meaning to do for awhile now but hadn't. The matching funds for this initial donation were a big motivator, and I also didn't realize my employer would match this donation, which is exciting!
Three years ago I was donating to Give Directly monthly, but then I had to stop as my finances became very tight due to inflation, a lack of real raises in my job at the time, and a break up leaving me to pay rent all on my own. However, my financial circumstances are much better now and I frankly have been putting off restarting my donations for vague and selfish reasons.
I don't know if thread hijacking is heavily frowned upon, but uh a coup/autogolpe attempt in South Korea seems like a big deal.....
" South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on Tuesday declared martial law in an unannounced late night address broadcast live on YTN television, claiming he would eradicate "shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces". He did not cite any specific threat from the nuclear-armed North, however, instead focusing on his domestic political opponents.
"I declare martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order," Yoon said."
Yeah, I was very, very surprised when I got into the elevator at work this morning and the little screen that runs approx. 25-word news blurbs said, "South Korean president declares martial law. Troops, police in streets of Seoul," which prompted me to literally say, "What the f***?!?" out loud, which was a little awkward because there was already some random woman in the elevator going to a different floor.
Cash transfer charities should create Wu-Tang Wednesday. Because C.R.E.A.M.
This article says there's a match up to $400K. The link says ~$360K raised of $350K goal and also that "GiveDirectly's $500,000 match has been filled, but you can still donate." What's going on? If my donation's not matched, I'd rather it go to GiveWell's top charities...
Fyi, I emailed GiveDirectly and they clarified for me:
They had a total of 500k match funds available, which was being fundraised for across a few different campaigns that were running simultaneously. (The two I'm personally aware of are this Substackers campaign, and a Giving Tuesday campaign page that I accessed via a link in a fundraising email from GiveDirectly).
The GD person I corresponded with said that they've noted that this wasn't communicated clearly (esp for donors like me without the full context of the match drive), and that their team is working to improve their fundraising pages so that they can better represent the totals for the next match season.
They said all 500k of matching funds has been activated, but that people can still contribute to all the individual campaigns (that each have their own total goals).
GiveDirectly is also hoping to run another match campaign before the end of the year.
I've always really appreciated GiveDirectly for their transparency and accurate representation of how funds were being spent (in contrast to "sponsor a child"-type marketing), so I'm glad they've acknowledged that there were issues of clarity and representation here, and that they are working to fix it for next time around. (Am also glad that even within the confusing wording, they at least had the notice up, across all campaign pages, that the 500k had been fully matched as soon as it was matched).
I ended up donating a small amount anyway, in part to thank them for recognizing the problem and taking time to address my concern. I also used the donation link on Understanding AI substack, as he's pledged an additional personal 5k match if his subscribers donate at least 10k (so I figured there might still be some potential match funds to try to help secure there).
I hope this helps you too! (And anyone else who was confused -- I figure we can't possibly have been the only ones).
I'd also appreciate clarification about this. I was also confused by this notification yesterday and ended up not donating any of my remaining EOY donations to this campaign as a result. It was showing the "match has been filled" sometime in the later afternoon EST when I checked. (I have a longstanding recurrent monthly donation to GiveDirectly, but usually allocate most of my other giving to Givewell top charities).
Totally fair. There are some similar Sam’s.
Would non-US residents who donate to GiveDirectly via a local partner (listed here: https://www.givedirectly.org/giving-internationally/) for tax deductability reasons still be eligable foe the donation perks?
Yes! Just email me.
Says a lot about me that I'm not particularly compelled to donate on the merits (just in general, nothing specific to this drive) due to iffy finances, but am like "$1.2k to make Matt answer a question? That's tempting..."
Find myself wondering if there's any particular message in choosing which 6 of the 12 participating authors to include in the subhead or not. And more substantively, where the cutoff is between direct cash transfers to the very poor working pretty well <-> UBI to first-world-poor people having null or mildly deleterious effects. Why *doesn't* cash work so well for the less less-well-off? "complicated and multi-faceted problems" feels handwavey, especially after the helicopter money of pandemic relief seemed to work pretty well...it would be good to firmly establish the royal bona fides of cash. (and this is why I'd love a guaranteed Mailbag question)
You should read "complicated and multi-faceted problems" as euphemisms for mental illness and low personal capacity / human capital in a way that isn't as true of regions that are more uniformly-poor (nor of pandemic relief recipients) because there's not nearly as much of a selection effect at play, whereas the poor in otherwise-rich countries are implicitly selected for people whose lot in life in not easily remedied by means of their personal agency and thus, to the extent their poverty is not immutable, nevertheless requires essentially ongoing material support instead of the recipients being candidates for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in response to an infusion of capital.
Donated through my DAF. Thanks for the heads-up about this worthwhile charity.
I just made a donation. Might not be as large as some of the others, but it is important that all who have something to give give something. I'm very happy to do something good during this holiday season.
I will be donating by check, but that doesn't seem to work with the campaign. But it looks like the matching funds are likely to be met anyway.
Email me, and we’ll make sure it’s counted toward the campaign!
I'm guessing that your readers are fairly high income, so maybe mention that their $$ can go MUCH further if they donate appreciated stock rather than cash. E.g., if you have a stock that went from $10 to $110, selling it you'd pay $15 in taxes leaving only $85 to donate. If you instead donate the $110 stock directly, charities can sell it tax-free, and you even get a tax *deduction* (if you itemize) on the full $110, potentially netting you $40 or more if you're in the top tax bracket. Everyone wins! I donate to a donor advised fund to make it super easy (only downside is you can't participate in some matches like this one)
I gave $100 three weeks ago in anticipation of this. I challenge you to add this to the match!
Thank you Matt, Kate, Ben and team; I will donate again this year.
A note on the overall pitch, if I may: I wonder if the (mildly) disparaging contrast to activism/volunteerism was unnecessary. First, within the SB community, it seems quite possible that folk could, on their way to knocking on doors, stop at a laptop and initiate a funds transfer.
Second, it may be true that direct involvement initially offers less efficiency than donating to professionals and their well-tested messages. But it seems the ranks of community and party builders have been hollowed out, leaving only online activism, and I think this allows rot to fester in our most important institutions. Meanwhile, direct involvement educates participants on the system itself, fostering informed supporters who hold accountable professionals who occasionally must speak for them.
Building connection, persuasion and impact is best done in person—and in communion; I can think of few groups better to be out there than the people who read this newsletter.
tl;dr — Why not heartily encourage both kinds of giving?
Again, thanks for this opportunity to make a difference. Would that we keep supporting such creative endeavors of all types.
Not to add a mercenary edge to volunteering, but it's also selfishly good to volunteer because it's good for morale, you make friends and deepen community connections, you learn new skills and you have a third space. I drive the Bloodmobile on weekends for the Red Cross to deliver platelets and I think I do it for myself as much as I do it for cancer patients.
(Also idk if this is happening to anyone else but my formatting on SB is junked. Not happening on other substacks, though.)
Is there an economic analysis somewhere about what exactly the improved quality of life comes from, as a result of cash infusion? There are no more resources than before in that same village, no more workers. Do the villagers use the cash to import goods and labor from nearby villages? Do they buy solar panels from China? Someone talked about pressure from rent -- does the cash address a wealth inequality within the village? Or an inequality between a poor village and a wealthier landlord who lives elsewhere?
To a first approximation, giving everybody cash doesn't make everybody richer. It can only make those who receive the cash richer than others competing for the same resources. So who are these villagers now outbidding?
Many of these countries use currencies that are either directly or indirectly (via a peg) tied to large stable currencies like the dollar, pound, or euro. So the risk of monetary inflation is pretty negligible.
Even if the entire $1k is spent on importing raw materials from elsewhere, building up local capital stocks (see: Charlotte's house from the article) is a good thing. In an economy with lots of room to predictably grow, as well as probably chronic underemployment, stimulus is a good thing.
I think this is the right way to look at it. Building capital which can sustain future growth.
A lot of people have no trouble making mortgage payments, but saving enough for a huge down payment can be extremely challenging.
Is it better to buy a man a house or help 100 men with rent? Does the former result in more capital being built? (This is a serious question that I invite others to ponder with me)
If someone buys $1k of local construction materials and labor that'll clearly make it marginally harder for nearby villages to build homes.
If someone imports $1k of materials from somewhere far away it'll have less of a local effect but clearly they'll be outbidding someone somewhere for those materials. I'm curious who exactly is being outbid, and what the knock on effects are.
By this logic foreign direct investment doesn't benefit a modernizing country or, come to think of it, getting a performance-based salary increase doesn't benefit you.
I am sure giving a village a bunch of cash benefits the village, the same as giving me a bunch of cash benefits me.
Does giving me a bunch of cash so I can buy a bunch of stuff benefit my neighbors? Maybe or maybe not, depending on what I buy. Does it benefit the world? I doubt it.
Are you genuinely curious, or just being obstinate because you don't like the idea and are searching for "questions" you can ask to cast doubt on it? Because FDI generally and cash transfers specifically are incredibly well studied and almost universally regarded to be net positives for both recipients and their communities. The article itself even has a review of one such meta analysis. I'm not sure what more realistically acquirable evidence you could need to indicate that this is both good in the small and good-to-neutral in the large.
Depends on how it is used.
Like I said, FDI has made vast parts of the world far richer.
Definitely don't let this stop you from giving, but I think we should get rid of the stigma where you can't admit that volunteering is partially for the benefit of the volunteer. I teach a weekly English class for immigrants and refugees and I absolutely love it. Could I do more good by spending that weekly three hours tutoring wealthy people and donating the pay to high impact charities? Probably, but if I'm being honest, my teaching is just as much for my benefit as a fun, community-building activity as it is for the benefit of the students, and as long as it is a net benefit for the students (which I believe it is because I take it seriously and put a lot of effort into it), I think it should be okay to admit that.
I agree that there is a weird stigma against talking about (and personally enjoying) volunteer work! I think acknowledging that it's something I do because I like it helps me take a "why not both" approach to volunteering my time as well as my money.
I think maybe the ‘I enjoy it’ gets lumped into the ‘I take pictures with poor kids and post it on my Instagram’ thing, which is a separate issue
Matt, I want to thank you for giving me the nudge to starting donating again. I just set up a recurring $100 donation, which I had been meaning to do for awhile now but hadn't. The matching funds for this initial donation were a big motivator, and I also didn't realize my employer would match this donation, which is exciting!
Three years ago I was donating to Give Directly monthly, but then I had to stop as my finances became very tight due to inflation, a lack of real raises in my job at the time, and a break up leaving me to pay rent all on my own. However, my financial circumstances are much better now and I frankly have been putting off restarting my donations for vague and selfish reasons.
But who will think of the shrimp on Giving Tuesday?
Seems like a good cause!!
I don't know if thread hijacking is heavily frowned upon, but uh a coup/autogolpe attempt in South Korea seems like a big deal.....
" South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on Tuesday declared martial law in an unannounced late night address broadcast live on YTN television, claiming he would eradicate "shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces". He did not cite any specific threat from the nuclear-armed North, however, instead focusing on his domestic political opponents.
"I declare martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order," Yoon said."
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-president-yoon-declares-martial-law-2024-12-03/
Yeah, I was very, very surprised when I got into the elevator at work this morning and the little screen that runs approx. 25-word news blurbs said, "South Korean president declares martial law. Troops, police in streets of Seoul," which prompted me to literally say, "What the f***?!?" out loud, which was a little awkward because there was already some random woman in the elevator going to a different floor.
That guy did always have strong "work, family, fatherland" vibes.