zlacker

>>sepias+(OP)
If you want to work at positive impact companies, Khan Academy is one that comes up in my head.

But take it from me, someone who has volunteered for civic tech organizations and have participated in ground work for political campaigns. The most positive impact you could possibly make is money.

Political campaigns need thousands of volunteers. But someone who has no skills or education can volunteer. The supply pool is giant! But campaigns need millions of dollars in order to survive. It’s way harder to raise a dollar because in order to donate to campaigns the person usually needs to have discretionary income. And to move the needle financially for a campaign, you need to be fairly wealthy.

At the end of the day, maximizing your salary and donating, say 10k (2.8k direct + 7.2k via PAC) to a political candidate that you believe will make a way bigger positive impact than working for minimum wage or free for that candidate. Because your skills aren’t being used optimally. If you take a paycut from 300k to 60k, are you still comfortable making that donation?

Anyways, my personal mantra is to maximize income at impact neutral companies or positive adjacent. And then commit to donate a significant chunk of income to positive impact organizations. Don’t know if this helps or not.

>>wayne-+du
Well said. I agree with everything you say except perhaps the focus on politicians. It's a group of people self selected for the ability to sell us a vision with only a distant, vague prospect of realizing it. On the other hand, there are non-profits with readily visible outcomes.

>>cherio+0z
> It's a group of people self selected for the ability to sell us a vision with only a distant, vague prospect of realizing it.

That's unnecessarily and destructively cynical. There are plenty of politicians (and others working for governments) at all levels who are there to do a good job.

The showboats and bad actors (which are almost coextensive) of course by definition get most of the press. Don't let them distract you.

>>gumby+DU
The whole point of checks and balances is to deal with the cold reality that politicians can't be trusted. But they can still be useful! As long as the system of elections work, they need to find a set of policy priorities that builds a winning coalition.

That leads me to the conclusion that the best way to influence politics is not through the politician themselves, but through advocacy groups that can shift the political incentives.

Even the politicians celebrated by history made awful compromises to maintain a winning coalition. LBJ's relationship with MLK for example.