What does the Rabbi think about the approach of the organization 80,000 Hours:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/80,000_%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA

And in particular, what do you think of their recommendation to choose a career with as high an earning potential as possible so that you can donate as much money as possible to others?

I haven’t read deeply into it, but in principle I oppose sweeping recommendations, especially ones aimed at maximizing utility. A person should work where his heart desires, not where he provides the maximum benefit to the world. That is a communist approach that believes in centralism (central management of the economy). I don’t believe in that, but rather in the invisible hand. If we all choose the same professions that produce maximal profit, nobody will earn a penny. Everyone will be CEOs (and there will be one Nemecsek—the character from Ferenc Molnar’s book). But if we divide up according to our inclinations, the whole thing will work better, because each person will work at what he is actually suited for. That way each person will be more satisfied, and the world too will function better.
That is unlike recommendations for the optimal allocation of charitable donations, which we have already discussed. There I completely agree, because there it really is a question of objective efficiency. Career recommendations concern the way you live your life, and there there are factors more important than efficiency and optimality.

Suppose a person has two employment options before him: teacher earning 8,000 shekels or programmer earning 28,000 shekels. Suppose the teacher’s salary is enough for my needs, and whatever I earn beyond that I can donate. Suppose that a donation of 20,000 shekels for buying mosquito nets in Africa can, in expectation, save one person. And suppose for the sake of discussion that my heart desires a teaching career rather than a programming career. Wouldn’t it be more proper for me to choose programming דווקא so as to save one additional person every month?

That is proper in theory, but in practice it is not the right guidance. When you go to become a teacher or a programmer, do it for the right reasons, and then you will also succeed more. As a general guideline, this is certainly more correct. If there is a person for whom these are both reasonable options, with only a small difference between them, then perhaps there is room to prefer the more lucrative option. And even there it’s not certain, because the students will lose a good teacher and gain a bad teacher who comes in his place (actually no teacher will come, because everyone who can will go to high-tech in order to save Africa. Maybe those who aren’t talented at anything will come).

But according to what you said above about the invisible hand, if everyone goes to high-tech instead of teaching, then market forces will cause teachers’ salaries to rise until they equal high-tech salaries (because there will be more demand for teachers than supply, and the reverse for programmers), and then the dilemma will disappear.

That is, if you think about it from an individual point of view, there are jobs that are more productive and therefore pay more. The more a person produces, the more he can allocate from his salary to charity. For example, if I have two occupational options before me: to be a shepherd or to grow potatoes. Suppose the potato grower is more productive and produces more calories per hour of labor. And suppose for the sake of discussion that my heart actually desires shepherding. Wouldn’t it be more proper to choose the more productive career in order to contribute more to the poor—even though it is less suited to my natural inclination?

If teaching were exposed to market forces, you’d be right. It isn’t.

Here you’re dancing at two weddings at once. Are you letting the market decide, or are you managing it intentionally? If the market decides, then let it decide. If you are managing it, then don’t talk about a free market and the invisible hand.
As for the choice, I already wrote above what I think. Broadly speaking, a person should choose what speaks to him.

As for the choice, what about “do not stand idly by your neighbor’s blood”? That is, why should a person choose what speaks to him and refrain from helping others who are in trouble?

Why shouldn’t a person spend all his time walking along the beach instead of reading a book or doing anything else, because maybe there are people drowning and he could save them? A person also need not deny himself food in order to donate money to the poor. The obligation of “do not stand idly by your neighbor’s blood” exists when there is a person in tangible danger before you. There is no obligation to devote your life to saving the universe. As I said, I also do not accept that factually this is how you save the universe. When you are a good teacher, you will save other people. Moreover, it is not correct to choose maximal rescue, just as in a state budget they do not invest everything needed in saving lives and only afterward move on to culture, Torah, education, and so on. There is a common-sense distribution, and people operate on all fronts. So too in people’s career choices. There is a division of tasks, and it makes a great deal of sense to do this according to natural inclinations, not according to a centralistic division based on government target-setting. Beyond all that, one should remember that we are talking here about choosing an entire way of life, not deciding on a one-time act. A person is not supposed to choose an entire way of life based on considerations of saving others. That is neither an obligation, nor efficient, nor correct. I wrote something similar in my article regarding limits on honoring parents. Even if there is an obligation to honor them in every one-time decision, there is no obligation to change my way of life in a fundamental way because of their wishes.

Regarding what you wrote here:
“Just as in a state budget they do not invest everything needed in saving lives and only afterward move on to culture, Torah, education, and so on. There is a common-sense distribution, and people operate on all fronts.”

I remember that I once asked you which causes are preferable for donations—supporting Torah study or saving people in Africa—and there you actually said it is preferable to donate to saving people.

That is indeed correct. I remember very well, and I stand by it. I explained above (in various places) two main differences:
1. The difference between managing an entire life and making a one-time decision.
2. The nature of the decision: in donations, the consideration is consequentialist and one strives for optimality of results, whereas in choosing a career that is not necessarily so.
It is true that the example of budget allocation shows that even investing money is not always consequentialist, but that is public investment and not the donation of a private individual.