I don’t necessarily agree with any of these.
- What is the strongest argument for “doing things in developed countries to help developing countries”?
- How promising is professionals / mid-career outreach and what portion of the EA portfolio should go towards that?
- What is the actual role / impact of the middle and average community members? How can we quantify or value it?
- How much does increasing effectiveness increase cause neutrality and vice versa? Or is cause neutrality a subset of effectiveness mindset? And for which populations? Is the only time to get people into EA at a crisis or turning point?
- What are the negative effects of very large prizes and competitions in general?
- Picking causes is bad. We should pick cool / promising people and follow them because they are the ones who will have an outsized impact regardless of cause.
- People in LMICs are less interested in LT than their HIC counterparts
To me, fixing issues in developed countries related to housing supply, social welfare, and inequality is important in the grand scheme of things because -- what are developed countries developing toward? If a developed country has a good model (and I don't think any do right now), it can be something that developing countries skip directly to, so that they can avoid having this intermediate unoptimal state. Just like how many countries skipped landlines and went directly to mobile phones.
Finding a way to systemically reduce or maybe even remove limits on people being able to move to a location with better opportunity is a big deal. And fixing the ladder for people to be able to climb up on socioeconomic status. Homelessness and housing affordability are just the popular examples of these wider problems. I haven't yet formulated what a talk about fixing the social class ladder might look like but it's an important topic to this audience.