At any given moment, usually an organization wants a particular set of employees. If she doesn’t take the job, they’ll hire a different person for the role that would have been hers rather than just getting by with one person fewer.
At any moment, usually a charitable organization wants as much money as possible. If she doesn’t make the donations, the Against Malaria Foundation (or whatever) will just have that much less money.
It’s not quite that simple: maybe Effective Evil has trouble hiring (can’t imagine why) and so on average if she doesn’t take the job they have 0.3 bioinformaticians fewer in expectation; maybe the AMF works harder on fundraising if they get less than they hoped for and so on average if she doesn’t make the donations they’re only down by 0.9x what she would have given. But I would strongly expect that taking-the-job-or-not has much more of a substitution effect than giving-the-money-or-not.
At any given moment, usually an organization wants a particular set of employees. If she doesn’t take the job, they’ll hire a different person for the role that would have been hers rather than just getting by with one person fewer.
At any moment, usually a charitable organization wants as much money as possible. If she doesn’t make the donations, the Against Malaria Foundation (or whatever) will just have that much less money.
It’s not quite that simple: maybe Effective Evil has trouble hiring (can’t imagine why) and so on average if she doesn’t take the job they have 0.3 bioinformaticians fewer in expectation; maybe the AMF works harder on fundraising if they get less than they hoped for and so on average if she doesn’t make the donations they’re only down by 0.9x what she would have given. But I would strongly expect that taking-the-job-or-not has much more of a substitution effect than giving-the-money-or-not.