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.
Based on the question though, the OP's goal might either be to (1) maximize impact or (2) just earn a living while also feeling good about their company's impact. If (1) is the goal, I'd say listen to that podcast, look into effective altruism [2], and find the highest paying job you can. If (2) is the goal, I'd recommend including GoFundMe and Rivian in the list of companies to check out!
[1] https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/271... [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
- The work you're doing to make that 300k doesn't happen in a vacuum; it has an impact on the world too. Make sure it's not doing more harm (including the political donations that might get made by the owners you're making richer) than your donations are doing good.
- People aren't robots; intrinsic motivators are important for some. In some cases it can be worth making a smaller impact with your own hands, vs a larger impact that's unsustainable because your soul isn't being fed with a sense of purpose, because you're too far removed from the purpose.
I'm sure your approach works for some people, but I don't think it's an end-all answer to the question
I think there's a buried over-simplification here. It's rare to find politicians whose views 100% line up with your own, and too often, politicians are willing to flip their views to satisfy a donor (who, even if you donate 300k-60k=$240k, will not be you). Even if you mostly agree with the politician, you're taking a gamble that your contribution doesn't really end up with the positive impact you desire.
A better argument would be to put the $240k/year into a WayneLi2 Foundation, which directly acts only on whatever you define as good. Of course, in the beginning, the endowment is too small to do anything, but give it several years, and perhaps the donations of a few people who share your vision, and you'll have more control over the direction of the positive impact.
For those of us who don't have that kind of cash, picking an organization whose focus is limited to its mission serves as a boon to know that our efforts will create the impact we'd like to see.
Another issue is that these problem domains are constrained by government policy, not by private investment. For example, the US solar industry is really hurting right now because of tariffs and a recent anti-dumping investigation[1]. Imagine working at a company in this space and watching all your projects get put on hold over an issue that has bipartisan support in the Senate (a very rare thing), but an executive branch that wants to be "tough on China" (yes, believe or not I am talking about Biden). We are literally putting an entire industry on hold so we can prop up a handful of domestic manufacturing businesses.
If you really want to help, you have a few options. Make a lot of money and become a customer of companies that are doing good. Buy an EV, put solar on your roof, buy clothes and goods that are manufactured sustainably. I am personally not a huge fan of carbon offsets, but even if I don't think they are effective in their current form, supporting that industry does allow for motivated professionals to spend their time on that problem.
You can also volunteer in your free time. Lots of organizations out there that could use some help. I regularly volunteer for beach cleanups. But if you want to use your technical skills I am sure it would be easy to find someone in need of those as well.
And thinking outside the box. It is possible that one of the biggest contributors to reducing our CO2 footprint in this current century was Netflix. "Netflix and chill" was a fun meme, with the idea being that you would hang out at home and watch Netflix (among other things) instead of going out. Imagine the number of vehicle miles avoided because of that meme! So if you want to have your cake and eat it too, consider working on projects that keep people in their home (especially if it keeps people working from home, imagine all those commute miles avoided).
And another outside the box idea. Join a company that is doing bad things (whatever that may mean for you). Then work your way up the ladder and change the company for the better from the inside. If ladder climbing is not for you, simply become an internal advocate for change. Or more cynically, make them less efficient. You could do this by simply being ineffective at your job. Or you could more actively steer projects in suboptimal directions.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/america-first-c...
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.
It's a little different if the volunteering is something low impact or something you're way out of your depth in, or if the cause wanting money has a way of getting very tangible rewards (which are quantifiably greater than whatever free time you can spare on it)
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.
I don't really agree. Perhaps we're incredibly lucky as a civic tech non-profit, but our limiting factor generally isn't money. It's skilled people who can take responsibility and deliver. So if OP is an experienced developer who is willing to look a bit beyond just code, but still bring serious tech skill and experience to the table, I'd like to talk to them.
I understand you don't mean that literally, but (to minimize disinformation among others): There is absolutely some number of lives saved which would compensate for that.
https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
Before writing off an entire industry, I beg you to consider that $45,000 could save 10 lives and improve many more (Yes; it's not precise. No; it's not out of their ass - read their extensive discussion of the calculations)
And this is for congressional-level. For state senate, state house, local gov, etc. I imagine this could go even further. City councils and mayors have lots of impact but little donations.
The statement was about how they're selected. They're selected by their eagerness to be in politics, and their ability to talk a good game.
1. Some people are happy with creating more positive than negative. 2. Some people want to do no negative.
The practical problem with what you proposed is that now I need to vet the charities I donate and make sure its not a scam. Its a hard task to (i) spend 8 hours a day doing net negative (ii) spend more time per day to make sure you as a whole are net positive (iii) be social and have family etc.
At the end of the day, it’s all about what you want. I do think that if you want to make the biggest positive impact as a software engineer, and that is your only directive, then I believe my approach is a worthwhile option.
The main struggle is lack of sufficiently skilled applicants.
The problem might be our ability to attract them! But it's a tough market.
10k is not a lot at the presidential election sure, and maybe not for Senate either, but it is a lot of money even in House races. And for many state races.
From their website: "GiveWell is a nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give."