If you think they would be able to replace you at a lower wage I would recommend you leave. If you don’t then it’s a bit more complicated

This could be true, but it could also be the case that op was underpaid and their current company knows they can’t replace them for less than the new salary. I would lean toward leaving just in case but definitely don’t know what the current company is thinking. The companies goal is always to pay the least they can to fill the role, not giving out raises is how they do that, but when push comes to shove why not pay the person who’s about to leave the same you would a new person?

1. I’m not really making a case for or against ea, just saying that you seem to misunderstand their cause prioritization.

2. Some effective altruists are very concerned for the potentially trillions of people who will exist in the future. You see this in their extensive work on nuclear non proliferation, ai safety, biohazard safety, climate change, and more in the long term as well as political action in the medium term. X risk stands for existential risk, people who care about x risk work to ensure the survival of humanity over the next thousand plus years.

Givewell tends to focus on short term welfare because it’s easier to convince people to donate to lower risk causes, but the community spends a huge amount of time working to ensure future welfare too.

X-risk analysis and prevention is the biggest cause area in effective altruism other than global health. How anyone could claim that ea is too quick to rush to the immediate aid of people is beyond me when they’re actually far too quick to rush to the aid of people who do not yet exist.