I couldn't continue, partly because I had predetermined risk going into this (Strongly recommend a dollar figure in loss and time limit before you try helping society) and partly because I just burned out.
Google reached out to me, and after a short interview made me an offer.
My significant other and I are now officially 1%er DINKS over night and are constantly working on what it means to continue to do good in our situation. She has focused on using her position in management to find unemployed talented folks to add to her teams. Right now she distributes nearly $1m in total yearly income to very talented individuals who also tried to do good but found themselves unemployed and in the same position as myself.
I have been trying to do honest work and learn at Google, while studying a society that is post-resource -- specifically how it reduces conflict and issues. I try to think about how some of these structures could be applied in places with need.
My brother, with a family, is walking on water. Over the last 2 years he has put over 100 ex-cons and homeless through his program with 0% recidivism. At a total cost of 40k per person this reduces their cost to society by 50% in the first year then often 100% by the second year.
He is, however, burned out and looking for an exit. His real world meaningful labor doesn't map as well to easy Silicon Valley hiring and he continues to try to find a way to move forward.
My great worry is we are doing what our educated class always has done. We try to help, get scared off when we get too close, then retreat to our safe enclaves of high pay and social walls -- then close the door behind us. I feel so guilty about this it keeps me up at night. My only hope is that we can somehow continue to thrive, but keep the door open to anyone who wants to be a part of it.
Don't feel guilty; it's not a problem that can be solved overnight or only by a small handful of wealthy people. It's going to require a shift & change of thinking by society in general. It's going to happen very slowly and it starts with people like you showing compassion & understanding; instead of making comments like this[1].
When you have conversations with other wealthy & powerful people, you'll be able to correct them when they make negative stereotypes comments about the poor. Slowly, very slowly, your knowledge of what it _really_ means to be poor and all the corruption around it will help others at your economic level understand what it's like down there. That kind of knowledge has an effect on decision-making and when wealthy & powerful people make decisions, it affects us all. Hopefully some people in your social circle have shown at least a little interest in knowing about your experiences.
Consider writing a book. It sounds like you have enough material to do it.
I'm hoping that new, more effective and cost effective educational methods like Khan Academy and the like at least help keep that door open. Gotta get everyone internet access though.
Maybe that's not your fault. Maybe it was wrong (albeit forgivable, of course) to blame the other people who did that. Maybe they all did it not because they're bad (or weak) people, but because the system is set up in a way that there's really only one possible outcome.
Maybe voting to change the game is the answer, rather than playing with crooked rules.
Unfortunately 40k per person isn't likely to get the attention of the someone trying to maximize the amount of good done per dollar (those of us who follow GiveWell) when the money would go further with the charities they currently recommend. The "exotic underclass" has the "advantage" if you can call it that of benefiting a lot from small amounts of money per person, so you can help more people.
We need different arguments for why we should help people closer to us. One reason might be that it's less abstract than people in a different country that you'll never meet, but I think that argument needs to be developed.
It already costs the city 70k per person per year to go through a recovery program, this reduced it to 40k the first year then 0 the second year -- netting large municipal and state savings.
That's an excellent reason why the city or state should fund it.
For a private charity, net gain is one person helped and 70k / year spent with average efficiency by the government on something else (or spent by taxpayers if it's returned). That's somewhat hard to judge versus alternatives.
I'd like to find out more about your brother's program. How does he find work for them? What are the key barriers to their finding and keeping effective employment? What are the important factors that contribute to the 0% recidivism he sees?
He starts his own small businesses and employs a set of ex-cons while mentoring them. He then turns management over to the most talented over the year, and finally hands the entire company over to the most senior person in the program. Meanwhile ownership is retained by the parent non-profit. He has done it three times and the key to low recidivism is his hands on approach. He spends time with every worker, has a magnetic personality, and is able to speak and inspire people who are at the very bottom.
This is awesome. It probably won't work without him. Maybe a serious vacation and renewed focus on work-life balance & delegation could help with burnout? I've been very surprised at how much those can help.
Google reached out to me, and after a short interview made me an offer.
My significant other and I are now officially 1%er DINKS over night and are constantly working on what it means to continue to do good in our situation. She has focused on using her position in management to find unemployed talented folks to add to her teams. Right now she distributes nearly $1m in total yearly income to very talented individuals who also tried to do good but found themselves unemployed and in the same position as myself.
I have been trying to do honest work and learn at Google, while studying a society that is post-resource -- specifically how it reduces conflict and issues. I try to think about how some of these structures could be applied in places with need.
My brother, with a family, is walking on water. Over the last 2 years he has put over 100 ex-cons and homeless through his program with 0% recidivism. At a total cost of 40k per person this reduces their cost to society by 50% in the first year then often 100% by the second year.
He is, however, burned out and looking for an exit. His real world meaningful labor doesn't map as well to easy Silicon Valley hiring and he continues to try to find a way to move forward.