[jopsen]

> that root cause being that our society requires that some labor in terrible conditions for little pay because it is necessary to maintain profits.

Economic theory would argue that: "little pay" is because they produce "little value".

I know pay and value are not aligned. But better education, health prospectives and stability (not war) tends to improve pay throughout an economy.

Individual acts of charity, especially effective altruism, is more like blow with the wind. Contrary to popular belief extreme poverty is rapidly declining.

[ihm]

> Economic theory would argue that: "little pay" is because they produce "little value".

Any economic theory that predicts this is probably not very useful, since this claim is easily falsified. Consider e.g., the situation of Amazon workers who are paid low wages and forced to maintain such a pace that they need to go to the bathroom in bottles and bags, but whose labor on the other hand caused Jeff Bezos' wealth to increase by over $100,000 per worker over the last year.

[jopsen]

Fair point,

But GP argued that our current system was maintaining a status quo where people in poor countries make little pay.

And that effective altruism was like throwing money away.

While fact is that extreme poverty and poverty in general is declining globally.

You can argue that effective altruism has marginal impact on the macro economic trends that drives people out of poverty.

And therefore the impact of donations is unimportant, because the decline in poverty is driven by strong economic forces.

Arguable donations probably help!

[jopsen]

Fair point,